Archive | Environmental Health RSS feed for this section

West Coast of U.S. Hit by Hot Particles from Fukushima

A new article to be published in the November 1 edition of Science of the Total Environment indicates that the impact to the west coast of the United States from Fukushima disaster was likely larger than anticipated. For more info see the announcement ENENews Energy News.

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Karl Grossman Named Green Business Leader by Networking Magazine

Christine D. Giordano writes about deep digging environmental journalist Karl Grossman in Networking Magazine. She talks about his history from copy boy to international resource and the impact he has had on Long Island.

“During the interview with Networking®, Grossman sat in his home in Sag Harbor, surrounded by stacks of meticulous overstuffed paper files. He has a mine of information that often predates the Internet — spanning decades, from deep research he has done and special reports he has obtained from years of cultivating sources on the inside. Public advocates and warriors for the environment often get a bad rap for going off half cocked, but as Grossman cited information and discussed topics, he repeatedly fished out news clippings and government documents to back up his words until, what amassed, was a credible unstated creed: it is a journalist’s job to expose corruption in order to keep the public safe… and if corruption runs wild, the public needs to be warned.

‘What you do, when you do this kind of work, is you look for the horror story,” said Grossman. His horror stories have investigated toxic pesticides, the hazards of fueling space probes with nuclear energy, and cancer clusters created by nuclear power.'”

Read more

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Dr. Sherman Interviewed by Martha Rosenberg Regarding Health Effects of Pesticide Exposure

Dr. Sherman discusses the health effect of exposure to a common pesticide including brain problems, sexual deformities and paralysis. While banned for use in homes, Dow’s pesticide Dursban is still being sprayed on food despite health threats. The agricultural version called Lorsban is used on crops like apples, corn, soybeans, wheat, nuts, grapes and citrus fruits.

Link to full story

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Bailing Out the Planet, Speech by Lloyd Marbet

Lloyd K. Marbet, a speech at Pioneer Square, Portland, Oregon, 5/5/12

It is an honor to stand before you today as part of a worldwide community effort to “Connect the Dots.” And what greater purpose is there for us now than to connect the dots.

Sadly, we live in a country where the highest priority has been to conduct business as usual:

a.  Bail out the banks;
b.  Fight the imperial wars of terrorism; and
c.  Increase growth for the sake of growth.

We find ourselves upon an assembly line of destruction when what we really need to be doing is bailing out the planet.

We need to stop compromising Earth’s life support systems. We need to educate ourselves as world citizens, stand up to the environmental holocaust, and cast light upon the darkness and degradation. It ain’t over for us until the Earth throws us off, and the only way to keep the Earth from throwing us off is by stopping catastrophic climate change, living carbon free-nuclear free lives and becoming compassionate, non-violent human beings.

The real revolution is in “reverence for life.” It’s in taking back democracy and doing away with corporate personhood. It’s in stopping the Military Industrial Complex and its oil wars. It’s in making the immediate transition from fossil fuels, coal and liquid natural gas exports, and nuclear power, to conservation and renewable energy. It’s in stopping the insanity of growth for the sake of growth.

We are more than cancer cells on Planet Earth!

We are the stewards of a green revolution which is struggling to happen in our midst. It’s ecological stewardship is embodied in the choices that you and I are making every day in our lives. I am reminded of the words of Homer Lea:

To free a nation from error is to enlighten the individual and it is only to the degree that an individual is receptive of the truth that a nation can be free from that vanity which ends in national ruin.

We are incrementally suffering a living ecological ruin and you and I, while connecting the dots, are NOT going to let that happen. We are going to vote green in everything we do.

We are going to stop the ruin with every breath of our lives, with every hope of our hearts, and with every ounce of our creativity. We are going to change ourselves for the better and in doing so live within the means of our compassion.

I look forward to our future, and I thank you for your help in re-creating it, and for standing here in solidarity with the well being of Planet Earth and our healing upon it in peace.

I wish you all well in the journey.

Lloyd Marbet

Read full storyComments { 0 }

The Dangerous Myths of Fukushima

Exposing the “No Harm” Mantra


The myth that Fukushima radiation levels were too low to harm humans persists, a year after the meltdown. A March 2, 2012 New York Times article quoted Vanderbilt University professor John Boice: “there’s no opportunity for conducting epidemiological studies that have any chance for success – the doses are just too low.” Wolfgang Weiss of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation also recently said doses observed in screening of Japanese people “are very low.”

Views like these are political, not scientific, virtually identical to what the nuclear industry cheerleaders claim. Nuclear Energy Institute spokesperson Tony Pietrangelo issued a statement in June that “no health effects are expected among the Japanese people as a result of the events at Fukushima.”

In their haste to choke off all consideration of harm from Fukushima radiation, nuclear plant owners and their willing dupes in the scientific community built a castle against invaders – those open-minded researchers who would first conduct objective research BEFORE rushing to judgment. The pro-nuclear chants of “no harm” and “no studies needed” are intended to be permanent, as part of damage control created by a dangerous technology that has produced yet another catastrophe.

But just one year after Fukushima, the “no harm” mantra is now being crowded by evidence – evidence to the contrary.

First, estimates of releases have soared. The first reports issued by the Japanese government stated that emissions equaled 10% of 1986 Chernobyl emissions. A few weeks later, they doubled that estimate to 20%. By October 2011, an article in the journal Nature estimated Fukushima emissions to be more than double that of Chernobyl. How anyone, let alone scientists, could call Fukushima doses “too low” to cause harm in the face of this evidence is astounding.

Where did the radioactive particles and gases go? Officials from national meteorological agencies in countries like France and Austria followed the plume, and made colorful maps available on the internet. Within six days of the meltdowns, the plume had reached the U.S., and within 18 days, it had circled the Northern Hemisphere.

How much radiation entered the U.S. environment? A July 2011 journal article by officials at Pacific Northwest National Lab in eastern Washington State measured airborne radioactive Xenon-133 up to 40,000 times greater than normal in the weeks following the fallout. Xenon-133 is a gas that travels rapidly and does not enter the body, but signals that other, more dangerous types of radioactive chemicals will follow.

A February 2012 journal article by the U.S. Geological Survey looked at radioactive Iodine-131 that entered soil from rainfall, and found levels hundreds of times above normal in places like Portland OR, Fresno CA, and Denver CO. The same places also had the highest levels of Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 in the U.S. While elevated radiation levels were found in all parts of the country, it appears that the West Coast and Rocky Mountain states received the greatest amounts of Fukushima fallout.

Radiation in rainfall guarantees that humans will ingest a poisonous mix of chemicals. The rain enters reservoirs of drinking water, pastures where milk-giving cows graze, the soil of produce farms, and other sources of food and water.

Finally, how many people were harmed by Fukushima in the short term? Official studies have chipped away at the oft-repeated claim that nobody died from Fukushima. Last month brought the news that 573 deaths in the area near the stricken reactors were certified by coroners as related to the nuclear crisis, with dozens more deaths to be reviewed. Another survey showed that births near Fukushima declined 25% in the three months following the meltdowns. One physician speculated that many women chose to deliver away from Fukushima, but an increase in stillbirths remains as a potential factor. In British Columbia, the number of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome deaths was 10 in the first three months after Fukushima, up from just one a year before.

On December 19, 2011, we announced the publication of the first peer-reviewed scientific journal article examining potential health risks after Fukushima. In the 14 week period March 20 – June 25, 2011, there was an increase in deaths reported to the CDC by 122 U.S. cities. If final statistics (not available until late 2014) confirm this trend, about 14,000 “excess” deaths occurred among Americans in this period.

We made no statement that only Fukushima fallout caused these patterns. But we found some red flags: infants had the greatest excess (infants are most susceptible to radiation), and a similar increase occurred in the U.S. in the months following Chernobyl. Our study reinforced Fukushima health hazard concerns, and we hope to spur others to engage in research on both short-term and long-term effects.

For years, the assumption that low-dose radiation doesn’t harm people has been used, only to fall flat on its face every time. X-rays to abdomens of pregnant women, exposure to atom bomb fallout, and exposures to nuclear weapons workers were all once presumed to be harmless due to low dose levels – until scientific studies proved otherwise. Officials have dropped their assumptions on theses types of exposures, but continue to claim that Fukushima was harmless.

Simply dismissing needed research on Fukushima health consequences because doses are “too low” is irresponsible, and contradictory to many scientific studies. There will most certainly be a fight over Fukushima health studies, much like there was after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. However, we hope that the dialogue will be open minded and will use evidence over assumptions, rather than just scoffing at what may well turn out to be the worst nuclear disaster in history.

Joseph Mangano is an epidemiologist and Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project.

Janette Sherman is an internist and toxicologist.

CounterPunch Weekend Edition March 9-11, 2012

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Philadelphia News Video: Is Iodine-131 Killing Babies?

Is Iodine -131 killing babies in Philadelphia? Infant deaths up 48% since reactor 3 explosion in Japan.

Fox News in Philadelphia interviews Joseph Mangano about the possibility that nuclear fallout from Japan may be affecting the health of infants in the US.

Click here for video

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Link to Green Power and Wellness Show

Dr. Sherman and Joseph Mangano interviewed by Harvey Wasserman January 17, 2012.

Click here for podcast

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Listen to “Nuclear Hotseat” podcasts hosted by Libbe HaLevy

Nuclear news from an anti-nuclear activist perspective, including holistic healing tips and protection from radiation, interviews w/leading activists, and how you can help stop the nuclear madness. Nuclear Hotseat is produced and hosted by 3 Mile Island survivor Libbe HaLevy.

Click here for iTunes podcasts

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Tuesday Jan 17—Dr Sherman talks with Harvey Wasserman on web radio show

On Tuesday January 17th from 2–3 pm EST,  Dr. Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano will discuss their new report questioning increased mortality rates as a result of Fukushima fallout, the Chernobyl report, and the history of the debate about radiation and health with Harvey Wasserman, host of the Green Power & Wellness Show on

Harvey Wasserman brings to the air his half-century of joyous activism on issues ranging from peace, civil rights and human liberties to No Nukes, election protection, people’s history, ending the drug war and much more. Harvey has served as senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and he helped organize the 1979 No Nukes concerts in Madison Square Garden, and spoke at the MUSE2 concert in Silicon Valley in 2011. He edits the website.

Learn more about Mr. Wasserman at

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Lynn Ehrle promotes “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”

Lynn Ehrle, of the International Science Oversight Board of the Organic Consumers Association, was the kickoff speaker at the International Roundtable on “Nuclear Threats to the Great Lakes and Transition to Clean Safe Energy” on May 14, 2011, in Dearborn, Michigan. He focused on the human health risks of exposure to so-called “low dose” ionizing radiation, such as what blanketed the entire Northern Hemisphere (including North America) in the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe. The book distills thousands of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarussian scientific studies on the health and ecological impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe. One of the book’s findings: as many as 985,000 people may have died from their exposure to Chernobyl’s radioactive fallout, just between the years 1986 to 2004. View his presentation here.

Read full storyComments { 0 }