Natural News Store

Showing posts with label radiation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radiation. Show all posts

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Startling revelations about Three Mile Island disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety

A special Facing South investigation by Sue Sturgis

Carter_TMI_4-1-79.gifIt was April Fool's Day, 1979 -- 30 years ago this week -- when Randall Thompson first set foot inside the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pa. Just four days earlier, in the early morning hours of March 28, a relatively minor problem in the plant's Unit 2 reactor sparked a series of mishaps that led to the meltdown of almost half the uranium fuel and uncontrolled releases of radiation into the air and surrounding Susquehanna River.



It was the single worst disaster ever to befall the U.S. nuclear power industry, and Thompson was hired as a health physics technician to go inside the plant and find out how dangerous the situation was. He spent 28 days monitoring radiation releases.

Today, his story about what he witnessed at Three Mile Island is being brought to the public in detail for the first time -- and his version of what happened during that time, supported by a growing body of other scientific evidence, contradicts the official U.S. government story that the Three Mile Island accident posed no threat to the public.

"What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been reported," Randall Thompson told Facing South. "Hundreds of times worse."

Thompson and his wife, Joy, a nuclear health physicist who also worked at TMI in the disaster's aftermath, claim that what they witnessed there was a public health tragedy. The Thompsons also warn that the government's failure to acknowledge the full scope of the disaster is leading officials to underestimate the risks posed by a new generation of nuclear power plants.

While new reactor construction ground to a halt after the 1979 incident, state leaders and energy executives today are pushing for a nuclear energy revival that's centered in the South, where 12 of the 17 facilities seeking new reactors are located.

Fundamental to the industry's case for expansion is the claim that history proves nuclear power is clean and safe -- a claim on which the Thompsons and others, bolstered by startling new evidence, are casting doubt.

An unlikely critic

randall_thompson_fire.jpg
Randall Thompson could never be accused of being a knee-jerk anti-nuclear alarmist. A veteran of the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarine program, he is a self-described "nuclear geek" who after finishing military service jumped at the chance to work for commercial nuclear power companies.

He worked for a time at the Peach Bottom nuclear plant south of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania's York County, but quit the industry six months before the TMI disaster over concerns that nuclear companies were cutting corners for higher profits, with potentially dangerous results. Instead, he began publishing a skateboarding magazine with his wife Joy.

But the moment the Thompsons heard about the TMI incident, they wanted to get inside the plant and see what was happening first-hand. That didn't prove difficult: Plant operator Metropolitan Edison's in-house health physics staff fled after the incident began, so responsibility for monitoring radioactive emissions went to a private contractor called Rad Services.

The company immediately hired Randall Thompson to serve as the health physics technician in charge of monitoring radioactive emissions, while Joy Thompson got a job monitoring radiation doses to TMI workers.

"I had other health physicists from around the country calling me saying, 'Don't let it melt without me!" Randall Thompson recalls. "It was exciting. Our attitude was, 'Sure I may get some cancer, but I can find out some cool stuff.'"

What the Thompsons say they found out during their time inside TMI suggests radiation releases from the plant were hundreds if not thousands of times higher than the government and industry have acknowledged -- high enough to cause the acute health effects documented in people living near the plant but that have been dismissed by the industry and the government as impossible given official radiation dose estimates.

The Thompsons tried to draw attention to their findings and provide health information for people living near the plant, but what they say happened next reads like a John Grisham thriller.

They tell of how a stranger approached Randall Thompson in a grocery store parking lot in late April 1979 and warned him his life was at risk, leading the family to flee Pennsylvania. How they ended up in New Mexico working on a book about their experiences with the help of Joy's brother Charles Busey, another nuclear Navy vet and a former worker at the Hatch nuclear power plant in Georgia. How one evening while driving home from the store Busey and Randall Thompson were run off the road, injuring Thompson and killing Busey. How a copy of the book manuscript they were working on was missing from the car's trunk after the accident. These allegations were detailed in several newspaper accounts back in 1981.

Eventually, after a decade of having their lives ruled by TMI, the Thompsons decided to move on. Randall Thompson went to college to study computer science. Joy Thompson returned to publishing and writing.

Today they live quietly in the mountains of North Carolina where, inspired by time spent seeking refuge with a traveling circus, they have forged a new career for themselves as clowns -- or what they like to call "professional fools." As Joy Thompson wrote in the fall 2001 issue of Parabola, a journal of myth, the role of the fool is to help people "perceive the foolishness in even ... the most powerful institutions," noting the medieval court jester's role of telling the King what others dare not.

That conviction has led the Thompsons to tell their story today.

"They haven't told the truth yet about what happened at Three Mile Island," says Randall Thompson. "A lot of people have died because of this accident. A lot."

Anomalies abound

That a lot of people died because of what happened at Three Mile Island, as the Thompsons claim, is definitely not part of the official story. In fact, the commercial nuclear power industry and the government insist that despite the meltdown of almost half of the uranium fuel at TMI, there were only minimal releases of radiation to the environment that harmed no one.

For example, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying group for the U.S. nuclear industry, declares on its website that there have been "no public health or safety consequences from the TMI-2 accident." The government's position is the same, reflected in a fact sheet distributed today by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency charged with overseeing the U.S. nuclear power industry: TMI, it says, "led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community." [The watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert offers their take on the NRC factsheet here.]

Those upbeat claims are based on the findings of the Kemeny Commission, a panel assembled by President Jimmy Carter in April 1979 to investigate the TMI disaster. Using release figures presented by Metropolitan Edison and the NRC, the commission calculated that in the month following the disaster there were releases of up to 13 million curies of so-called "noble gases" -- considered relatively harmless -- but only 13 to 17 curies of iodine-131, a radioactive form of the element that at even moderate exposures causes thyroid cancer. (A curie is a measure of radioactivity, with 1 curie equal to the activity of one gram of radium. For help understanding these and other terms, see the glossary at the end of this piece.)

But the official story that there were no health impacts from the disaster doesn't jibe with the experiences of people living near TMI. On the contrary, their stories suggest that area residents actually suffered exposure to levels of radiation high enough to cause acute effects -- far more than the industry and the government has acknowledged.

Some of their disturbing experiences were collected in the book Three Mile Island: The People's Testament, which is based on interviews with 250 area residents done between 1979 and 1988 by Katagiri Mitsuru and Aileen M. Smith.

It includes the story of Jean Trimmer, a farmer who lived in Lisburn, Pa. about 10 miles west of TMI. On the evening of March 30, 1979, Trimmer stepped outside on her front porch to fetch her cat when she was hit with a blast of heat and rain. Soon after, her skin became red and itchy as if badly sunburned, a condition known as erythema. About three weeks later, her hair turned white and began falling out. Not long after, she reported, her left kidney "just dried up and disappeared" -- an occurrence so strange that her case was presented to a symposium of doctors at the nearby Hershey Medical Center. All of those symptoms are consistent with high-dose radiation exposure.

There was also Bill Peters, an auto-body shop owner and a former justice of the peace who lived just a few miles west of the plant in Etters, Pa. The day after the disaster, he and his son -- who like most area residents were unaware of what was unfolding nearby -- were working in their garage with the doors open when they developed what they first thought was a bad sunburn. They also experienced burning in their throats and tasted what seemed to be metal in the air. That same metallic taste was reported by many local residents and is another symptom of radiation exposure, commonly reported in cancer patients receiving radiation therapy.

Peters soon developed diarrhea and nausea, blisters on his lips and inside his nose, and a burning feeling in his chest. Not long after, he had surgery for a damaged heart valve. When his family evacuated the area a few days later, they left their four-year-old German shepherd in their garage with 200 pounds of dog chow, 50 gallons of water and a mattress. When they returned a week later, they found the dog dead on the mattress, his eyes burnt completely white. His food was untouched, and he had vomited water all over the garage. They also found four of their five cats dead -- their eyes also burnt white -- and one alive but blinded. Peters later found scores of wild bird carcasses scattered over their property.

Similar stories surfaced in The People of Three Mile Island, a book by documentary photographer Robert Del Tredici. He found local farmers whose cattle and goats died, suffered miscarriages and gave birth to deformed young after the incident; whose chickens developed respiratory problems and died; and whose fruit trees abruptly lost all their leaves. Local residents also collected evidence of deformed plants, some of which were examined by James Gunckel, a botanist and radiation expert with Brookhaven National Laboratory and Rutgers University.

"There were a number of anomalies entirely comparable to those induced by ionizing radiation -- stem fasciations, growth stimulation, induction of extra vegetative buds and stem tumors," he swore in a 1984 affidavit.

Scientists say these kinds of anomalies simply aren't explained by official radiation release estimates.

Evidence of harm

wing_tmi_cancer_map.gif
The evidence that people, animals and plants near TMI were exposed to high levels of radiation in the 1979 disaster is not merely anecdotal. While government studies of the disaster as well as a number of independent researchers assert the incident caused no harm, other surveys and studies have also documented health effects that point to a high likelihood of significant radiation exposures.

In 1984, for example, psychologist Marjorie Aamodt and her engineer husband, Norman -- owners of an organic dairy farm east of Three Mile Island who got involved in a lawsuit seeking to stop TMI from restarting its Unit 1 reactor -- surveyed residents in three hilltop neighborhoods near the plant. Dozens of neighbors reported a metallic taste, nausea, vomiting and hair loss as well as illnesses including cancers, skin and reproductive problems, and collapsed organs -- all associated with radiation exposure. Among the 450 people surveyed, there were 19 cancer deaths reported between 1980 and 1984 -- more than seven times what would be expected statistically.

That survey came to the attention of the industry-financed TMI Public Health Fund, created in 1981 as part of a settlement for economic losses from the disaster. The fund's scientific advisors verified the Aamodts' calculations and launched a more comprehensive study of TMI-related cancer deaths led by a team of scientists from Columbia University. The researchers found an association between estimated radiation doses received by area residents and instances of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, lung cancer, leukemia and all cancers combined. Crucially, however, the researchers decided there wasn't "convincing evidence" that TMI radiation releases were linked to the increase in cancers in the area because of the "low estimates of radiation exposure." The paper did not consider what conclusions could be drawn if those "low estimates" turned out to be wrong.

By the time the Columbia research was published in the early 1990s, a class-action lawsuit was underway involving about 2,000 plaintiffs claiming that the radiation emissions were much larger than admitted by the government and industry. (The federal courts eventually rejected that suit, though hundreds of out-of-court settlements totaling millions of dollars have been reached with victims, including the parents of children born with birth defects.)

Consulting for the plaintiffs' attorneys, the Aamodts contacted Dr. Steven Wing, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health in Chapel Hill to provide support for the plaintiffs. Dr. Wing was reluctant to get involved because -- as he wrote in a 2003 paper about his experience -- "allegations of high radiation doses at TMI were considered by mainstream radiation scientists to be a product of radiation phobia or efforts to extort money from a blameless industry." But impressed with the Aamodts' compelling if imperfect evidence, Wing agreed to look at whether there were connections between radiation exposure from TMI and cancer rates.

Wing reanalyzed the Columbia scientists' data, looking at cancer rates before the TMI disaster to control for other possible risk factors in the 10-mile area. His peer-reviewed results, published in 1997, found positive relationships between accident dose estimates and rates of leukemia, lung cancer and all cancers. Where the Columbia study found a 30 percent average increase in lung cancer risk among one group of residents, for example, Wing found an 85 percent increase. And while the Columbia researchers found little or no increase in adult leukemias and a statistically unreliable increase in childhood cases, Wing found that people downwind during the most intense releases were eight to 10 times more likely on average than their neighbors to develop leukemia.

Dr. Wing reflected on his findings at a symposium in Harrisburg marking the 30-year anniversary of the Three Mile Island disaster last week.

"I believe this is very good evidence that releases were thousands of times greater than the story we've been told," he said. "As we think about the current plans to open more nuclear reactors, when we hear -- which we hear often -- that no one was harmed at Three Mile Island, we really should question that."

Documenting discrepancies

Randall and Joy Thompson couldn't agree more. If anything, they think Dr. Wing's findings understate the impact of Three Mile Island because they're based on low-ball estimates of radiation releases.

"Given what he was allowed to know or could figure out, he did a slam-bang job of it," Joyce Thompson says.

In 1995, the Thompsons -- with the help of another health physics expert who was also hired to monitor radiation after the TMI disaster, David Bear (formerly Bloombaum) - prepared a report analyzing the Kemeny Commission findings. Their research, which hasn't been covered by any major media, documents a series of inconsistencies and omissions in the government's account.

For example, the official story is that the TMI incident released only 13 to 17 curies of dangerous iodine into the outside environment, a tiny fraction of the 13 million curies of less dangerous radioactive gases officials say were released, primarily xenon. Such a number would seem small compared with, for example, the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl, which released anywhere from 13 million to 40 million curies of iodine and is linked to 50,000 cases of thyroid cancer, according to World Health Organization estimates.

But the Thompsons and Bear point out that the commission's own Technical Assessment Task Force, in a separate volume, had concluded that iodine accounted for 8 to 12 percent of the total radioactive gases leaked from Three Mile Island. Conservatively assuming the 13 million curie figure was the total amount of radioactive gases released rather than just the xenon portion, and then using the Task Force's own 8 to 12 percent estimate of the proportion that was iodine, they point out that "the actual figure for Iodine release would be over 1 million curies" -- a much more substantial public health threat.

In another instance, the Kemeny Commission claimed that there were 7.5 million curies of iodine present in TMI's primary loop, the contained system that delivers cooling water to the reactor. But a laboratory analysis done on March 30 found a higher concentration of iodine in the reactor water, which would put the total amount of iodine present -- and which could potentially leak into the environment -- at 7.65 million curies.

"Thus, while the apparent difference between 7.5 and 7.65 seems inconsiderable at first glance," the Thompson/Bear report states, "this convenient rounding off served to 'lose' a hundred and fifty thousand curies of radioactive Iodine."

They also offer evidence of atmospheric releases of dangerously long-lived radioactive particles such as cesium and strontium -- releases denied by the Kemeny Commission but indicated in the Thompsons' own post-disaster monitoring and detailed in the report -- and show that there were pathways for the radiation to escape into the environment. They demonstrate that the plant's radiation filtration system was totally inadequate to handle the large amounts of radiation released from the melted fuel and suggest that the commission may have arbitrarily set release estimates at levels low enough to make the filtration appear adequate.

Shockingly, they also report that when readings from the dosimeters used to monitor radiation doses to workers and the public were logged, doses of beta radiation -- one of three basic types along with alpha and gamma -- were simply not recorded, which Joy Thompson knew since she did the recording. But Thompson's monitoring equipment also indicated that beta radiation represented about 90 percent of the radiation to which TMI's neighbors were exposed in April 1979, which means an enormous part of the disaster's public health risk may have been wiped from the record.

Finally, in a separate analysis the Thompsons point to discrepancies in government and industry accounts of the disaster that suggest the TMI Unit 2 suffered a scram failure -- that is, a breakdown of the emergency shutoff system. That would mean the nuclear reaction spiraled out of control and therefore posed a much greater danger than the official story allows.

The Thompsons aren't the only ones who have produced evidence that the radiation releases from TMI were much higher than the official estimates. Arnie Gundersen -- a nuclear engineer and former nuclear industry executive turned whistle-blower -- has done his own analysis, which he shared for the first time at a symposium in Harrisburg last week.

"I think the numbers on the NRC's website are off by a factor of 100 to 1,000," he said.

Exactly how much radiation was released is impossible to say, since onsite monitors immediately went off the scale after the explosion. But Gundersen points to an inside report by an NRC manager who himself estimated the release of about 36 million curies -- almost three times as much as the NRC's official estimate. Gundersen also notes that industry itself has acknowledged there was a total of 10 billion curies of radiation inside the reactor containment. Using the common estimate that a tenth of it escaped, that means as much as a billion curies could have been released to the environment.

gundersen_pressure_spike_slide.jpgGundersen also offered compelling evidence based on pressure monitoring data from the plant that shortly before 2 p.m. on March 28, 1979 there was a hydrogen explosion inside the TMI containment building that could have released significant amounts of radiation to the environment. The NRC and industry to this day deny there was an explosion, instead referring to what happened as a "hydrogen burn." But Gundersen noted that affidavits from four reactor operators confirm that the plant manager was aware of a dramatic pressure spike after which the internal pressure dropped to outside pressure; he also noted that the control room shook and doors were blown off hinges. In addition, Gundersen reported that while Metropolitan Edison would have known about the pressure spike immediately from monitoring equipment, it didn't notify the NRC about what had happened until two days later.

Gundersen maintains under the NRC's own rules an evacuation should have been ordered on the disaster's first day, when calculated radiation exposures in the town of Goldsboro, Pa. were as high as 10 rems an hour compared to an average cumulative annual background dose of about 0.125 rems. No evacuation order was ever issued, though Gov. Dick Thornburgh did issue an evacuation advisory on March 30 for pregnant women and preschool children within 5 miles of the plant. The government also did not distribute potassium iodide to the public, which would have protected people from the health-damaging effects of radioactive iodine.

Lessons for the future?


When asked by Facing South to respond to these allegations, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not address them directly, instead stating that it continues to stand by the Kemeny Commission report. The NRC further insists that the radiation releases from Three Mile Island had only "negligible effects" on the physical health of humans and the environment, citing other reports from federal agencies [For a PDF of the NRC's response to Facing South, see here.]

But Gundersen and the Thompsons argue such claims don't address new findings at odds with the government's account.

"I believe [the] data shows releases from TMI were significantly greater than reported by the federal government," Gundersen says.

They also say their findings that releases were potentially much larger have important ramifications for current plans to expand the nuclear power industry.

With more than $18 billion in federal subsidies at stake, 17 companies are seeking federal licenses to build a total of 26 nuclear reactors across the country, the first applications since the 1979 disaster. The Atlanta-based Southern Co. plans to begin site work this summer for two new reactors at the Vogtle site in Georgia, where state lawmakers recently approved legislation forcing ratepayers to foot the bill for those facilities up front. Florida and South Carolina residents have also begun paying new utility charges to finance planned reactors, USA Today reports. Plans are in the works as well for new reactors in Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

Harold Denton, a retired NRC official who worked in Three Mile Island during the crisis, recently told Greenwire that changes made after the 1979 disaster "significantly reduced the overall risks of a future serious accident." But the Thompsons and Gundersen point out that the standards the NRC is applying to the new generation of nuclear plants are influenced by assumptions about what happened at Three Mile Island. They say the NRC's low estimates of radiation exposure have resulted in inadequate requirements for safety and containment protocols as well as the size of the evacuation zones around nuclear plants.

Other nuclear watchdogs have also raised concerns that the NRC's standards for protection against severe accidents like TMI remain inadequate. In a December 2007 report titled "Nuclear Power in a Warming World," the Union of Concerned Scientists notes that the worst accident the current generation of reactors was designed to withstand involves only partial melting of the reactor core but no breach of containment. And the NRC requires operators of plants found to be vulnerable to severe accidents to fix the problem "only if a cost-benefit analysis shows that the financial benefit of a safety backfit - determined by assigning a dollar value to the number of projected cancer deaths that would result from a severe accident - outweighs the cost of fixing the problem," the report states.

Given their personal experiences, the Thompsons warn that we may be fooling ourselves into believing nuclear power is safer than evidence and history suggest.

"Once you realize how deep and broad the realignment of facts about TMI has been, it becomes really pretty amazing," Randall Thompson says. "I guess that's what it takes to protect this industry."

(Images from top: Photo of President Jimmy Carter leaving Three Mile Island for Middletown, Pa. on April 1, 1979 from the National Archives and Records Administration; photo of Randall Thompson swallowing fire by William Mosher; map showing increases in cancer rates in the TMI area after the disaster courtesy of Dr. Steve Wing; graph showing dramatic spike in pressure inside the TMI containment on March 28, 1979 courtesy of Arnie Gundersen.)

* * *

NUKE-SPEAK: Glossary of terms used in this story

Cesium - an element occurring naturally in rocks, soil and dust. The breakdown of uranium fuel in nuclear reactors produces radioactive forms including cesium-134 and cesium-137, exposure to which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding and death.

Curie - a measure of radioactivity, with 1 curie equal to the activity of one gram of radium.

Erythema - redness of the skin due to capillary congestion, it can be caused by radiation exposure.

Iodine-131 - a radioactive element produced in nuclear reactors. Absorbed into the body, it accumulates in the thyroid gland, which controls metabolism, and can cause cancer and other diseases.

Kemeny Commission - a panel created in April 1979 by President Jimmy Carter to investigate the Three Mile Island disaster. It was chaired by John G. Kemeny, president of Dartmouth College, and released its final report on Oct. 31, 1979.

Noble gases - a group of chemical elements that occur in nature in a number of isotopes, some of which are unstable and emit radiation.

Nuclear fission - the splitting of an atom accompanied by the release of energy. In a nuclear reactor, the fission energy is converted to heat used to generate electricity via steam turbines.

Nuclear meltdown - a severe nuclear reactor problem that occurs when there is a loss of control over the reactor core, causing the radioactive fuel to melt and release highly radioactive and other toxic elements.

Nuclear reactor core - the part of a nuclear reactor containing the nuclear fuel; it is where nuclear reactions take place.

Radiation, ionizing - subatomic particles or electromagnetic waves energetic enough to detach electrons from atoms or molecules. It includes alpha particles, beta particles and gamma rays.

Radiation poisoning or sickness - damage to organ tissue due to excessive exposure to ionizing radiation. Acute symptoms include erythema, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hair loss and internal bleeding.

Radium - an extremely radioactive chemical element that was at one time used in self-luminous paints for watch dials, leading to radiation-related illnesses in dial painters.

Rem --  an acronym that stands for "roentgen equivalent in man," this is a unit for measuring absorbed doses of radiation equivalent to one roentgen of X-rays or gamma rays.

Roentgen -- a unit of measurement for ionizing radiation.

Scram - an emergency shutdown of a nuclear reactor, also referred to as a "trip," achieved by inserting neutron-absorbing control rods into the reactor core.

Strontium - a highly reactive chemical element whose radioactive isotope, strontium-90, is produced by nuclear fission. It takes the place of calcium in bones and can lead to bone disorders including cancer.

Three Mile Island Units 1 and 2 - the two reactors at the commercial nuclear power plant located south of Harrisburg, Pa. on an island in the Susquehanna River. TMI-2 suffered a partial meltdown on March 28, 1979 and is no longer in operation. Originally built by General Public Utilities Corp. and operated by Metropolitan Edison, TMI-1 is now operated by Chicago-based Exelon while Unit 2 is owned by Met-Ed.

Uranium - a radioactive element used by fuel in nuclear reactors.
 

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Americans Exposed to Atomic Bomb Levels of Radiation through Medical Imaging, CT Scans, Mammograms

Wednesday, March 04, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) A new report released by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement reveals that Americans' exposure to radiation has increased more than 600 percent over the last three decades. Most of that increase has come from patients' exposure to radiation through medical imaging scans such as CT scans and mammograms.

Most patients have no awareness of the dangers of ionizing radiation due to medical imaging scans. Virtually no patients -- and few doctors -- realize that one CT scan exposes the body to the equivalent of several hundred X-rays (http://www.naturalnews.com/023582.html), for example. Most women undergoing mammograms have no idea that the radiation emitted by mammography machines actually causes cancer by exposing heart and breast tissue to dangerous ionizing radiation that directly causes DNA damage.

Even low doses of radiation can add up to significant increases in lifelong cancer risk. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2007) found that survivors of the 1945 atomic bombs unleashed on Japan during World War II still faced significant increases in lifetime cancer risk. And the levels of radiation to which these particular study subjects were exposed is equivalent to receiving only two or three CT scans, explains an ABC News story (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=6996192&page=1).

Yes, it's true: A couple of CT scans can expose your body to as much radiation as standing a few miles from an atomic bomb explosion. This is a simple scientific fact.

Is modern medicine priming the population for a wave of future cancers?

Exposure to CT scans and mammograms today can lead to cancer much later in life. As ABC News reports, Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, says, "Radiation exposure from these scans is not inconsequential and can lead to later cancers."

Thanks to the widespread use of medical imaging scans, hospitals are also becoming a major source of nuclear waste material. See the NaturalNews report on that topic here: http://www.naturalnews.com/025711.html

This material can be seized by terrorists and used to make dirty bombs. Thus, hospitals are now a major source for potential tools for terrorists.

The bottom-line question in all this is simple: Are medical imaging devices causing more harm than good? And do mammograms actually create future cancer patients by causing cancer in the breast? In my view, the answers to both these questions are a resounding YES. Medical imaging does more than just detect cancer, it also causes cancer! And that's in the financial interests of the drug companies and cancer clinics that profit from treating cancer.

Here's what other doctors, authors and health experts have to say on the subject of CT scans, mammograms and radiation:

Authors' Quotes on Radiation and CT Scans

Below, you'll find selected quotes from noted authors on the subject of Radiation and Ct Scans. Feel free to quote these in your own work provided you give proper credit to both the original author quoted here and this NaturalNews page.

After four years of work, it became disturbingly clear to the research team that the main cause of the rising rates of leukemia was medical radiation, in the form of diagnostic medical x-rays. The use of radiation in cancer treatment employs high-intensity x-rays. Much higher doses are involved in cancer treatment than in diagnostic x-rays, because the purpose is to kill cells, or at least cripple their ability to reproduce. While a typical diagnostic X-ray might deliver one or two rads (radiation absorbed doses) of radiation, a six-week course of radiotherapy delivers about 5,000 rads.
- Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the True Source of Healing by John Robbins
- Available on Amazon.com

Do you know, however, that one whole body scan may be equivalent to the radiation received during 500 chest x-rays? Any amount of radiation exposure damages cellular DNA, thereby increasing the risk of cancer and premature aging. Companies promoting these ct scans don't mention the radiation, but members of the Life Extension Foundation were told to avoid these body scans because of the health risks posed by this excess amount of radiation.
- Disease Prevention and Treatment by The Life Extension Editorial Staff
- Available on Amazon.com

It is foolish to believe every person entering the cancer era of their lives, from age 50 on, should continually be subjected to screening radiation (X-rays, mammograms, CT scans) and invasive needle biopsies, in a futile attempt to detect cancer at its earliest stage. Paradoxically, all these screening methods only serve to increase the risk for cancer. Among women with detected breast cancer, 88% have not spread and 12% are invasive tumors.
- You Don't Have to be Afraid of Cancer Anymore by Bill Sardi
- Available on Amazon.com

After searching for possible causes, he came to the conclusion that work-related radiation had done the damage. We both have had patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who received radiation in the chest and then developed coronary disease. In cardiology, we call that radiation atherosclerosis. We believe x-rays damage endothelial cells. A prime example was a patient with multiple risk factors for CVD, including diabetes and high blood pressure. In 1995, prior to beginning New Cardiology therapy, he was treated with radiation for a neck tumor.
- Reverse Heart Disease Now: Stop Deadly Cardiovascular Plaque Before It's Too Late by Stephen Sinatra, M.D. and James C., M.D. Roberts
- Available on Amazon.com

X-ray radiation from medical imaging and ct scans are also believed to increase the risk for cancer. A report issued by the Food & Drug Administration now suggests the risk for cancer from medical x-rays may be as much as 1 in 1,000. There are over 3 billion x-ray images taken annually in the world.
- You Don't Have to be Afraid of Cancer Anymore by Bill Sardi
- Available on Amazon.com

The minimum radiation from a routine chest X-ray is 2 mrem. X-ray radiation accumulates in the body and it is well-known that ionizing radiation used in X-ray procedures causes gene mutation. We can only obtain guesstimates as to its impact on health from this high level of radiation. Experts manage to obscure the real effects in statistical jargon such as, "The risk for lifetime fatal cancer due to radiation exposure is estimated to be 4 in one million per 1,000 mrem."
- Death by Medicine by Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD.
- Available on Amazon.com

Should these patients be exposed to repeated radiation mammography? [Clinical Oncology Royal College Radiology 18: 257-67, 2006] Even exposure to chest x-rays, particularly before the age of 20, heightens the risk for breast cancer with BRCA mutations. [Journal Clinical Oncology 24:3361-6, 2006]
Quietly, the radiation emitted during mammography was reduced as digital films were introduced. How many women have now developed breast cancer from these early screenings is unknown. Virtually every woman exposed to high-dose radiation mammography should have been placed on antioxidant therapy.
- You Don't Have to be Afraid of Cancer Anymore by Bill Sardi
- Available on Amazon.com

We are all exposed to radiation in the form of medical x-rays. Cardiologists, for instance, are exposed to a considerable amount of radiation because of the nature of this work. We do fluoroscopy all the time, putting in pacemakers and cardiac catheterizations. Fluoroscopy uses x-rays to view parts of the body on a screen, similar to the screening your luggage undergoes when you pass through airport security.
- Reverse Heart Disease Now: Stop Deadly Cardiovascular Plaque Before It's Too Late by Stephen Sinatra, M.D. and James C., M.D. Roberts
- Available on Amazon.com

British physician Alice Stewart has spent much of her life investigating the connection between low-level radiation and higher cancer risks. Most doctors have stopped using fetal x-rays since Stewart's work showed that a significant increase in leukemia was found in the children of mothers who had prenatal x-rays taken. She has said she believes that the effects of background radiation coupled with exposure to x-rays may cause most childhood cancers.
- Empty Harvest by Dr Bernard Jenson and Mark Anderson
- Available on Amazon.com

Another treatment, radiation, can trigger neurological symptoms, limiting the amount that can be used to treat cancer. The response of normal brain tissue to radiation often does not appear for weeks or months. So when someone with cancer receives radiation, it can be difficult to tell whether the appearance of neurological symptoms some months later stems from the cancer or from the radiation.
- Keep Your Brain Young: The Complete Guide to Physical and Emotional Health and Longevity by Guy McKhann, and Marilyn Albert
- Available on Amazon.com

And a Wise Woman anti-cancer lifestyle offers many ways to stay cancer-free and prevent recurrence should you decide against adjuvant radiation. If you do choose radiation, it will most likely be a six-week course of therapy, and it can only be done once. (It is considered unsafe to use radiation therapy on the same breast twice). Radiation therapy can cause DNA damage, skin injuries (burns, discoloration, and permanent texture changes), nausea, appetite loss, hair loss, exhaustion, chest pain, pneumonia, and permanent damage to the lungs, heart, and ribs (known as late-stage injuries).
- Breast Cancer? Breast Health! The Wise Woman Way by Susun S. Weed
- Available on Amazon.com

X-rays are another type of radiation. This is the most common type of human poisoning. Most individuals are poisoned as a result of medical x-rays, which, when performed repeatedly, result in significant tissue damage. X-ray technicians, radiologists, orthopedists, chiropractors, chiropractic assistants, cardiologists, dentists, and dental assistants are highly vulnerable to developing radiation poisoning. High tension power lines are another type of poisoning. In this case the individual is being poisoned by electromagnetic radiation. Radiation may also emanate from broadcasting centers.
- Dr. Cass Ingram's Lifesaving Cures by Dr. Cass Ingram
- Available on Amazon.com

History has many examples of how radiation use is strongly linked to an increase in cancer rates. Atomic bomb survivors in Japan have increased rates of leukemia and cancers of the breast, thyroid, lung, stomach and other organs, illustrating another example of how radiation causes cancer. In general, the breast, thyroid and bone marrow are most sensitive to the effects of ionizing radiation. Avoiding unnecessary medical x-rays is one of the best ways to reduce exposure to ionizing radiation.
- Probiotic Rescue: How You can use Probiotics to Fight Cholesterol, Cancer, Superbugs, Digestive Complaints and More by Allison Tannis
- Available on Amazon.com

Bross's work in a special article titled "Low-Level Radiation: Just How Bad Is It?" The report concluded that it was difficult to accurately assess the hazards posed by the radiation used in x-rays and cancer therapy because of the political nature of the radiation issue. It was hard to get clarity about the dangers, Science noted, because the matter fell within "the domain of the atomic energy establishment." It is perhaps only from within the nuclear establishment itself that the true dangers of medical radiation can ever be told.
- Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the True Source of Healing by John Robbins
- Available on Amazon.com

Damage from radiation exposure accumulates over your lifetime:
• Atomic bomb survivor (35 rads at epicenter): increase up to + 35
• Mammogram (0.5-1 rad): increase + 1 per exposure of each breast. One mammogram can double a 35-year-old woman's breast cancer risk.
• Diagnostic x-rays for scoliosis (1.5-3 rads): increase +3 per exposure
• Fluoroscopy (7.5 rads each): increase +5 for each
Radiation treatment (8,000 rads): increase +10 each
The younger you are when your breasts are exposed to radiation, the greater your risk.
- Breast Cancer? Breast Health! The Wise Woman Way by Susun S. Weed
- Available on Amazon.com

Exposure to electromagnetic energy from electric and electronic equipment has become a factor in modern life. Radiation protection is offered by amino acids cysteine and glutathione; Vitamins A, C, and E; minerals Selenium and Zinc. Russian clinical study reveals some benefit from Ginseng (Eleutherococcus senticosus (ES)). RADIATION SICKNESS. Caused by overexposure to radiation such as x-rays, television screens and to an atmosphere polluted by such disasters as Chernobyl.
- Bartram's Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine: The Definitive Guide by Thomas Bartram
- Available on Amazon.com

It is claimed that the irradiated foods do not themselves become radioactive and thus are not introducing radiation to the consumer. The concern with food irradiation is that it may produce by-products that are carcinogenic and increase the incidence of leukemia and other types of cancer or disease of the liver and kidneys. These health problems may not become evident for 20 to 30 years. Most of us are very skeptical about radiation in general, whether it be x-rays or even microwaves, let alone gamma radiation of our food.
- Staying Healthy with Nutrition: The Complete Guide to Diet and Nutritional Medicine by Elson M. Haas, M.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

If this process was safe and effective for someone who was in remission, then why didn't they give radiation to everyone, just to make sure cancer never attacked them? Why didn't the doctors, their wives, and their children take radiation as a preventive measure? I pictured a radiation drive-thru like a fast-food window. They literally fried my mother's chest with what I would later discover was an enormous amount of radiation therapy. When I saw the radiation burns on my mother's chest, I wondered if no treatment at all would have been a better bet.
- The Cure: Heal Your Body, Save Your Life by Timothy Brantley
- Available on Amazon.com

This "background" radiation is a small amount. Medical x-rays used at the dentist to see teeth root health, x-rays used by physicians to investigate bone health and mammograms of the breast subject the body to radiation. Uranium miners and those living in areas close to nuclear weapons tests are exposed to higher levels of radiation. Ironically, some cancer treatments include radiation therapy to help kill cancer cells. Yet the radiation itself increases the risk of cancer. Historically, radiation was used to monitor patients with tuberculosis.
- Probiotic Rescue: How You can use Probiotics to Fight Cholesterol, Cancer, Superbugs, Digestive Complaints and More by Allison Tannis
- Available on Amazon.com

Low-radiation mammograms are safer mammograms, but less radiation means a fuzzier picture. Standard x-rays -- rarely used any more for breasts-create an easy-to-interpret high-radiation image. Xerograms use half that radiation, but are twice as hard to read. Film-screen mammography, the latest very-low-radiation exam, gives an image that's even more difficult to interpret. More than 10 percent of all screening mammograms done at one large center in 1992 couldn't be read and had to be redone.
A 1994 study showed wide variation in the accuracy with which mammograms are interpreted.
- Breast Cancer? Breast Health! The Wise Woman Way by Susun S. Weed
- Available on Amazon.com

The higher frequency radiations, from x-rays to nuclear radiation, are clearly dangerous. Electromagnetic radiation can be divided into two categories. The first is ionizing radiation and includes x-rays, gamma rays, and nuclear radiation. Exposing our body to these highly reactive ions at certain levels can dramatically affect our atomic structure. Ionizing radiation can actually rip electrons from atoms and molecules and directly affect cell division and cell structure.
- Staying Healthy with Nutrition: The Complete Guide to Diet and Nutritional Medicine by Elson M. Haas, M.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

Screening mammograms are unsafe other ways, too: they expose sensitive breast tissues to radiation, and they increase your chances of having a biopsy and being overtreated for carcinoma in situ. Scientists agree that there is no safe dose of radiation. Cellular DNA in the breast is more easily damaged by very small doses of radiation than thyroid tissue or bone marrow; in fact, breast cells are second only to fetal tissues in sensitivity to radiation. And the younger the breast cells, the more easily their DNA is damaged by radiation.
- Breast Cancer? Breast Health! The Wise Woman Way by Susun S. Weed
- Available on Amazon.com

Radiation causes many undesirable internal reactions, especially in the most prolific tissues, such as the gastrointestinal tract and skin. Radiation therapy may affect the appetite, tastes, and the ability to eat. Radiation is cumulative, and many things may add to it, from color TV and microwaves to x-rays and fallout exposure. We need a good protective program! When living in areas with high background radiation, it is wise to take higher amounts of antioxidants regularly.
- Staying Healthy with Nutrition: The Complete Guide to Diet and Nutritional Medicine by Elson M. Haas, M.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

In the radiation oncology departments, cancer patients routinely undergo therapy with high intensity x-rays, particle beams, and other types of radiation. Although radiation therapy has been successful in treating certain types of cancers, there are many cancers that are not cured either by radiation or by a combination of radiation and other orthodox medical and surgical modalities. Doctors may have once had the key to curing cancer with energy. But something happened to that priceless knowledge.
- Vibrational Medicine: The #1 Handbook of Subtle-Energy Therapies by Richard Gerber, M.D.
- Available on Amazon.com

Radiation sickness can take many forms, including the exacerbation of existing disease states, and also differs in intensity depending on the degree of exposure to low or high levels of radiation. It is important to recognize that it is not just atomic explosions that create radiation hazards. Diagnostic x-rays, TV screens, and other apparently noninvasive sources need to be considered. It is beyond the scope of this book to explore the complexity of radiation sickness or the range of treatments available to treat the condition.
- Health from the Seas: Freedom from Disease by John Croft
- Available on Amazon.com

It is now known that radiation causes mutation of the important p53 suppressor gene. For this reason, I do not recommend postlumpectomy radiation. Even though it may decrease the risk of a local recurrence of cancer, it does not help to inhibit metastatic cancer. Recent findings show that women receiving mammograms should be cautious of overexposure to radiation emitted by equipment that is not professionally and regularly monitored. Such equipment can deliver doses of radiation far above what are assumed today to be safe levels.
- Herbal Medicine, Healing and Cancer: A Comprehensive Program for Prevention and Treatment by Donald R. Yance, j r.,C.N., M.H., A.H.G., with Arlene Valentine  - Available on Amazon.com

Sources for this story include:

Americans' Radiation Exposure Rises 6-Fold in 29 Years
- ABC News

Overexposed: Imaging tests boost U.S. radiation dose
- Reuters

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher and author with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NaturalNews email newsletters. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and pursues hobbies such as Pilates, Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening. Known on the 'net as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org

http://www.naturalnews.com/025767.html

Monday, March 2, 2009

It's Time For The Madness To Stop

By Sheila Samples

March 03, 2009 "Information Clearing House" --- Sometimes it's hard to come to grips with the truth -- especially if that truth is about our own country, and is in direct opposition to everything we've been taught since childhood. Patriotism is in our genes, and through the years it has been a national conviction that, if our country needed us, serving in the military to protect our freedom was not only the right thing to do, but the only thing to do. We still believe that. We still leap to our feet at the first beat of a drum at a military parade, clutch our hearts at the sight of the Stars and Stripes, weep at the refrain of the National Anthem. However, far too many of us succumb to the pomp and pageantry of war -- of mission accomplished -- with little concern for the human beings who made that possible -- what they went through, what they're still going through -- so we can maintain our arrogant national pride.

From the beginning, those in the military have served their country with unswerving loyalty. They continued to march even after Henry Kissinger belched out the truth that Duty--Honor--Country is a one-way street because "Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy. And, it has long been a dead-end street for those captured or left behind on foreign soil -- for those who return from battlefields maimed both mentally and physically, and for those who are innocent victims of malicious life-destroying experiments who have no chance of the extent of their injuries being recognized and are refused the necessary health care.

The most ghastly experiment the military ever conducted was Operation Crossroads, a series of "Manhattan Project" tests requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1946 to study the effects of nuclear weapons on ships and equipment. After bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki the year before, US officials knew the effect of massive radiation on human beings and animals. They had to know. So what else were the thousands of navy personnel positioned on ships from five to eight miles from the Bikini Atoll bomb site in the central Pacific if not guinea pigs?

One young sailor stationed at the Bikini Atoll in 1946 was Anthony Guarisco who, like thousands of others, has suffered horribly for the last 63 years as a result of radiation poisoning and like those others, has been denied the proper health care. Guarisco is the founder of both the National and International Alliance of Atomic Veterans. In 1994, Academy Award-winning team Vivienne Verdon-Roe and Michael Porter produced a documentary, "Experimental Animals," featuring Guarisco who, very calmly, describes the horrors of that 1946 July. (Note: Ecological Options Network has just re-released "Experimental Animals" on-line and as a DVD, because EON filmmaker/activist Jim Heddle says, "we think it's as relevant today as it was when it was produced.")

The first bomb -- Able -- was dropped from a B-29 on July 1. As a health precaution, military personnel in the area were told to "cover their eyes." Guarisco said it was awesome. He said it immediately "came home to me what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I could see how 55-65 thousand people could die in one-and-a-half seconds."

But the second one -- Baker -- was beyond awesome. Guarisco said it was detonated beneath the ocean from a depth of 90 feet, and "sucked a target array of approximately 100 ships into the air like little toys. I saw the U.S. Arkansas soar into the air about 200 feet and come down in two pieces. I saw aircraft carriers just flinging around as if they were toys."

According to the Navy's historical report, "The inability to complete inspections on much of the target fleet threatened the success of the operation after BAKER. A program of target vessel decontamination was begun in earnest about 1 August. This involved washing the ships' exteriors using work crews drawn from the target ships' companies under radiological supervision of monitors equipped with radiation detection and measurement devices. Initially, decontamination was slow as the safe time aboard the target ships was measured only in minutes. As time progressed, the support fleet itself had become contaminated by the low-level radioactivity in marine growth on the ships' hulls and seawater piping systems."

Ironically, although the ships were towed out of the area just 10 days after the blast where the work could be done in uncontaminated water, no warning was given to the human experimental animals, who were allowed to swim in contaminated water, walk barefoot on beaches and breathe poisonous air.

Guarisco said, "We went back into the ground zero area immediately after each of the detonations, and I spent a total of 67 days in the Bikini lagoon within one mile of the epicenter. And I became ill after the second detonation, approximately four or five days after that...I had symptoms similar to having a bad case of influenza. I had welts on my body -- I broke out with welts -- and it was scary for me. I was urinating blood, I was very sick."

And Guarisco wasn't the only one who became ill. In a 1998 National Radio Project interview with Michael O'Rourke, who monitors veterans health issues for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Guarisco said, "Other people on my ship were also feeling very sick. And for many, many years I thought that, well, certainly if there was anything wrong surely they would let me know. But," he said, "I found out many years later that’s not how it is. You know, the government and the U.S. military are not about to say anything about anybody who’s exposed to high levels or low levels of radiation. It was hard for me to come out of denial, to understand that I was dealing with people who really were not interested in anything else but waiting for me to die."

Guarisco says that, in one -- two -- blinding flashes, "we saw what World War III will look like. We have seen the firestorm, we have been witness to the sacrilegious devastation that nuclear weapons put forth, and we have seen our brother and our sister veterans die from being exposed to this terribleness." He says the bottom line of nuclear weapons is the bottom line of the profit margin -- that "deterrent" or "first strike" are fear code words used to keep the population at bay and to pave the way for the nuclear industry to keep building more expensive (profitable) weapons.

In his March 2008 tribute to both of his parents, Guarisco's son, Vincent, goes into greater detail about his father's lifelong battle, not only with the effects of radiation but with the nuclear industry and government itself. For more than 60 years, both Anthony and Mary Guarisco were out there, militant activists armed with the truth, relentlessly attempting to derail the nuclear train before it goes over the cliff, taking human survival with it.

The United States has more nuclear weapons than any other nation. Although we have avoided the instant, negative repercussions of another Nagasaki or Hiroshima, we have nevertheless managed to contaminate most of the world with Depleted Uranium.

In 2006, Japanese professor Dr. K. Yagasaki, by using the known amount of uranium used in the Hiroshima bomb -- about the size of a two-litre milk container -- calculated that a ton of DU used on the battlefield results in the equivalent of 100 Hiroshima bombs worth of radiation released into the atmosphere. So, when it was reported that 2,000 tons of DU were dropped on Iraq from 2003 to 2006, we need to understand that what was released in the Iraqi atmosphere, and then spreading worldwide, was the equivalent of 200,000 Hiroshima bombs.

The total amount of DU the US has used since 1991 is approximately 4,600 tons (1,000 in the first Gulf War, 800 in Kosovo, 800 in Afghanistan and a further 2,000 tons in the second Iraq war.) This amounts to approximately 460,000 Hiroshima bombs, ten times the amount of radiation released into the atmosphere from all previous nuclear testing worldwide. And, it's important to note this calculation was three years ago. Since that time, we've had three more years of non-stop DU bombing...

Throughout the '60s, the US conducted numerous toxic and chemical weapons tests on its military personnel. In July 2008, Nic Maclellan, journalist, researcher and development worker in the Pacific, wrote...

"Under Project SHAD, the US Navy conducted six tests in the Marshall Islands and off the coast of Hawai’i between 1964-68. Pentagon documents released in 2002 show the US Defense Department sprayed live nerve and biological agents on ships and sailors, and sprayed a germ toxin on Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

"These Cold War-era experiments to test the Navy's vulnerability to toxic warfare involved about 4,300 US military personnel, mostly from the Navy. Most were never informed that the tests were being conducted, breaching all ethical principles about informed consent for test subjects."

It's time that we, as a nation, not only face the truth -- but come to grips with it. Those who serve with such trust and loyalty cannot imagine that they are, at best, "experimental animals" to be used and cast aside by ruthless corporate thugs.

How many generations of Anthony Guariscos must we lose before we realize that "support the troops" means protect the troops? Like Guarisco said, we must stand up, stand together and demand the abolition of all nuclear weapons if human beings on this planet are to survive.

It's time for the madness to stop. Before we are all atomic veterans.

Sheila Samples http://sheilastuff.blogspot.com/  is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at rsamples@wichitaonline.net

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22133.htm

Saturday, February 21, 2009

22 years on, Welsh farms still under Chernobyl shadow

UP to 359 Welsh farms are still operating under restrictions imposed in the wake of Chernobyl, more than two decades after the Soviet nuclear plant went into meltdown.

The Food Standards Agency Wales revealed the figure before today’s 22nd anniversary of the largest nuclear accident in history.

Upland farms in Wales were caught out by unfortunate circumstances in the wake of the disaster. Heavy rain washed radioactive material from clouds onto fields.

The radiation is absorbed from the soil by plants, which are then eaten by sheep.

For the hundreds of Welsh farmers still living with Chernobyl’s legacy, the restrictions mean their animals are only allowed to enter the food chain after rigorous safety tests.

Vice-president of the Farmers’ Union of Wales (FUW) Glyn Roberts, who works National Trust land at Ysbyty Ifan, near Betws-y-Coed, Conwy, is one of those still grappling with the restrictions.

Mr Roberts has two farms – Dylasau Uchaf spread over 220 acres of hillside and the much- larger Trawnant in the mountains.

The 850-acre Trawnant is subject to the Chernobyl restrictions while his hill farm is exempt.

As a result, if animals are moved between the two habitats, they must be strictly monitored.

In fact, Mr Roberts, 50, needs permission from Assembly Government agriculture officials to switch animals between the two locations. “In September and October, when I bring the sheep down from the mountain to the hill farm, I have to paint a red mark on them,” he said. “When there’s a red mark on the sheep, the Welsh Assembly Government comes to count them and they cannot be used for human consumption.”

Mr Roberts, and all other Welsh farmers subject to the restrictions, have to make a request to Assembly officials if they want painted sheep to enter the food chain.

Only if shown to be safe following radiation testing are the animals declared fit for human consumption. If they are shown to have more 1,000 becquerels per kilogram, they cannot enter the food chain.

A compensation scheme sees them receive £1.30 every time a lamb has to be re-tested. Farmers can opt to do this if the animals are recorded at more than 1,000 becquerels by an initial test.

But Mr Roberts said the £1.30 figure has not changed since the scheme was introduced more than two decades ago. He said one positive aspect of the restrictions is that Welsh lamb has an unparalleled reputation for safety.

The Gomel region of neighbouring Belarus received 70% of the fall-out. No-one knows precisely how many people died after Chernobyl. The Soviet authorities forbade doctors to record the word “radiation” on death certificates. But the World Health Organisation estimates at least 4,000 died of cancer due to the catastrophe.

The Chernobyl Children’s Lifeline organises holidays here for affected youngsters. Ann Sage and her husband Dave, both members, say a trip to Wales can add two years to the life of a child from Belarus.

Mrs Sage, 49, from Bridgend, said: “Just seeing them enjoying life so much while they’re here is so rewarding.”

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/04/26/22-years-on-welsh-farms-still-under-chernobyl-shadow-91466-20822842/