Comments on: Ian Fairlie on the significance of the Fukushima disaster https://ifyoulovethisplanet.org/?p=5153 A weekly radio program with Dr. Helen Caldicott Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:29:52 +0000 https://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Idou Hamano https://ifyoulovethisplanet.org/?p=5153&cpage=1#comment-943 Idou Hamano Tue, 22 Nov 2011 02:10:00 +0000 https://ifyoulovethisplanet.org/?p=5153#comment-943 Hello Tim Cook, Radon is a noble gas, which means its biological half life and biological concentration characteristics are very minimal. Last I checked, Fukushima released at least 31 different radioactive isotopes (almost twice as many as Hiroshima). Some of these are known to be very carcinogenic due to their propensity to concentrate in different organs and remain their for very long periods of time. However, we probably do not know the true impact of most of these isotopes and certainly do not know the level of contamination in the local population. We probably will know eventually from this very large experiment, courtesy of TEPCO and the Japanese government . . . Hello Tim Cook,

Radon is a noble gas, which means its biological half life and biological concentration characteristics are very minimal. Last I checked, Fukushima released at least 31 different radioactive isotopes (almost twice as many as Hiroshima). Some of these are known to be very carcinogenic due to their propensity to concentrate in different organs and remain their for very long periods of time. However, we probably do not know the true impact of most of these isotopes and certainly do not know the level of contamination in the local population. We probably will know eventually from this very large experiment, courtesy of TEPCO and the Japanese government . . .

]]> By: Tim Cook https://ifyoulovethisplanet.org/?p=5153&cpage=1#comment-914 Tim Cook Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:46:42 +0000 https://ifyoulovethisplanet.org/?p=5153#comment-914 My in-laws are from Fukushima and my wife and I are naturally concerned about their future health. I am curious, however, about the places in the world with naturally occurring high levels of radiation and the effects that that has on the people living there. Claims are made that where radiation levels are highest (e.g., Ramsar, Iran, where radon radiation is apparently much higher than the new elevated Japanese limit), the level of cancer is not appreciably different than in control populations. First, I'm wondering if you think this is true, and if so, what accounts for it. Also, does this relate to Fukushima and Chernobyl where the radiation is not naturally occurring? I hope you can discuss this on your program sometime. Thank you for your important work. My in-laws are from Fukushima and my wife and I are naturally concerned about their future health. I am curious, however, about the places in the world with naturally occurring high levels of radiation and the effects that that has on the people living there. Claims are made that where radiation levels are highest (e.g., Ramsar, Iran, where radon radiation is apparently much higher than the new elevated Japanese limit), the level of cancer is not appreciably different than in control populations. First, I’m wondering if you think this is true, and if so, what accounts for it. Also, does this relate to Fukushima and Chernobyl where the radiation is not naturally occurring? I hope you can discuss this on your program sometime. Thank you for your important work.

]]>