Covid-19 is Extremely Contagious GoddardsJournal 2020-02-21 | Sources in order cited: @ 1:00 Liu et al (2020) academic.oup.com/jtm/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jtm/taaa021/5735319 Editorial about Liu et al (2020): https://www.umu.se/en/news/who-underestimates-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus_8876701/@ 1:32 The additional four studies I added to Liu et al's graph are Jung et al (2020) medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.29.20019547v1 , Sanche et al (2020) medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.20021154v1 , Yang et al (2020) medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.10.20021675v1 , Mizumoto e al (2020) medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022434v1@ 2:36 Professor Neil Ferguson imperial.ac.uk/people/neil.ferguson , dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/2110930.html , dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8005931/British-scientist-leading-coronavirus-fight-says-forecasts-400-000-UK-deaths.html@ 3:44 CDC seasonal flu data cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html@ 4:34 Professor Marc Lipsitch https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/marc-lipsitch/ , twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1228373884027592704@ 7:10 Professor Justin Lessler https://www.jhsph.edu/faculty/directory/profile/2566/justin-lessler, twitter.com/JustinLessler/status/1227375177438097408 @ 9:37 U.S. DHS disaster preparation website ready.gov and ready.gov/pandemic@ 10:21 Tuite & Fisman (2020) annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2760912/reporting-epidemic-growth-reproduction-numbers-2019-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov@ 10:40 Professor Trevor Bedford bedford.io/team/trevor-bedford , twitter.com/trvrb/status/1226241657860870144.
Face Masks for Life & Liberty GoddardsJournal 2020-12-29 | A moral defense of face-mask mandates grounded in foundational American values. My argumentation is from first principles, not binding legal statute, specified by the founders in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. The United States Declaration of Independence archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcriptStudies cited… @ 0:01 Meyerowitz-Katz & Merone (2020) sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220321809@ 0:04 O’Driscoll et al (2020) nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0 @ 4:46 Markel et al (2007) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17684187 and which I cover in more detail @ youtu.be/YniDz6638xA @ 7:53 Wilfred H. Kellogg (1919) babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&view=1up&seq=10@ 8:41 Warrren Vaughan (1921) babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc2.ark:/13960/t6qz30017&view=1up&seq=292.
Trumps Face Mask Misinformation Debunked GoddardsJournal 2020-10-19 | Reviewing the CDC study misrepresented by President Trump, Tucker Carlson, Breitbart and others who try to mislead the public into believing the study proves that face masks increase your risk of infection. The study, Fisher et al (2020), is available @ cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6936a5.htmSee a third time Trump repeated the claim here... mediamatters.org/coronavirus-covid-19/trump-echoes-right-wing-media-denialism-about-masks-and-covid-19-transmissionpolitifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/15/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-distorts-new-cdc-report-makes-false
Face Mask Science Review GoddardsJournal 2020-10-15 | All studies cited are linked below...@ 00:01 My prior face-mask video youtu.be/_JH04M04eQQ@ 00:30 Wang et al (2020) gh.bmj.com/content/5/5/e002794@ 01:42 Chan et al (2020) academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa644/5848814@ 05:28 Chu et al (2020) thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext@ 10:07 Leung et al (2020) nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2@ 12:03 NHK program on airborne transmission youtu.be/vBvFkQizTT4@ 12:42 Anfinrud et al (2020) nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800@ 14:02 Fears et al (2020) wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/9/20-1806_article@ 14:33 Lednicky et al (2020) ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30739-6/fulltext@ 14:55 Bourouiba (2020) jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763852@ 15:05 Verma et al (2020) aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0016018@ 16:46 Fischer et al (2020) advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083@ 19:14 N95 mask-valve leakage youtu.be/JEy1cF2pMdM@ 20:33 Anti-mask misinformation youtu.be/hJpS_jajub0 @ 20:42 That misinformation debunked by Prof Jimenez twitter.com/NuritBaytch/status/1300064418458472453@ 20:49 Swiss-cheese protection model my.clevelandclinic.org/-/scassets/files/org/employer-solutions/covid-19-returning-to-work-guide.ashx.
Lockdowns Work According to Science GoddardsJournal 2020-05-04 | Peer-review studies of Covid-19 lockdowns cited...Taghrir et al (2020), Efficacy of Mass Quarantine as Leverage of Health System Governance During COVID-19 Outbreak: A Mini Policy Review: “We found good quality evidence for the effectiveness of mass quarantine during the current stage of COVID-19 pandemic, and these strategies seem to have been highly effective in controlling the spread of the disease.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32271600Tobías (2020), Evaluation of the Lockdowns for the SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic in Italy and Spain After One Month Follow Up: “Lockdown, including restricted social contact and keeping open only those businesses essential to the country’s supply chains, has had a beneficial effect in both countries. The trend slopes were considerably reduced for all the outcomes.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32304973Lau et al (2020), The Positive Impact of Lockdown in Wuhan on Containing the COVID-19 Outbreak in China: “A significantly decreased growth rate and increased doubling time of cases was observed, which is most likely due to Chinese lockdown measures. A more stringent confinement of people in high risk areas seem to have a potential to slow down the spread of COVID-19.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32181488 Signorelli et al (2020), COVID-19 in Italy: Impact of Containment Measures and Prevalence Estimates of Infection in the General Population: “Data shows that, among these measures, the lockdown implemented as of 9 March had a positive impact, in particular the central and southern regions of Italy, while other actions appeared to be less effective.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32275287Ji et al (2020), Lockdown Contained the Spread of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease in Huangshi City, China: Early Epidemiological Findings: “Lockdown and nonpharmaceutical interventions effectively contained the progression of COVID-19 in Huangshi city, China. Feb 1 (day 9 of lockdown) was identified as the ‘turning point’ as the epidemic faded soon.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32255183Modeling studies of lockdowns for Covid-19Chatterjee et al (2020), Healthcare Impact of COVID-19 Epidemic in India: A Stochastic Mathematical Model: “The impact of Non-Pharmacological Interventions (NPI) including social distancing and lockdown on checking the epidemic was estimated […] immediate institution of NPIs, total cases, hospitalizations, ICU requirements and deaths can be reduced by almost 90%.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32292232 Zhang et al (2020), Predicting Turning Point, Duration and Attack Rate of COVID-19 Outbreaks in Major Western Countries: “if there were no major enforcement actions on control strategies such as lockdowns, social distancing, stay-home-advises/orders, then the COVID-19 would have spread exponentially. For example, the total confirmed cases in the USA would have passed 1,000,000 on April 05, 2020.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32313405Bonus Studies! Pre-press (ie, not yet peer-reviewed) studies on lockdown efficacy I did not cite in the video:Roques et al (2020), Effect of a one-month lockdown on the epidemic dynamics of COVID-19 in France: “We estimate the effect of the lockdown in France on the contact rate and the effective reproduction number Re of the COVID-19. We obtain a reduction by a factor 7 (Re=0.47, 95%-CI: 0.45-0.50), compared to the estimates carried out in France at the early stage of the epidemic.” medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.21.20074054v1Hyafil & Morina (2020), Analysis of the impact of lockdown on the evolution Covid-19 epidemics in Spain: “being able to implement interventions at the earliest stage is crucial to minimise the impact of a potential infectious threat.” medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.20070862v1Alfano & Ercolano (2020), Shut it down: a cross country panel analysis on the efficacy of lockdown measures: “The large differences found in the speed of propagation of the disease show us that being able to implement interventions at the earliest stage is crucial to minimise the impact of a potential infectious threat.” medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.12.20062695v1Spanish flu of 1918 studies@ 1:34 Markel et al (2007) Nonpharmaceutical Interventions Implemented by US Cities During the 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17684187Yu et al, (2017): ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5507503/pdf/pone.0180545.pdfHatchett et al (2020): pnas.org/content/pnas/104/18/7582.full.pdf@ 4:04 My forecast that came to pass based on listening to field-specific scientists @ youtu.be/7SXIzVinKB0?t=616
Face Mask Science - Literature Review GoddardsJournal 2020-03-25 | Studies cited @ times cited...@ 1:17 Jefferson et al (2011) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21735402Of the nine case-control studies cited in my quotation of Jefferson, seven involved healthcare workers and two involved mask wearing by uninfected members of the public, Wu et al (2004) @ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322931 and Lau et al (2004) @ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15200846@ 2:01 Jefferson et al (2008) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18042961@ MacIntyre (2015) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25858901@ 4:09 Hui & Chan (2010) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20674795 and Breban et al (2013) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23831141@ 4:21 van Doremalen et al nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 and Ong et al (2020) jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762692@ 5:26 Tracht et al (2010) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2818714@ 6:58 Cui et al (2019) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31499643@ 8:22 Tracht et al (2012) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3307882@ 9:55 Aiello et al (2012) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22295066@ 10:36 Suess et al (2012) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120@ 11:04 Cowling et al (2009) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19652172@ 11:32 Larson et al (2010) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20297744@ 12:03 Simmerman et al (2011) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21651736@ 12:57 Aiello et al (2012) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3266257 @ 14:11 MacIntyre (2009) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657@ 15:45 Foo et al (2006) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17026695@ 17:19 DIY facemask video @ youtu.be/Pb59qBUNg1o@ 18:34 DIY facemask video @ youtu.be/Bs-E_R5WWsYMy local hospital is pointing people to this webpage with instructions on how to sew face masks acceptable for healthcare workers: sewgoodgoods.org/face-mask-covid-19 which links to an instructional video @ youtu.be/9tBg0Os5FWQフェイスマスク 안면 마스크 faciem larva Maschera viso
Does Marijuana Cause Schizophrenia? GoddardsJournal 2020-02-04 | The Mendelian randomization studies reviewed in this video... Gage et al (2017). "Assessing causality in associations between cannabis use and schizophrenia risk: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study." @ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341491Vaucher et al (2017). "Cannabis use and risk of schizophrenia: a Mendelian randomization study." @ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5984096Pasman et al (2018). "GWAS of lifetime cannabis use reveals new risk loci, genetic overlap with psychiatric traits, and a causal influence of schizophrenia." @ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386176The sensitivity analyses reviewed @ 4:03 are from Pasman et al (2018), Supplementary Figure 9(a)(b)(c) @ static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41593-018-0206-1/MediaObjects/41593_2018_206_MOESM1_ESM.pdf#page=17My description of P values in this video is influenced by Sander Greenland and others [1,2] who advance an interpretation some call 'compatibilism', [3] which does a good job of both avoiding common misconceptions and being intuitive and simple to understand. Over the last couple decades their views have been gaining the upper hand, [4] eroding over-reliance on P values and statistical significance, ushering in a far more ‘relaxed’ non-alpha-centric interpretation of P values. I strove in this video to convey that interpretation, which includes not 'accepting' or 'rejecting' a test hypothesis simply because its p value is over or under 0.05.[1] link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10654-016-0149-3[2] tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2018.1529625[3] lesslikely.com/statistics/s-values[4] nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9
Wildlife in Fukushima Nuclear Reactors? - 福島第 GoddardsJournal 2019-06-10 | Videos from robots probing inside the extremely radioactive primary containment of Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 reveal clues that microorganisms may be thriving therein. If so, Fukushima's destroyed reactors could be useful radiobiology laboratories. Tepco's videos and reports on the (A) 2015 robotic exploration inside Unit 3's primary containment vessel photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2015/201510-e/151020-01e.html(B) 2017 robotic exploration inside Unit 3's primary containment vessel photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2017/201711-e/171130-02e.html All Fukushima Unit 3 PCV videos are collected @ youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAZoYp2E1CWMVYPJ1yb8Xmyt-LSov4Gu4@ 0:31 Opinion that rusty colored formations are nuclear fuel http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=17335@ 1:11 Textbook examples of bacterial tubercles @ businessdocbox.com/Metals/71498650-Corrosion-problems-and-solutions-in-oil-refining-and-petrochemical-industry.html (see PDF pages 32 and 205); i0.wp.com/scl.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/tweets-05-1.png; https://www.d.umn.edu/biology/documents/Oster1.pdf#page=3@ 4:25 CRD housing comparator example is from Fukushima Daini Unit 5 www7.tepco.co.jp/wp-content/uploads/hd03-02-03-004-002-handouts_170721_01-e.pdf@ 5:08 Tubercle anatomy sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135415000159?via%3Dihub#undfig1@ 5:17 Cracked-open tubercle shells nfpa.org/~/media/files/forms-and-premiums/nf13hb07_chs3.pdf#page=6 and http://corrosion.hzs.be/Presentations/Klijnstra.pdf#page=2@ 6:07 Chernobyl's solidified corium youtu.be/CcDZtlm_pI0?t=39 and https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01311262/file/QUAINI_2015_archivage.pdf#page=53@ 7:26 University of Minnesota's Battling Biocorrosion project https://scl.umn.edu/project/115/@ 10:49 Atomic Gardening in the 1950s ripleys.com/weird-news/atomic-gardening and nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html福島第一原発3号機
If Global Warming, Why is it So COLD?!! GoddardsJournal 2019-02-03 | Every winter, cold snaps cause some to believe they are witnessing evidence against global warming. Such inference from regional to global temperature is an instance of the fallacy of composition. A useful tool to help people reason about this is a Temperature Anomaly map, as seen here, wherein reds reflect above-normal temps and blue-violets below-normal temps.http://www.pivotalweather.com/model.php?rh=2019012918&fh=loop&dpdt=&mc=&r=na&p=850t_anom&m=gfsThe days of the latest polar-vortex cold snap:youtube.com/watch?v=YxP0-lDN3gQDaily Temperature Anomalyclimatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anomLand Surface Temperature Anomaly, Day and 1 Month neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MOD_LSTAD_MWhy the Polar Vortex Keeps Breaking out of the Arctichttps://scied.ucar.edu/blog/why-polar-vortex-keeps-breaking-out-arcticHow frigid polar vortex blasts are linked to global warmingtheweathernetwork.com/news/articles/how-frigid-polar-vortex-blasts-are-linked-to-global-warming-climate-change-connection-weather-environment/123443 Fallacy of compositionen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
Is LNT Radiation Risk Antiquated? GoddardsJournal 2018-11-27 | Professor Edward Calabrese claims that the LNT risk model is based on antiquated data and scientific misconduct from the 1950s that has been rubber-stamped by consensus committees for six decades. This video shows why that narrative is not the case.Calabrese’s core papers accusing scientists of acts of misconduct in the 1950s that he claims have “undermined policies and practices of regulatory agencies in the U.S. and worldwide to the present time.”Calabrese (2013): “How the US National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on cancer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foundations of the linear dose response.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23912675 Note the many letters of objection appended below the paper. Open access @ http://radiationeffects.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Calabrese-2013_How-US-NAS-misled-on-cancer-risk.pdf One of the letters of objection, this one from NAS members, is open access @ cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt8qk308v9/qt8qk308v9.pdf#page=2 Calabrese's response to that letter is @ rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-013-1177-3 This paper of Calabrese's triggered an epic letter war, as one might expect for a paper hurling inflammatory accusations at famous (deceased) scientists and at the US NAS.Calabrese (2013): “Origin of the linear no threshold (LNT) dose–response concept” link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-013-1104-7 Calabrese (2018): “From Muller to mechanism: How LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29843011 Here are two rebuttals of Calabrese’s claims in the above papers (he has not responded to these): Beyea (2017): “Lessons to be learned from a contentious challenge to mainstream radiobiological science (the linear no-threshold theory of genetic mutations)” sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116306909Carlson (2017): “Scientific feuds, polemics, and ad hominem arguments in basic and special-interest genetics.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28342450 Open access @ kundoc.com/pdf-scientific-feuds-polemics-and-ad-hominem-arguments-in-basic-and-special-interest.htmlTime-marked citations for this video… @ 1:05 Senate testimony epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/10/oversight-of-the-environmental-protection-agency-s-implementation-of-sound-and-transparent-science-in-regulation Reposted and more easily viewed @ youtu.be/MwKKRsh2b9E@ 2:59 NAS BEIR VII (2006) https://www.nap.edu/read/11340/@ 3:13 NAS BEIR VII, Table 2-1 listing in far-right column the 19 studies the committee used to estimate the shape of the low-dose response https://www.nap.edu/read/11340/chapter/4#58@ 4:07 NCRP Commentary 27 (2018), see page 2 of this summary that lists the 29 studies the NCRP examined ncrponline.org/wp-content/themes/ncrp/Pub_announcements/Commentary_No27_overview.pdf Homepage for Commentary 27 ncrponline.org/shop/commentaries/commentary-no-27-implications-of-recent-epidemiologic-studies-for-the-linear-nonthreshold-model-and-radiation-protection-2018@ 4:42 My review (2015) of dose-response graphs published since BEIR VII (2006) : youtu.be/5xYRvnCBZOM Also @ http://iangoddard.com/LinearNoThreshold.html.
Monarch Butterfly Gardening vs Extinction GoddardsJournal 2018-08-06 | Citations... @ 1:52 - Range of eastern migratory monarch population is Figure 1 in Throgmartin et al (2017): peerj.com/articles/3221@ 1:55 - Monarch population graph: phys.org/news/2017-08-monarch-butterflybiologist-population-census-discrepancies.html@ 2:00 - Throgmartin et al (2017): peerj.com/articles/3221@ 2:18 - Semmens et al (2016): nature.com/articles/srep23265.pdf@ 2:36 - Cutting & Tallamy (2015): ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26314013@ 3:22 - Monarch migration map: journeynorth.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/migration_map_xerces.jpgMonarch & Milkweed ResourcesMonarch FAQ monarchlab.org/biology-and-research/ask-the-expert/faqRaising Monarchs Instructional Video Series by MrLundScience is outstanding: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIJYERWSMyVrOpgo-TVIgWRFKARuT7ImTPlanting Milkweed Instructional Video Series by MrLundScience: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIJYERWSMyVphsed9fypj-n8g3axFBakCA kids book is widely recognized as the best book on raising monarch butterflies, which probably underscores how it’s not rocket science, easier than raising baby birds, the #1 requirement is milkweed.: smile.amazon.com/gp/product/1770850023Search ‘milkweed’ on Amazon for some sellers. Be forewarned that some milkweed plants bought at big-name hardware stores have killed caterpillars they’re fed too.Where to Buy Milkweed Online? monarchbutterflygarden.net/where-to-buy-milkweed-online-helpful-tipsMonarch-saving-and-raising facebook communitiesfacebook.com/groups/monarchbutterflyfacebook.com/groups/TheBeautifulMonarchfacebook.com/groups/160623441049408facebook.com/groups/1622850767977447Monarch organization monarchwatch.org/index.htmlthemonarchalliance.orgmonarchjointventure.orgCitizen Science Monarch Projectsfs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/Monarch_Butterfly/citizenscience/index.shtml.
Science on Videogame Violence GoddardsJournal 2018-03-07 | Scientific-consensus statements on media violence: http://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/StatementsonMediaViolence.html@ 1:01 Screen Violence and Youth Behavior: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29093050@ 1:57 The American Psychological Association Task Force assessment of violent video games: Science in the service of public interest: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28221065@ 3:30 Does Movie or Video Game Violence Predict Societal Violence? It Depends on What You Look at and When: researchgate.net/publication/267875432_Does_Movie_or_Video_Game_Violence_Predict_Societal_Violence_It_Depends_on_What_You_Look_at_and_When@ 5:48 FBI Active-Shooter Incidents: fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents-graphics (Supplemental data: Mass Casualty Shootings: ovc.ncjrs.gov/ncvrw2017/images/en_artwork/Fact_Sheets/2017NCVRW_MassShootings_508.pdf )@ 6:04 First-person-shooter study: https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/a-survey-of-first-person-shooters-and-their-avatars Graphs showing 2009 complete http://gamestudies.org/1103/articles/michael_hitchens http://archive.is/XlRi .
NY Times UFO Explained GoddardsJournal 2018-02-02 | The rotating Gimbal UFO promoted by The New York Times is here shown to be a nearly perfect match to the rotating hot-engine exhaust of a jet recorded on the very same ATFLIR gimbal-camera system. Minor differences are shown to be attributable to circumstantial differences such as distance. If the contents seen in grainy footage alleged to be extraterrestrial (ET) technology are even fairly similar to human technology albeit not perfectly discernible, they are not evidence of ET technology. In other words, if we cannot rule out the ordinary we have no grounds to propose the extraordinary. Yet the similarity to human technology in the Gimbal Video exceeds a 'fairly similar' criterion. The Gimbal Video therefore presents no evidence of ET technology, it's just ordinary evidence of an ordinary phenomenon, jets.As I reported in my last video, the ATFLIR-induced jet-engine-rotation hypothesis was first proposed by Mick West @ metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333 and, no less, on the very same day the NY Times published the footage!The New York Times report: nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.htmlComparator jet video is @ youtube.com/watch?v=YyefSnLxjXk&feature=youtu.be&t=791 and is a Russian Su-27 imaged on June 18, 2017 over Syria by an ATFLIR infrared camera on a Navy F-18. The same camera that shot the gimbal UFO video. More about that incident where an F-18 shot down a Russian Su-22 is @ http://archive.is/yJuNr and more about the Su-27's presence during the incident is @ http://archive.is/WmYad The ATFLIR footage of the Su-27 switches from black=hot to white=hot midway, but I invert it to keep it black=hot consistently for the comparison, which is perfectly reasonable since the settings difference is nothing but an inversion.Rotation of hot flare recorded by an ATFLIR infrared camera on a Navy F-18 fighter jet is @ http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/f-18-takes-out-insurgents/658386321001The ATFLIR has three Field of View (FOV) settings of which NAR, or narrow field of view, is 0.7˚, as given @ web.archive.org/web/20091211103559/http://www.raytheon.com:80/businesses/rtnwcm/groups/sas/documents/content/rtn_sas_ds_atflir.pdf Additionally, the screen data shows the zoom (Z) setting is 2.0, so that on top of an FOV of 0.7˚ gives a 0.35˚ FOV.The ATFLIR paper cited is @ http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.472591Excerpted quotation therefrom: “Another challenge our tracker faced was image rotation. While our inertial stabilization maintained the sensor fixed on the designated target as the aircraft maneuvered, the image on the display was optically rotated for the operator in order to achieve the effect of looking out the cockpit window. As the aircraft maneuvers, therefore, the image that the tracker receives rotates accordingly. While the centroid track algorithm is able to compensate for the rotation with relative ease, the correlation track algorithm relies on a recursively smoothed reference map to compute track errors. If the scene is rotating, the reference map will smear and degrade(2) . To resolve this issue, we needed to de-rotate the input image before it was smoothed into the reference map. We accomplished this by passing the rotation angle from the Servo Controller to the Image Processor (via the Command and Data Processor), and then de-rotating the input image with respect to the reference image during computation of the track metrics.”.
NY Times UFO Debunked? GoddardsJournal 2018-01-02 | LOS = 0˚ sweep-over analysis @ youtu.be/UY17TFxpc1M and @ http://iangoddard.com/zero-sweep.gifThe New York Times UFO: nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.htmlJets on FLIR shown: youtu.be/jWjpnCKcj8M?t=129youtu.be/dlXriz7w5E0?t=172FLIR lens-flare rotation @ http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/f-18-takes-out-insurgents/658386321001Demo, proof of concept: http://youtu.be/nIl4peYb59EMedia coverage of The New York Times UFO @ http://omnitalkradio.weebly.com/pentagon-ufo-study-media.htmlStellar skepticism by Mick West metabunk.organd @ youtube.com/user/mickword/videosNimitz UFO video easily shown to lack any evidence of anomalous motion: youtu.be/nIl4peYb59ECoolHardLogic, who, imo, figure it out right awayyoutube.com/user/CoolHardLogic
UFO Footage Stabilized - New York Times UFO GoddardsJournal 2017-12-20 | New York Times report: http://nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html http://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.htmlThis footage is subjected to critical analysis @metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333Description of readings on the ATFLIR screen: static1.squarespace.com/static/5a09f7d9fe54ef52c4781ecf/t/5a30d34ce4966b460f8b91a3/1513314179797/Gimbal+Picture+1.pngMajor media coverage of this footage:http://omnitalkradio.weebly.com/pentagon-ufo-study-media.htmlAbout the FLIR tacking system on the jetraytheon.com/capabilities/products/atfliryoutu.be/KGEuNTzmYJQhttp://shashp.com/raytheonglobalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/atflir.htmforums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/Air-To-Air_Systems#A.2FA_Forward_Looking_Infrared_.28FLIR.29Other relevant examples of FLIR footage youtu.be/Ko2X34sN8BIyoutu.be/AzyH0M4C8TYyoutu.be/jWjpnCKcj8MAnalysis of this footage by the group promoting it: coi.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbal http://archive.is/https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbalThat group is called "To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science," and they're promising this footage is only the beginning: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tom-delonge-hints-pentagon-ufo-disclosure-beginning-article-1.3705817Excerpt from that Daily News report:"As the founder of To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science, DeLonge is working with former high-ranking officials from the Department of Defense, CIA, NSA and Lockheed Martin's “Skunk Works” aerospace program.""One of DeLonge's partners is Luis Elizondo, who ran the Pentagon's top-secret UFO investigation program that the New York Times revealed in a bombshell report Saturday.""According to DeLonge, disclosures like Saturday's report are 'only the tip of the spear,' and further “confirmation” of extraterrestrial life will continue to trickle out.""DeLonge claims the U.S. government has not only known about the existence of alien life for decades, but that they've also been actively experimenting with alien technologies."Some background on DeLonge's project...rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-delonge-announces-to-the-stars-academy-of-arts-science-w508312
First Credible UFO Footage? GoddardsJournal 2017-12-18 | I've stabilized this UFO footage here: youtu.be/_f_SN2gulEANew York Times report: http://nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html http://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.htmlThis footage is subjected to critical analysis @metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333Description of readings on the ATFLIR screen: static1.squarespace.com/static/5a09f7d9fe54ef52c4781ecf/t/5a30d34ce4966b460f8b91a3/1513314179797/Gimbal+Picture+1.pngMajor media coverage of this footage:http://omnitalkradio.weebly.com/pentagon-ufo-study-media.htmlAbout the FLIR tacking system on the jetraytheon.com/capabilities/products/atfliryoutu.be/KGEuNTzmYJQhttp://shashp.com/raytheonglobalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/atflir.htmAnalysis of this footage by the group promoting it: coi.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbal http://archive.is/https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbalThat group is called "To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science," and they're promising this footage is only the beginning: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tom-delonge-hints-pentagon-ufo-disclosure-beginning-article-1.3705817Excerpt from that Daily News report:"As the founder of To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science, DeLonge is working with former high-ranking officials from the Department of Defense, CIA, NSA and Lockheed Martin's “Skunk Works” aerospace program.""One of DeLonge's partners is Luis Elizondo, who ran the Pentagon's top-secret UFO investigation program that the New York Times revealed in a bombshell report Saturday.""According to DeLonge, disclosures like Saturday's report are 'only the tip of the spear,' and further “confirmation” of extraterrestrial life will continue to trickle out.""DeLonge claims the U.S. government has not only known about the existence of alien life for decades, but that they've also been actively experimenting with alien technologies."Some background on DeLonge's project...rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-delonge-announces-to-the-stars-academy-of-arts-science-w508312
Consent Science vs Pedo Advocate GoddardsJournal 2017-11-22 | Amos' video: youtu.be/2wtlN8ZIzc4@ 1:10 The Belmont Report videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_belmont_report.pdf@ 2:11 Graphing of frontal-cortex development over lifespanbooks.google.com/books?id=9CJj1f6IoKkC&lpg=PA417&ots=Ye9fI_pnMi&dq=%22frontal%20cortex%20development%22%20%22chronological%20age%22&pg=PA417#v=onepage&q&f=false@ 2:54 Fluid and crystallized intelligence over lifespanhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.4.3037&rep=rep1&type=pdf@ 3:07 Broad cognitive ability over lifespanpdfs.semanticscholar.org/f70c/07e72a5fabf45ca8dabcec108f37b5023b91.pdf.
March for Alt-Science GoddardsJournal 2017-05-01 | Is "Indigenous Science" really science? This question arose for me after attending the March for Science where a proponent of Indigenous Science (IS) spoke. There's no denying it, IS is a spiritual belief system. So if those are now sciences, why wasn't a speaker for "Christian Science" also invited? Sources cited @ 0:35 youtu.be/nNz8GO-d9wI?t=9741@ 2:09 youtu.be/Lz1vgfZ3etE?t=120@ 3:53 youtu.be/nFeNIOgIbzw@ 4:29 http://www.wisn.org/what-is-indigenous-science.html @ 5:02 http://www.esf.edu/indigenous-science-letter/@ 6:34 http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/scienceflowchart@ 7:29 youtu.be/nNz8GO-d9wI?t=10516@ 8:52 http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Are White Cops Who Shoot Racist? A Literature Review GoddardsJournal 2017-02-20 | Race-of-officer studies cited:@ 2:47 Fyfe (1981): http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1982-24517-001 library scan http://iangoddard.com/studies/Fyfe1981.pdf@ 4:14 Geller (1981): http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6284&context=jclc@ 5:04 Matulia (1985): ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?id=132690 library scan http://iangoddard.com/studies/Matulia1985.pdf@ 5:43 Alpert (1989): ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?id=114688 library scan: http://iangoddard.com/studies/Alpert1989.pdf@ 6:54 Geller and Scott (1992): ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=139740 library scan: http://iangoddard.com/studies/Geller1992.pdf @ 8:23 Sorensen (1993): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418829300091911@ 9:31 White (2002): https://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/Policing%20-%20situational%20DF%20article.pdf@ 10:12 Smith (2003): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-0072.t01-1-00009/full@ 10:46 White (2006): http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1098611105277199@ 11:01 McElvain & Kposowa (2008): http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/35/4/505.short@ 11:33 Fachner & Carter (2015): http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0753-pub.pdf@ 12:16 Ridgeway (2016): http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/2330443X.2015.1129918@ 13:17 Klinger (2016): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12174/epdf@ 13:39 Fryer (2016): http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdfLab studies@ 15:56 James et al (2014): researchgate.net/publication/269354127_Racial_and_ethnic_bias_in_decisions_to_shoot_seen_through_a_stronger_lens_Experimental_results_from_high-fidelity_laboratory_simulations@ 16:00 James et al (2016): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12187/epdfPolice shooting and crime data@ 17:06 washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootingsAt this time the Washington Post’s database is considered the most comprehensive. @ 17:16 CDC population data http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf@ 17:55 FBI Crime by Race 2015 ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-43 and by sex ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-42@ 0:00 Gallup Poll: Racial Tensions http://www.gallup.com/poll/190574/worries-race-relations-reach-new-high.aspxSUBSCRIBE: youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=GoddardsJournal.
Belarus: Nuclear Power Police State GoddardsJournal 2017-01-03 | Belarusian kangaroo court finds AP reporter guilty: ap.org/ap-in-the-news/2016/belarus-court-rules-against-ap-reporter-for-chernobyl-storyOriginal AP milk report: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2c7552254d51436eb186a1ccaf89ff00/ap-exclusive-test-finds-chernobyl-residue-belarus-milkBackground on Belarus: youtu.be/-psimPf1fM8“According to official post-Soviet data about 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus.” wiseinternational.org/chernobyl-disaster@ 2:46, Belarusian Association of Journalists: “The outcome of the trial dramatically narrows free expression in the country, as it casts doubts on the very possibility to hold journalistic investigations in Belarus.” https://baj.by/en/content/court-declares-journalist-wrong-orders-refute-nuclear-milk-report@ 3:08, charter97.org/en/news/2011/4/27/38075@ 3:11, indexoncensorship.org/2013/04/belarusian-journalists-draw-sentences-for-covering-opposition-rally@ 3:15, en.eurobelarus.info/news/society/2013/04/27/chernobyl-path-2013-detentions-beatings-and-1-0-people-at-the-march.html@ 3:19, indexoncensorship.org/2013/05/two-more-journalists-arrested-in-belarus@ 3:38, http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/latest-victories/prisoner-of-conscience-professor-yury-bandazhevsky-is-free@ 3:45, NAS statement on Bandazhevskyhttp://www7.nationalacademies.org/humanrights/chr_051761.htm@ 4:54, Novikau (2016): pubmed.gov/27154754@ 7:37, the Ukrainian Government's Chernobyl research program: http://nrcrm.gov.ua/en/@ 8:06, http://www.tschernobylkongress.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Arnoldshain_Doku/Malko-Consequences.pdf@ 8:14, http://elib.bsu.by/handle/123456789/16949@ 8:30, graph used: researchgate.net/publication/282291578_Infant_leukemia_in_Belarus_after_the_Chernobyl_accident@ 8:40, fallout-dose overlay from: pubmed.gov/21906781 (the location in Russia from which shown doses were estimated received less fallout than the most affected parts of Belarus)@ 9:06, Grigoriev et al (2013): pubmed.gov/23057689@ 9:57, researchgate.net/publication/271423312@ 10:04, http://enfants-tchernobyl-belarus.org/doku.php?id=base_documentaire:articles-2013:etb-136@ 10:30, Graph shows cattle receiving Prussian Blue in Belarus. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf#page=94 PB binds to Cs137 and prevents its absorption, but has no effect on Sr90. So PB-fed cattle should have a skewed Cs/Sr ratio..
Fukushima Myth: Pacific Genocide GoddardsJournal 2016-07-05 | Sources cited by time: @ 1:29 Horiguchi et al (2016) http://PubMed.com/26842814@ 2:19 Sohtome et at (2014) http://PubMed.com/25216467@ 2:26 Wada et al (2013) http://PubMed.com/23831549Sohtome et at (2014) http://PubMed.com/25216467Iwata et al (2013) http://PubMed.com/23768046Keum et al (2014) http://PubMed.com/24374805@ 3:55Total marine fishery production 2008-2012 @ http://www.maff.go.jp/e/tokei/kikaku/nenji_e/89nenji/index.html#nse0114 Fishery and Aquaculture Production, (3) Marine Fishery a Catches by Sea Regions and by PrefecturesTotal marine fishery production 2012-2014@ http://www.maff.go.jp/e/index.html12 Production of fishery and Aquaculture@ 4:47Fey et al (2015) http://PubMed.com/25583498@ 6:14 NOAA Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/events.htmlEvent locations video: http://cetus.ucsd.edu/voicesinthesea_org/videos/videoUME.html @ 7:12 http://enenews.com/scientists-link-unusual-alaska-seal-deaths-fukushima-fallout-skin-lesions-hair-loss-lethargy-pulsed-release-built-radionuclides-set-free-ice-melted-discussion-wildlife-health-implications-due@ 7:27 Dasher et al (2014) conference presentation http://www.north-slope.org/assets/images/uploads/AMSS2014_seaicescenario_Dasheretal_final.pdf@ 7:42 Ruedig et al (2016) http://PubMed.com26630034 @ 8:25 http://naturalnews.com/050718_Fukushima_radiation_whale_deaths_Pacific_Ocean.html@ 8:43 http://earthtouchnews.com/all-articles/2016/february/25/heres-your-go-to-source-for-debunking-all-the-fukushima-fables@ 9:25 youtu.be/5Hm_7Qfv440?t=19s@ 9:57Press release sent to me by one of the authors. This is their blog on it…http://www.deepseanews.com/2014/01/is-the-sea-floor-littered-with-dead-animals-due-to-radiation-no@ 11:14http://naturalnews.com/043421_Fukushima_radiation_sea_stars_bald_eagles.html@ 11:53Japanese news report on starfish proliferation, Nov, 2014.youtu.be/kmTi2JLLGJU@ 12:25Eckert et al (1997) http://www.mednscience.org/sites/default/files/products/Eckert_Sea_Star_Disease_Population_Decline.pdf@ 12:29Bates et al (2009) http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao2009/86/d086p245.pdf@ 12:44Hewson et al (2014) http://www.pnas.org/content/111/48/17278.full.pdf@ 13:46http://www.pcouncil.org/highly-migratory-species/stock-assessment-and-fishery-evaluation-safe-documents/current-hms-safe-document/pacific-wide-hms-catch@ 13:54http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/G1c_Sup_CDFW_Rpt_JUN2015BB.pdf#2@ 14:19http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/species-especes/pelagic-pelagique/herring-hareng/herspawn/pages/default5-eng.html@ 15:33radcast.org/radcast-west-coast-soil-radiation-testingWhy don't the "Pacific Genocide" loudmouths put their money where their mouths are and purchase a gamma spectrometer as @ http://www.gammaspectacular.com ?Let me guess: because they know it could prove they're wrong. @ 16:08http://radwatch.berkeley.edu@ 16:10http://ourradioactiveoceans.org.
Harambe was Heroic - RIP GoddardsJournal 2016-05-31 | Primate-behavior experts agree that Harambe's intention was protective and not aggressive: Professor Emily Bethell (primate behaviorist): "He was clearly being protective towards the boy. There were no signs of the gorilla being aggressive in the sense that he wanted to hurt the boy or anything like that. The biggest threat to the boy I would say is obviously when the gorilla moved and dragged him, that could have caused some harm, but the gorilla’s body language is definitely protective." [1] Professor Gisela Kaplan (primate behaviorist): "I can tell you silverbacks are protectors of their group. If there’s an unusual thing happening, (Harambe) needs to investigate. The fact that he went over to the child is absolutely natural behaviour but it doesn't mean he was aggressive. If he was going to attack he would’ve warned him first. The first thing they do is charge and beat their chests and as far as I know that didn’t happen." [2] Professor Frans De Waal (primatologist): "Seeing more of the videos, I got the impression that Harambe was mostly protective. He showed a combination of protection and confusion. He stood over the child, held him up, moved/dragged him through the water (at least once very roughly), stood over him again. Much of his reaction may have been triggered by public noise and yelling. There was no moment of acute aggression, as also admitted by the zoo director. If the gorilla had wanted to kill the child, one bang of his fist would have done it. People have no idea of their superhuman strength. Yet, he didn’t perform any killing move. I should also clarify, since people on Facebook have said that gorillas are dangerous predators, that this is entirely wrong. A gorilla doesn’t look at a human child as something edible. [...] The one thing that reliably makes a gorilla male mad is another male who enters his territory or gets too close to his females and young. Harambe surely knew that he was not dealing with competition, hence had no reason to attack." [3] Richard Johnstone-Scott (gorilla keeper for 46 years): "It looked quite scary. But I understand that he was actually pulling the child away from where the people who were shouting and screaming out of concern for the little chap, he pulled him away from that area. And then when he stopped, it seems to me that he helped the boy to his feet, which was quite amazing. From what I can see on that film, I don’t think that Harambe meant to hurt that child. If he had intended to hurt that child it would’ve been over in seconds. It would’ve been wham, bang, and that would be the end of it." [4] __________________________________ [1] http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gorilla-trying-kill-protect-boy-8087981[2] http://tinyurl.com/DrKaplanOnHarambe [3] facebook.com/notes/frans-de-waal-public-page/rip-harambe/10154127508562200[4] http://miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article80855652.htmlHARAMBE'S BACKGROUNDHarambe was raised from birth by Jerry Stones, who after his killing said: "He was not mean. He was a gentle little guy. He grew up to be a beautiful animal. But he was never aggressive, he was never mean." [1] Stones said the onlookers terrified by Harambe, "didn't know who he was." [2] Harambe was hand-raised by humans, and the man who knew him best, from his birth in 1999 until he left Gladys Porter Zoo in 2014, [3] said he was never aggressive. __________________________________ [1] http://youtu.be/cl3tutFqg-E?t=47s [2] http://youtu.be/CXG3mq9yfCA?t=40s [3] http://facebook.com/gladysporterzoo/photos/a.408296022454.193125.60684157454/10152273789327455IS INFANT DRAGGING NORMAL AMONG GORILLAS?Yes. The manual “Management of Gorillas in Captivity” lists four methods gorillas use to transport infants, one being: "drag--a mother walked tripedally while the infant was held in one hand away from the body." @ http://gorillassp.org/MembersSection/MembersOnlyForms/Gorilla%20Husbandry%20Manual.pdf#65A source cited by the manual describes that method as: "Infant is dragged on the ground near the mother's body as she locomotes quadrupedally or tripedally." Hoff et al (1983) @ http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02381455 Table 2 in Hoff et al : http://iangoddard.com/Hoff1983_Table2.pngFull video of the Cincinnati Zoo incident youtu.be/Zfuz7cTDNeIVideos of Harambe back when life was goodyoutu.be/jKGSmRC7FUkyoutu.be/ugTKORXROvAThankfully the child is okay and expected to fully recover of the ordeal! Saving that adventurous boy was everyone's intention.
Chernobyl Liquidators Health Research GoddardsJournal 2016-04-27 | Chernobyl liquidator studies cited: http://iangoddard.com/chernobylworkers.htmCitations in the video are listed, quoted and linked therein. The aim was to collect all studies on the health status of the Chernobyl liquidators, irrespective of the conclusions. Studies excluded are health-marker studies (such as studies of chromosomal aberrations; the goal here is investigations of the presence or absence of illnesses, not signs of their possible future occurrence), psychological studies and papers merely discussing the liquidators. Only studies investigating biological-health status and presenting original data thereabout are included. Almost 100 such studies were located and acquired at the time of posting this video.The mean SIR value reported @ 1:06 is the first meta-analysis of Chernobyl liquidators cancer studies, which underscores the curious lack of meta-analytical studies of the liquidators in the literature. Special thanks to Alfred Körblein for calculating the mean SIR value @ 1:15 and the confidence intervals for the respiratory-diseases graph @ 2:17 (based on data in Sushko et al (2014) Table 2, linked at collection above). Thanks also to Konstantin Loganovsky for answering so many questions about liquidator research.
BBC Wrong on Fukushima, Again GoddardsJournal 2016-03-12 | Response to: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35761141Expanded upon here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35761136Dose-rate conversion:http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/EN/units-converter/radiation/24-22/microsievert%2Fhour-millisievert%2Fyear" 2.8 microsievert/hour = 24.5448 millisievert/year "Study cited @ 1:40 re regional natural background dose rate of 0.05 uSv/yMalins et al (2016). Evaluation of ambient dose equivalent rates influenced by vertical and horizontal distribution of radioactive cesium in soil in Fukushima Prefecture. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 151 (2016) 38e49 http://pubmed.gov/26408835Study cited @ 3:58 Mozdarani et al (2002). Chromosomal aberrations in lymphocytes of individuals with chronic exposure to gamma radiation. Arch Irn Med, 5(1): 32-36. http://www.ams.ac.ir/AIM/NEWPUB/13/16/8/AIM/0251/32-gamma.pdfStudy cited @ 4:24 Zakeri & Assaei (2004). Cytogenetic monitoring of personnel working in angiocardiography laboratories in Iran hospitals. Mutat Res. 2004 Aug 8;562(1-2):1-9. http://pubmed.gov/15279825Study cited @ 4:48 Kendall et al (2013). A record-based case-control study of natural background radiation and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in Great Britain during 1980-2006. Leukemia. 27(1): 3–9. http://pubmed.gov/22766784Study cited @ 5:08 Spycher et al (2015). Background ionizing radiation and the risk of childhood cancer: a census-based nationwide cohort study. Environ Health Perspect, 123(6), 622-8. http://pubmed.com/25707026 Spycher's graphs are in nSv/h, which is nanosieverts per hour and which I converted for this video to microsieverts per hour by the rule: 100 nSv = 0.1 µSv. @ 8:04, BBC concedes that 122 Chernobyl deaths estimate is misleading http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-reports/ecu/banggoesthetheoryBBC: “Two viewers (one of them writing on behalf of 55 co-signatories, most of them academics from a variety of disciplines) complained that the item seriously understated the likely death toll (in relation to both Chernobyl and Fukushima) and, by ignoring scientific opinion which favoured higher estimates.”Estimate of Chernobyl deaths @ 8:47 fromEuropean Environmental Agency (2013). Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation. EEA Report 1/2013, Chap 18, p. 435, European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2.
Fukushima Myth: Declassified Fuel Releases GoddardsJournal 2016-01-02 | Story that declassified documents reveal 100% fuel loss from Fukushima Unit 4 spent fuel pool (SFP):rt.com/news/325663-fukushima-nuclear-report-declassifiedTime-framed Google search shows inundation of mostly alt-media sources with the bogus story google.com/search?q=fukushima+declassified&biw=1903&bih=905&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A12%2F10%2F2015%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F17%2F2015&tbm=Links to Reality...The declassified NRC document in question:http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1212/ML12122A949.pdf#page=7Paragraphs in question highlighted on PDF-pages 7 to 8. First flyover shows steaming Unit 4 fuel pool (March 2011) youtube.com/watch?v=gX_Zdh8fCicSteaming Unit 4 fuel pool (April 2011)youtube.com/watch?v=_UyNBoKvhQ4http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/library/archive-e.html?video_uuid=x53o2lh7&catid=61793Water sampling Unit 4 fuel pool (April 2011) youtube.com/watch?v=EdcmQUEZ0zIhttp://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2011/201104-e/110415-01e.htmlUnderwater videos in Unit 4 fuel pool (May 2011)youtube.com/watch?v=kHQtTdzBylAhttp://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/library/archive-e.html?video_uuid=t7ewl9df&catid=61793Infrared-thermography of Fukushima campushttp://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/defense/saigai/tohokuoki/temp.htmlUnderwater videos in Unit 3 fuel poolhttp://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/library/archive-e.html?video_uuid=ya09s4zk&catid=62055http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2013/201302-e/130221-01e.html.
Radiation Risk: LNT Model Tested GoddardsJournal 2015-12-22 | Pooling of dose responses animated: http://iangoddard.com/LinearNoThreshold.htmlStudies cited:National Academy of Sciences (2006). BEIR VII. http://www.nap.edu/read/11340Solid-Cancer Dose Responses (adult and mixed age) Post-BEIR VIIBoice JD et al (2006). Mortality among Radiation Workers at Rocketdyne (Atomics International), 1948–1999, Radiat Res. 166(1 Pt 1):98-115. http://pubmed.gov/16808626Cardis et al (2007). The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiat Res. 167(4):396-416. http://pubmed.gov/17388693Ronckers et al (2008). Multiple diagnostic X-rays for spine deformities and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 17(3):605-13. http://pubmed.gov/18349278Muirhead et al (2009). Mortality and cancer incidence following occupational radiation exposure: third analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. Br J Cancer. 13; 100(1): 206–212. http://pubmed.gov/19127272Ozasa et al (2012). Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases. Radiat Res. 177(3):229-43. http://pubmed.gov/22171960Schonfeld et al (2013). Solid Cancer Mortality in the Techa River Cohort (1950–2007). Radiat Res. 179(2):183-9. http://pubmed.gov/23289384Metz-Flemant et al (2013). Mortality associated with chronic external radiation exposure in the French combined cohort of nuclear workers. Occup Environ Med. 70(9):630-8. http://pubmed.gov/23716722Kashcheev et al (2015). Incidence and mortality of solid cancer among emergency workers of the Chernobyl accident: assessment of radiation risks for the follow-up period of 1992–2009. Radiat Environ Biophys. 54(1):13-23. http://pubmed.gov/25315643Davis et al (2015). Solid Cancer Incidence in the Techa River Incidence Cohort: 1956–2007. Radiat Res. 184(1):56-65. http://pubmed.gov/26121228Sokolnikov et al (2015). Radiation Effects on Mortality from Solid Cancers Other than Lung, Liver, and Bone Cancer in the Mayak Worker Cohort: 1948–2008. PLoS One. 26;10(2):e0117784. http://pubmed.gov/25719381Richardson et al (2015). Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS). BMJ. 351:h5359. http://pubmed.gov/26487649Solid-Cancer Dose Responses (children) Post-BEIR VIISpycher et al (2015). Background ionizing radiation and the risk of childhood cancer: a census-based nationwide cohort study. Environ Health Perspect. 123(6):622-8. Shown @ 6:20 but not included in the pooled graph graph due to x axis being dose rate, not cumulative dose. http://pubmed.gov/25707026Pearce et al (2012). Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 380(9840):499-505. http://pubmed.gov/22681860Mathews et al (2013). Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ. 21;346:f2360. http://pubmed.gov/23694687Kendall et al (2013). A record-based case–control study of natural background radiation and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in Great Britain during 1980–2006. Leukemia. 27(1):3-9. http://pubmed.gov/22766784Child-only leukemia graphs shown after 6:55 are from Pearce and Kendall above.Pooled solid-cancer studies animation: http://iangoddard.com/LinearNoThreshold.htmlNote: the pooled graphs use the Excess Relative Risk (ERR) standard where baseline risk is valued @ 0. Included graphs using the Relative Risk (RR) standard, where baseline risk is valued @ 1, are fit into the pooled graph by the standard definition: ERR = RR - 1 In the case of Mathews et al (2013) (fitted @ 3:21), the y axis is Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR), which is equivalent to RR. Additionally, the x axis in Mathews is a count of CT scans. As per Table 8, the average scan in the 5-year-lag group whose graph I used (given it is between the 1- and 10-year lag groups) was 4.5 mSv, with the maximum data point representing a sub-group with an average of 3.5 scans, hence 15.75 mSv is the x-axis value for the highest-dose data point (see Mathews Fig 2 for the 1-year lag and Appendix Figures A(a,b) for the 5- and 10-year lag graphs http://bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2013/05/21/bmj.f2360.DC2/matj009041.ww_default.pdf#page=8 , of which I used the 5-year lag)..
Fukushima Thyroid Cancer? GoddardsJournal 2015-10-22 | Study critiquedTsuda et al. (2015). Thyroid Cancer Detection by Ultrasound Among Residents Ages 18 Years and Younger in Fukushima, Japan: 2011 to 2014. Epidemiology. Oct 5. http://pubmed.com/26441345Contrary opinion of Fukushima Medical University scientists conducting the screening campaign: http://fmu-global.jp/?wpdmdl=710http://www.cancernetwork.com/ata-2015-thyroid-cancer/role-fukushima-radiation-unclear-pediatric-thyroid-cancersStudy predicting magnitude of detection bias in the Fukushima screening campaign:Jacob et al. (2014). Ultrasonography survey and thyroid cancer in the Fukushima Prefecture. Radiat Environ Biophys. 53(2):391-401. http://pubmed.com/24398917 And: Radiat Environ Biophys. 2014 53(2):403.Slide show by Jacob: Expected influence of the accident on thyroid cancershttps://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Peter%20Jacob%20Expected%20influence%20of%20the%20accident%20on%20thyroid%20cancers%20November%202014%20%28final%29.pdf Screening prevalence cited @ 3:05 is from the same source data used by the headline study here, in Table 8, page 9http://fmu-global.jp/?wpdmdl=1222#page=9Graph @ 4:10 derived from:http://www.nap.edu/read/11340/chapter/14#311Graphs from 4:25 derived from:Williams D. (2015). Thyroid Growth and Cancer. Eur Thyroid J, 4(3), 164-173.http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/437263 Japanese Cancer Registry data @ 5:09 from:http://web.archive.org/web/20121030214901/http://ganjoho.jp/pro/statistics/en/table_download.html.
Re: Helen Caldicott: Fukushimas Ongoing Impact GoddardsJournal 2015-03-30 | Caldicott's lecture announced: http://psr.org/chapters/washington/helen-caldicott-fukushimas.html@ 0:47 Caldicott lecture: http://youtu.be/4qX-YU4nq-g?t=22m24s@ 1:46 Hoax fallout map: http://snopes.com/photos/technology/fallout.asp@ 2:11 Dose at which 50% of humans will die: http://iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/25/054/25054928.pdf#page=17@ 3:44 Caldicott lecture: http://youtu.be/4qX-YU4nq-g?t=27m56s@ 4:51 Radiation Defense Project (defunct group whose data Caldicott used, their site saved @ archive.org): http://web.archive.org/web/*/radiationdefense.jp Their map: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://doc.radiationdefense.jp/dojyou_map_en.pdf Their soil samples: http://web.archive.org/web/20120112053514/http://doc.radiationdefense.jp/dojyou1_en.pdf@ 5:01 Chernobyl exclusion zone ground-deposition criterion noted here: http://oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl-1995.pdf#page=26 and here: http://iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/31/056/31056864.pdf#page=5@ 6:17 Caldicott lecture: http://youtu.be/4qX-YU4nq-g?t=28m37s@ 7:50 Fallout in seawater near Fukushima: http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/en/contents/8000/7742/24/engan.pdf@ 8:12 Fallout in fish in Japanese waters: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es400491b See: http://pubs.acs.org/action/showImage?doi=10.1021/es400491b&iName=master.img-001.jpg See also: http://pubs.acs.org/action/showImage?doi=10.1021/es505064d&iName=master.img-001.jpg See also a graph showing decrease of Fukushima fallout in tuna as they swam from Japanese waters to Californian waters, which was equivalent to moving from less to more diluted fallout : youtu.be/eOYHjDpu_RY?t=7m3s In all cases, dilution reduced biological concentrations of fallout, contra Caldicott's claim that biological systems magically "re-concentrate" radionuclides if they're diluted. @ 8:24 Fallout in seawater and fish in Japanese waters: http://nature.com/srep/2015/150312/srep09016/pdf/srep09016.pdf.
Background Radiation & Cancer in Children GoddardsJournal 2015-03-11 | Spycher et al (2015). Background ionizing radiation and the risk of childhood cancer: a census-based nationwide cohort study, Environ Health Perspect, DOI:10.1289/ehp.1408548. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455589University of Bern news report: http://www.ispm.unibe.ch/about_us/news/background_ionising_radiation_affects_cancer_risk_in_children/index_eng.htmlKendall et al (2013). A record-based case-control study of natural background radiation and the incidence of childhood leukaemia and other cancers in Great Britain during 1980–2006. Leukemia. 27(1): 3–9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic... And as a 130-page report, free online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...Two slide presentations by a co-author of Kendall (2013) that give a good sense of the context of research in which Kendall (2013) occurs and its unique features: (1) http://www.melodi-online.eu/doc/04_wa... (2) http://www.melodi-online.eu/doc/melod... @ 6:24 Table E11 in Kendall (2013): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...@ 6:28 Table S3 in Spycher (2015): http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/u...@ 7:29 Chernobyl exclusion zones, dose-rate criteria for: http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/SRNL-STI-...@ 7:29 The dose range in Spycher et al is given on page 11: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/u... as 55-383 nSv/h, converting nano- to micro-sieverts is 0.055 - 0.383 µSv/h (as @ https://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-e... ), and rounding is 0.06 - 0.4 µSv/h as @ 7:29.Previously I critiqued two examples of advocacy against exclusion-zone policy, first by the nuclear-energy advocate Jim Al Khalili : http://youtu.be/P-4YJfwF1MQ And also by a team of professors from MIT who designed a lab experiment that, based on what prior research had shown, guaranteed the results they wanted, which they then used to try to persuade the public that evacuation zones are unnecessary : http://youtu.be/e8YFe6Q08M8 Be sure to also the see the video description for links. It's a not-uncommon sentiment that the Fukushima evacuations have caused more suffering than they will prevent, hence evacuations ought not take place. This is noted since some unfamiliar with post-Fukushima nuclear advocacy are astonished as they should be to hear anyone suggesting people should just be left to live in the next nuclear-disaster zone. Review of previous background-radiation research: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads... And in greater depth from page 88: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads....
☢ Fukushima ☢ West Coast Impact GoddardsJournal 2015-02-17 | Studies cited in order presented...@ 0:12 & 2:29Behrens et al (2012). Model simulations on the long-term dispersal of 137Cs released into the Pacific Ocean off Fukushima. Environ Res Lett 7:034004. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034004@ 1:39Folsom & Mohanrao (1962). Variation of Cs-137 in California Coastal Sea Water. J Rad Res 3(1): 1-3. http://jrr.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/1/1.full.pdf@ 1:54 the Cs137 measure for 'now' is the average of shore-line measures from 2014 from: http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html@ 2:03Povinec et al (2013). Cesium, iodine and tritium in NW Pacific waters – a comparison of the Fukushima impact with global fallout. Biogeosciences 10(8):5481-5496. http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/5481/2013/bg-10-5481-2013.pdf#page=4@ 2:29Rossi et al (2013). Multi-decadal projections of surface and interior pathways of the Fukushima cesium-137 radioactive plume. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanogr Res Pap 80: 37–46. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096706371300112X @ 2:29Rossi et al (2014). Corrigendum to “Multi-decadal projections of surface and interior pathways of the Fukushima cesium-137 radioactive plume”. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanogr Res Pap, 10.1016/j.dsr.2014.08.007 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259138859_Corrigendum_to_Multi-decadal_projections_of_surface_and_interior_pathways_of_the_Fukushima_Cesium-137_radioactive_plume_Deep-Sea_Research_I_80_%282013%29_3746@ 2:29Nakano & Povinec (2012). Long-term simulations of the 137Cs dispersion from the Fukushima accident in the world ocean. J Enviro Rad. 111: 109–115. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X11002967@ 3:06Abbot & Mix (1979). Radiation effects of tritiated seawater on development of the goose barnacle, Pollicipes polymerus. Health Phys. 36(3):283-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/489281@ 4:45UNSCEAR (2008). Sources and effects of ionizing radiation, Vol II Annexes C,D E, page 57. http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_E.pdf#page=57@ 4:57Driver (1994). Ecotoxicity Literature Review of Selected Hanford Site Contaminants, PNL-9394, Table 2.1. http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/25/054/25054928.pdf#page=17@ 5:11FAO (2011). Review of the state of world marine fishery resources. Technical Paper 569, Fig A3. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2389e/i2389e.pdf#page=24@ 5:42Potassium radioactivity in seawater 12 Bq/liter = 12,000 Bq/m^3 http://www2.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/15/3.html@ 6:11 Peak level near-Fukushima from (see Figure 2): Buesseler (2011). Impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants on Marine Radioactivity. Environ Sci Technol. 1;45(23):9931-5. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es202816c#page=2@ 6:27Recent Fukushima ocean Cs-137 fallout from : http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/smp/indexold-e.html Radioactivity has stabilized around 1,000 Bq/m³ near discharge points within the "Near Fukushima" area, with a slight downward trend, as @ sites T-1(s) and T-2-1(S) graphed here: http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/en/contents/8000/7742/24/engan.pdf Note: 1 Bq/L = 1,000 Bq/m³@ 7:03Madigan et al (2013). Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to California. Environ Sci Technol, 47(5), 2287−2294. http://micheli.stanford.edu/pdf/Madiganetal_PNAS_2012.pdf@ 8:02FDA food-safety level for Cesium 134+137 http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/UCM251056.pdfAs per http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/common.html "1 cubic meter of water is approximately 1000 kilograms," the FDA's Cs(134+137) level of 1,200 Bq/kg is approximately 1,200,000 Bq/m³ of seawater.@ 8:42 & 11:32Fisher et al (2013). Evaluation of radiation doses and associated risk from the Fukushima nuclear accident to marine biota and human consumers of seafood. PNAS, 110(26), Table 1. http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10670.full.pdf@ 9:27Johansen et al (2015). Radiological dose rates to marine fish from the fukushima daiichi accident: the first three years across the north pacific. Environ Sci Technol. 49(3):1277-85. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25532541 Table S5: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/es505064d/suppl_file/es505064d_si_001.pdf#page=14Note: nobody eats the fish in the FDNPP port, fishing other than for testing is banned there. Johansen and colleagues' Table S5 data simply assumes if those fish were consumed, then the doses would be....
☢ Fukushima ☢ Fearmongering Debunked GoddardsJournal 2014-11-17 | References in order cited…Russia Today (2011). Busby: 400,000 to develop cancer in 200 km radius of Fukushima. http://youtu.be/S0H-mtsdsggBusby (2011). Fukushima cancer risk calculation. http://llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukushimariskcalc2013.htmBusby (2011). 'Tondel Method' Described. http://youtu.be/PYgBgkZCobQ?t=9m4sTondel et al. (2004). Increase of regional total cancer incidence in north Sweden due to the Chernobyl accident? J Epidemiol Community Health, 58(12):1011-6. http://pubmed.gov/15547062BBC (2004). Chernobyl 'caused Sweden cancers'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4028729.stmStudies of Chernobyl Fallout & Cancer in Scandinavia @ 3:49Alinaghizadeh, Tondel, Walinder. (2014). Cancer incidence in northern Sweden before and after the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2014 Aug;53(3):495-504. http://pubmed.gov/24811728Auvinen et al. (2014). Chernobyl fallout and cancer incidence in Finland 1988–2007. Int J Cancer, 134(9):2253-63. http://pubmed.gov/24135935Kurttio et al. (2013). Fallout from the Chernobyl accident and overall cancer incidence in Finland. Cancer Epidemiol, 37(5):585-92. http://pubmed.gov/23800520But et al. (2006). No increase in thyroid cancer among children and adolescents in Finland due to Chernobyl accident. Eur J Cancer, 42(8):1167-71. http://pubmed.gov/16632347Tondel et al. (2006). Increased Incidence of Malignancies in Sweden After the Chernobyl Accident—A Promoting Effect? Am J Ind Med, 49(3):159-68. http://pubmed.gov/16421911Tondel et al. (2004). Increase of regional total cancer incidence in north Sweden due to the Chernobyl accident? J Epidemiol Community Health, 58(12):1011-6. http://pubmed.gov/15547062Tondel et al. (1996). Incidence of neoplasms in ages 0-19 y in parts of Sweden with high 137Cs fallout after the Chernobyl accident. Health Phys, 71(6):947-50. http://pubmed.gov/8919079 Parkin et al. (1996). Childhood leukaemia in Europe after Chernobyl: 5 year follow-up. Br J Cancer, 73(8):1006-12. http://pubmed.gov/8611419Auvinen et al. (1994). Fallout from Chernobyl and incidence of childhood leukaemia in Finland, 1976-92. BMJ, 309(6948):151-4. http://pubmed.gov/8044092Hjalmars et al. (1994). Risk of acute childhood leukaemia in Sweden after the Chernobyl reactor accident. BMJ, 309(6948):154-7. http://pubmed.gov/8044093Ericson & Källén. (1994). Pregnancy outcome in Sweden after the Chernobyl accident. Environ Res, 67(2):149-59. http://pubmed.gov/7982390A-bomb Cohort, Sources for Data Cited @ 5:55Ozasa et al. (2012). Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003:An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases. Radiat Res, 177(3):229-43. http://pubmed.gov/22171960Hsu et al. (2013). The incidence of leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma among atomic bomb survivors: 1950-2001. Radiat Res, 179(3):361-82. http://pubmed.gov/23398354Studies Predicting Fukushima Cancer Morbidity & Mortality @ 7:00von Hippel. (2011). The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 67(5) http://thebulletin.org/2011/september/radiological-and-psychological-consequences-fukushima-daiichi-accidentTen Hoevea & Jacobson. (2012). Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Energy Environ Sci, 5(9):8743-8757. http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/TenHoeveEES12.pdfEvangeliou et al. (2014). Global and local cancer risks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident as seen from Chernobyl: a modeling study for radiocaesium ((134)Cs &(137)Cs). Environ Int, 64:17-27. http://pubmed.gov/24361922BONUS: Critique of Busby's second way of calculating 400,000 Fukushima cancershttp://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/32/3/B01/pdf/0952-4746_32_3_B01.pdfFurther expert critique of Busby risk modelinghttp://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/24/4/E02/pdf/0952-4746_24_4_E02.pdf.
⚛ Chernobyl Cancer Study Confirms Risk ⚛ GoddardsJournal 2014-10-28 | All studies cited…New study reviewed Kashcheev et al. (2014). Incidence and mortality of solid cancer among emergency workers of the Chernobyl accident: assessment of radiation risks for the follow-up period of 1992-2009. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. Oct 15. http://pubmed.gov/25315643Meta-analyses of radiation-worker studies cited @ 1:56 Jacob et al. (2009). Is cancer risk of radiation workers larger than expected? Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 66(12):789–96. http://pubmed.gov/19570756Relevant quote of Jacob: "The ICRP and BEIR VII base their DDREFs mainly on radiobiological results including animal data, which, in their majority, suggest a characteristically low risk for low-dose-rate exposures. It remains an open question as to why this characteristic is apparently not reflected in the human epidemiological data."Cardis et al. (2007). The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: estimates of radiation-related cancer risks. Radiation Research, 167(4):396-416. http://pubmed.gov/17388693Relevant quote of Cardis: "Risk estimates per unit dose from this study are statistically compatible with estimates that serve as the basis for current radiation protection standards. They range from values lower than the BEIR VII estimates up to values that exceed these estimates by a factor of about six for both solid cancers and leukemia. This is the largest analytical epidemiological study of the effects of low-dose protracted exposures to ionizing radiation to date."So the radiation-worker epidemiology (involving slow-dose rates) match or exceed the risk of BEIR VII, which is based on the atomic-bomb cohort (involving a fast-dose rate). So it seems dubious that slow dose rates are less harmful, and Kashcheev (2014) adds to that impression. Other Chernobyl worker solid-cancer studies cited @ 2:05Rahu et al. (2013). Site-specific cancer risk in the Baltic cohort of Chernobyl cleanup workers, 1986-2007. Eur J Cancer. 2013 Sep;49(13):2926-33. http://pubmed.gov/23683549Prysyazhnyuk et al. (2007). Twenty years after the Chernobyl accident: solid cancer incidence in various groups of the Ukrainian population. Radiat Environ Biophys. 46(1):43-51. http://pubmed.gov/17279359Ivanov (2007). Late cancer and noncancer risks among Chernobyl emergency workers of Russia. Health Phys. 93(5):470-9. http://pubmed.gov/18049223Ivanov et at. (2004). Solid cancer incidence among the Chernobyl emergency workers residing in Russia: estimation of radiation risks. Radiat Environ Biophys. 43(1):35-42. http://pubmed.gov/14762668Graph of A-bomb solid-cancer latency @ 2:31 derived fromDouple et al. (2011). Long-term radiation-related health effects in a unique human population: lessons learned from the atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Disaster Med Public Health Prep, 5 Suppl 1:S122-33. http://pubmed.gov/21402804Historic insights into A-bomb cohort @ 2:54Beebe et al. (1971). Studies of the Mortality of A-Bomb Survivors 4. Mortality and radiation dose, 1950-1966. Radiation Research, 48(3):613-649. http://pubmed.gov/5137468 Graph & chart on required sample size @ 5:21 & 6:29Brenner et al. (2003). Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know. PNAS, 100(24):13761–66.http://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761.full.pdf National Research Council (1995). Radiation Dose Reconstruction for Epidemiologic Uses. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, p. 73. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4760&page=73Estimate of Chernobyl death tolls @ 8:11 fromEuropean Environmental Agency (2013). Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation. EEA Report 1/2013, Chap 18, p. 435, European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2.
Is Ebola Airborne? A Literature Review GoddardsJournal 2014-10-21 | All studies cited...Lab Aerosol Ebola Transmission StudiesJohnson et al. (1995). Lethal experimental infections of rhesus monkeys by aerosolized Ebola virus. International Journal of Experimental Pathology, 76(4):227-36. http://pubmed.gov/7547435Geisbert et al. (2008). Vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccines protect nonhuman primates against aerosol challenge with Ebola and Marburg viruses. Vaccine, 26(52):6894-900. http://pubmed.gov/18930776Reed et al. (2011). Aerosol exposure to Zaire ebolavirus in three nonhuman primate species: differences in disease course and clinical pathology. Microbes and Infection, 13(11):930-6. http://pubmed.gov/21651988Herbert et al. (2013). Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus replicon particle vaccine protects nonhuman primates from intramuscular and aerosol challenge with ebolavirus. Journal of Virology, 87(9):4952-64. http://pubmed.gov/23408633Twenhafel et al. (2013). Pathology of experimental aerosol Zaire ebolavirus infection in rhesus macaques. Veterinary Pathology, 50(3):514-29. http://pubmed.gov/23262834Smither et al. (2014). Post-exposure efficacy of Oral T-705 (Favipiravir) against inhalational Ebola virus infection in a mouse model. Antiviral Research, 104:153-5. http://pubmed.gov/24462697Review quoted @ 1:36Peters & LeDuc. (1999). An Introduction to Ebola: The Virus and the Disease. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 179(Suppl 1):ix–xvi. http://pubmed.gov/9988154Natural Aerosol Ebola Transmission EvidenceJaax et al. (1995). Transmission of Ebola virus (Zaire strain) to uninfected control monkeys in a biocontainment laboratory. The Lancet, 346(8991-8992):1669-71. http://pubmed.gov/8551825Weingartl et al. (2012). Transmission of Ebola virus from pigs to non-human primates. Scientific Reports, 2:811. http://pubmed.gov/23155478Alimonti et al. (2014). Evaluation of transmission risks associated with in vivo replication of several high containment pathogens in a biosafety level 4 laboratory. Scientific Reports, 4:5824. http://pubmed.gov/25059478Quote @ 2:35 that pigs suffer ebola respiratory disease more is from:Kobinger et al (2011). Replication, pathogenicity, shedding, and transmission of Zaire ebolavirus in pigs. Journal of infectious diseases, 204(2):200-8. http://pubmed.gov/21571728Human Ebola Transmission EpidemiologyWHO Commission (1978). Ebola haemorrhagic fever in Zaire, 1976. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 56(2):271-93. http://pubmed.gov/307456Baron et al. (1983). Ebola virus disease in southern Sudan: hospital dissemination and intrafamilial spread. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 61(6):997-1003. http://pubmed.gov/6370486Roels et al. (1999). Ebola hemorrhagic fever, Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1995: risk factors for patients without a reported exposure. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 179(Suppl 1):S92–7. http://pubmed.gov/9988170Dowell et al. (1999). Transmission of Ebola hemorrhagic fever: a study of risk factors in family members, Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1995. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 179(Suppl 1):S87–91. http://pubmed.gov/9988169Francesconi et al. (2003). Ebola hemorrhagic fever transmission and risk factors of contacts, Uganda. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 9(11):1430-37. http://pubmed.gov/14718087WHO. (2003). Outbreak(s) of Ebola haemorrhagic fever, Congo and Gabon, October 2001- July 2002. Weekly Epidemiological Report, 78(26):223-225. http://pubmed.gov/15571171WHO. (2005). Outbreak of Ebola haemorrhagic fever in Yambio, south Sudan, April –June 2004. Weekly epidemiological record, 80(43):370–5. (cases 17) http://pubmed.gov/16285261Wamala et al. (2010). Ebola hemorrhagic fever associated with novel virus strain, Uganda, 2007-2008. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 16(7): 1087-92. http://pubmed.gov/20587179 MacNeil et al. (2011). Filovirus outbreak detection and surveillance: lessons from Bundibugyo. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 204 Suppl 3:S761-7. http://pubmed.gov/21987748.
Sexual Ethics are Secular Ethics GoddardsJournal 2014-10-07 | Refutation of William Lane Craig's claim that atheists cannot understand sexual ethics by way of demonstrating that sexual ethics are derivable from facts of nature and logic. William Lane Craig quote: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-22Prime directive quote: Bourniquel & Bickle, (2002). Biochimie, 84(11). http://PubMed.com/12595133The Belmont Report, Ethical Principles and Guidelines... http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html(PDF) http://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_belmont_report.pdfSources of graphs of cognitive development, in order shown:Li et al (2004). Transformations in the Couplings Among Intellectual Abilities and Constituent Cognitive Processes Across the Life Span. Psychological Science, 15(3), 155-63. http://PubMed.com/15016286McArdle et al (2002). Comparative Longitudinal Structural Analyses of the Growth and Decline of Multiple Intellectual Abilities Over the Life Span. Developmental Psychology, 38(1), 115–142. http://PubMed.com/11806695Watson et al (2011). The magical letters P, F, C, and sometimes U: the rise and fall of executive attention with the development of prefrontal cortex. Chapter 16 in Handbook of Life-Span Development. (ed) Fingerman KL, Springer Publishing Co. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Handbook_of_Life_Span_Development_Co.html?id=303V2P3cvUwC.
Sagan Defended: Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence GoddardsJournal 2014-06-23 | A defense of the maxim "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" using logical semantics, demonstrating how critics of the maxim conflate 'absence of evidence' with 'negative evidence'. Works cited in order cited...Hall BK, Hallgrímsson B. (2007). Strickberger's Evolution. Jones and Bartlett Publishers.http://www.amazon.com/dp/0763700665Youtube search : "absence of evidence is evidence"http://youtube.com/results?search_query=%22absence+of+evidence+is+evidence%22Stenger, V. (2010) Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence. Huffington Post, August 14, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.htmlYudkowsky, E. (2007) Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence. LessWrong.com, August. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absenceSober, E. (2009) Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence -- Evidential Transitivity in Connection with Fossils, Fishing, Fine-Tuning, and Firing Squads." Philosophical Studies, 143: 63-90.http://sober.philosophy.wisc.edu/selected-papers/PS-2009-Absense_of_Evidence.pdf?attredirects=0Music @ the opening is Vivaldi's Spring thanks to Julia Fischer and the Academy of St Martin in the Fieldshttp://youtube.com/watch?v=aFHPRi0ZeXE
Fukushima Health Effects in North America? GoddardsJournal 2014-04-24 | Critique of two studies claiming 14,000 deaths and disease in North American caused by the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.Letter by Yuri Hiranuma to the vanity journal that published the congenital-hypothyroidism study : http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-letter-to-editor-regarding.html The journal rejected the letter w/o explanation. The journal publisher is on Beall's "List of Predatory Publishers 2014" : http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014The two studies critiquedMangano J, Sherman J, Busby C. (2013). Changes in confirmed plus borderline cases of congenital hypothyroidism in California as a function of environmental fallout from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown. Open Journal of Pediatrics. 3(4). http://file.scirp.org/Html/16-1330260_40157.htmMangano J, Sherman J. (2011). An unexpected mortality increase in the United States follows arrival of the radioactive plume from Fukushima: is there a correlation? Int J Health Serv, 42(1): 47-64. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22403909Data sourcesCalifornia Dept of Public Health Newborn Screening Programhttp://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/NBS/Pages/default.aspxPhone: 510-412-1500Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MMWR Table III (Mortality) http://wonder.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwrmort.aspOne of the authors of the study critiqued in this video commented on this video here (my reply is below his comment): http://atomicinsights.com/mangano-sherman-take/#comment-88015Thanks to Alfred Körblein (http://researchgate.net/profile/Alfred_Koerblein ), who guided our analyses with his expertise in statistics. Alfred also authored a letter to the editor published in respone to Mangano & Sherman's 14,000 deaths study: http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,11,15;journal,7,173;linkingpublicationresults,1:300313,1 Thanks also to Mattias Lantz (http://katalog.uu.se/empinfo/?id=N1-152 ) for his valuable input and analyses of these studies. Lantz has also posted many cogent analyses of Magano & Sherman studies : http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?s=lantz+mangano 福島第一
MIT No-Evacuations Study Debunked GoddardsJournal 2012-06-05 | MIT No-Evacuation-Study Press Release:http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/prolonged-radiation-exposure-0515.htmlMIT Awarded Nuclear Promotion Grant:http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/mit-doe-grants-fellowships.htmlMIT Plan For 3X More Nuclear Energy:http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/Critique of the MIT no-evacuations study: http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=6081The MIT Study:Olipitz W, Wiktor-Brown D, Shuga J, Pang B, McFaline J, Lonkar P, Thomas A, Mutamba JT, Greenberger JS, Samson LD, Dedon PC, Yanch JC, Engelward BP. Integrated Molecular Analysis Indicates Undetectable DNA Damage in Mice after Continuous Irradiation at ~400-fold Natural Background Radiation. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Apr 26. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22538203Tanaka et al 2009, find significant genotoxicity at 1/3rd MIT dose:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19267556Calculate number cells required to detect significance in Tanaka at 105 mGy (total dose in MIT study): http://iangoddard.com/cell_detection-limit.xlsGoogle search for Chernobyl-induced genetic damage:google.com/search?q=chernobyl+chromosomal+aberrationsFucic et al 2008, meta-analysis of Chernobyl-induced genetic damage:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18155954Geiger counter near Fukushima Daiichihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FoWRVA6mMY#t=7m20sNote: data in my graph of Tanaka 2009 are from Dr Tanaka (email).###Below is my letter to the editors of Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) who published Olipitz et l. (2012). My letter below was in response to the author's response to a letter from Peter Melzer that raised some issues addressed in this video. Letter from Melzer: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205595Reply to Melzer from Olipitz co-authors: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205595rHowever, it turns out that the EHP does not accept replies to a reply by authors to a response letter. Nevertheless the points I raised below are salient to critique of the defense by colleagues of Olipitz against some critiques raised in this video...###Dear editors, In their response to Melzer, Engelward and Yanch (2012) make an erroneous claim about the methods of Tanaka et al. (2009). They claim: "In his letter, Melzer correctly points out that data of Tanaka et al. (2009) show a statistically significant increase in chromzosome aberrations in cells from mice exposed to 1 mGy/day up to a total of 1,000 mGy. However, after exposure to that same dose-rate for a longer period (up to 8,000 mGy), there was no statistically significant change in the number of chromosome aberrations."Even before consulting Tanaka et al. (2009) the careful reader can see a problem. For a dose-rate of 1 mGy per day to accumulate to a total dose of 8,000 mGy requires 8,000 days, or about 22 years. However, mice only live 2 to 3 years. So immediately we can see that their claim cannot be true. And in fact, consistent with mouse lifespan, Tanaka et al. (2009) only exposed the 1 mGy/day dose group for 615 days for a cumulative dose of 615 mGy. This is stated throughout its text, tables and figures and was additionally confirmed in my personal correspondence with Tanaka.So Engelward and Yanch rebutted Melzer's report of an error in Oliptiz et al. (2012) with yet another error. Contrary to their portrayal of Tanaka et al. in Oliptiz et al., Tanaka and colleagues did in fact report a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations at an even lower dose-rate than Oliptiz and colleagues used.The source of Engelward and Yanch's confusion is that Tanaka et al. contains a mathematical model of hypothetical exposure of the 1 mGy/day dose group for 8,000 days. However, while significance disappeared in that model, it did not reflect real empirical data as Engelward and Yanch errantly assert. Given this, perhaps they will consider the recommendation they made (Yanch & Engelward, 2012) in reply to Beyea that "we need to begin relying on data and not on hypothetical models." References Engelward B, Yanch J. 2012. Radiation Dose‑Rate: Engelward and Yanch Respond. Environ Health Perspect. 120:a417--a418. @ http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205595rOlipitz W, Wiktor-Brown D, Shuga J, Pang B, McFaline J, Lonkar P, et al. 2012. Integrated molecular analysis indicates undetectable change in DNA damage in mice after continuous irradiation at ~ 400-fold natural background radiation. Environ Health Perspect 120:1130--1136. @ http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104294Tanaka K, Kohda A, Satoh K, Toyokawa T, Ichinohe K, Ohtaki M, et al. 2009. Dose-rate effectiveness for unstable-type chromosome aberrations detected in mice after continuous irradiation with low-dose-rate γ rays. Radiat Res 171(3):290--301. @ http://pubmed.com/19267556Yanch J, Engelward B. 2012. DNA Damage after Continuous Irradiation: Yanch and Engelward Respond. Environ Health Perspect. 120:a383--a384. @ http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205564r.
☢ Low-Dose Radiation ☢ NEW A-Bomb Study GoddardsJournal 2012-05-15 | New atomic-bomb survivor studyOzasa et al, 2012 http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1Radiation Effects Research Foundationhttp://www.rerf.jp/general/research_e/longevify.html Prior A-bomb-survivor studies covered@ 6:10, Pierce & Preston 2000http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10931690@ 7:35, Chomentowski et al, 2000http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10669550@ 12:32, Preston et al, 2004http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15447045Study on genetic damage cited@ 10:13, Bhatti et al, 2010http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20602108Quote of Pierce & Preston at @ 15:25 from Pierce & Preston 2000 above.Dr Shunichi Yamashita quote @ 11:23 fromhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/world/studying-the-fukushima-aftermath-people-are-suffering-from-radiophobia-a-780810.htmlDr Allison's comments @ 11:36 fromhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDIENaOo-BwJapanese transcription of this video with detailed graphics http://www.chernobyl-chubu-jp.org/_userdata/New%20A-Bomb%20study.pdf
Fukushima Unit 3 Fuel Pool Did Not Explode GoddardsJournal 2012-04-09 | Footage Used & Addition Evidence: March 16, 2011 flyover of Fukushima:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV_r5Ifp8-I&hd=1http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2011/201103-e/110317-01e.htmlMarch 17 saw the first effort to add water to the fuel pools:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_log,_March_2011#Thursday.2C_17_Marchhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00YjEOpnsCc#t=30sInfrared Imagery:http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/defense/saigai/tohokuoki/temp.htmlUnit 3 overhead shot, March 24:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sYHnHBCJZoY/TZXtU9CS5jI/AAAAAAAAh7U/inU8EnJAcL0/s1600/3.jpgUnit 3 directly above fuel pool, brief clip in news report:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThB9yg8wCSY#t=0m24sUnit 3 fuel pool, underwater footage:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KugIrnThul0#Additional Evidence More footage of girders just underwater at NW pool corner:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Okncug11aY#t=6m4sUnit 3 maximal damage is symmetrical around the containment, not the pool:http://iangoddard.com/journal/fukushima/damagePattern03b.jpghttp://iangoddard.com/journal/fukushima/damagePattern02.jpgThe damage at the NW corner was the most severe as it blew out the wall even down to the lower floor, the deepest damage inflicted on the building. The plume that blows out of the NW corner appears simultaneous with the fiery plume over the pool. They are the first and the fastest plumes to appear, and were symmetrical around the containment, not the pool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9zXxI8Zihs#t=17s
Fukushima Unit 3 Reactor-Well Cap Fractured? GoddardsJournal 2012-03-06 | See the IR map with overhead crane placed where it fell:http://iangoddard.com/journal/fukushima/IRwithCrane.pngBecause the trolly on the overhead crane sits directly over the well cap and obscures any heat signatures underneath it, and because we see linear heat signatures on either end of the trolly that could be connected as one continuous line, there may be a crack straight across the well cap. Infrared Imageryhttp://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/defense/saigai/tohokuoki/temp.htmlTepco's August 24 video of Unit 3Tepco's raw video file (zip) http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/110311/images/110924_02.zipFull Tepco video on youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22MdqwR3558Tepco handout about the video (pdf):http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_110924_02-e.pdf
☢ Low-Dose Radiation ☢ DOE Study GoddardsJournal 2012-01-23 | Sources cited:DOE: "Supporting Our Nation's Nuclear Industry"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LkHYerK8y8DOE low-dose study: Neumaier T, Swenson J, Pham C, Polyzos A, Lo AT, Yang P, Dyball J, Asaithamby A, Chen DJ, Bissell MJ, Thalhammer S, Costes SV. Evidence for formation of DNA repair centers and dose-response nonlinearity in human cells. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 2012 Jan 10;109(2):443-8.http://lowdose.energy.gov/pdf/2011/PNAS.pdfDOE low-dose study press releasehttp://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiationDOE Low Dose Radiation Research Program: http://lowdose.energy.govEvidence Pyramidhttp://library.downstate.edu/EBM2/2100.htmBhatti et al (2010) finds high genetic damage at low doses in vivohttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3075914Critique of the DOE study by Ian Fairliehttp://www.ianfairlie.org/uncategorized/recent-costesbissel-paper-aka-usdoe-paper
Fukushima Radiation Not Safe! GoddardsJournal 2011-12-12 | Studies cited in order presented:National Academy of Sciences Low-Dose Radiation Reporthttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=R1Data tables used, 12D-1 and 12D-2: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=311http://www.nap.edu/openbook/030909156X/gifmid/311.gifHow to scale that data to unique exposure scenarios, Annex 12D, Example 1: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=31015-country study of nuclear-worker cancer riskhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17388693Table 5 shown is from Part II of the study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17388694 http://iangoddard.com/15countries_Part2_Table5.pngJacob et al. (2009) meta-analysis of nuclear-worker studieshttp://oem.bmj.com/content/66/12/789.full.pdfEditorial on Jacob et al. quotedhttp://oem.bmj.com/content/66/12/785.extractChromosomal translocations are associated with cancerhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3152359Boffetta et al. (2007) more chromoHarm entails more cancerhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17071846Bhatti et al. (2010) meta-analysis of chromosomal damage http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3075914# Addendum #Since I posted this video, the 'Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' published a special edition on low-dose radiation, the lead article of whichhttp://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/3/10.full.pdfmatches and thereby corroborates the case I present in this video. It also covers additional research and nuclear-industry efforts to derail scientific investigation of radiation risks.Some friends created PDF files of this video available hereIn Englishdocs.google.com/file/d/0B5qUOl0_hAfneW9rWmJ0akNMZEk/editIn Japanesedocs.google.com/file/d/0B5qUOl0_hAfnWmtwMkNRb0Z2WDA/edithttp://www.chernobyl-chubu-jp.org/_userdata/Fukushima%20Radiation%20NOT%20SAFE!.pdf
Fukushima: BBC Debunked GoddardsJournal 2011-09-22 | About a year after this video was posted, BBC blocked it for copyright violation: http://iangoddard.com/journal/fukushima/Screen%20shot%202012-08-24%20at%207.27.57%20PM.png I appealed on Fair Use and won.Sources cited The BBC Programhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014s49zhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vywZ84mixs@ 1:04 CNN Report Quotedhttp://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-06/world/japan.nuclear.meltdown_1_nuclear-reactors-fuel-rods-tokyo-electric-power?_s=PM:WORLD@ 1:29 Meltdown timing table form Yomiuri Dailyweb.archive.org/web/20130323014750/http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110607005367.htm@ 2:32 Atomic-Bombing Survivors Study http://www.dmphp.org/cgi/reprint/5/Supplement_1/S122In light of that study, it's worth noting that the Japanese government calculated that the Cesium-137 alone emitted from Fukushima as of late August was 168 times more radioactive than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8722400/Fukushima-caesium-leaks-equal-168-Hiroshimas.html@ 2:55 IAEA Report Quotedhttp://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/meetings/PDFplus/2011/cn200/documentation/cn200_Final-Fukushima-Mission_Report.pdf@ 7:10 NYAS Review by Yablokov, Nesterenko & Nesterenko (2009) http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdfNOTE: I'm now skeptical of the 985,000 death-toll figure in the NYAS review. The figure has been criticized for lacking a clear or standard methodology. It's okay to propose new non-standard analytical methodologies, but as the basis for a study which thereby comes to an extraordinary conclusion, no, that's suspect of being wrong on its face. In short, the extraordinary predictions of Yablokov et al are even more likely to be evidence that their unique untested methodologies are faulty. That said, their 327-page report is an important review of Russian research most of which is off limits to the west due to language barriers. In contrast, the European Environmental Agency, using standard dosimetry (ICRP and BEIR) -- predicts between 17,000 to 68,000 Chernobyl-induced deaths over 50 years. A figure that also counters Al-Khalili's implication that estimated death tolls above a mere handful are wild rumors.The European Environmental Agency's prediction of 17,000 to 68,000 deaths over 50 years is based on better-established radiobiology. See: Late lessons II Chapter 18 - Late lessons from Chernobyl early warnings from Fukushima @ http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2, which lays out the EEA's straightforward methodology:"Given that UNSCEAR (1993) and IAEA (1996)estimate a total world-wide collective doseof 600,000 person‑Sieverts over 50 years fromChernobyl fallout, and the standard riskestimate from the International Commission onRadiological Protection (ICRP, 2005) is 0.057 fatalcancers per Sievert, this suggests an estimate ofabout 34,000 fatal cancers over that time period(Ramana, 2009). Given the widely accepted linearno-threshold radiation risk model may overstateor understate risks by a factor of two (BIER VII,2006) — then estimates for post-Chernobyl cancermortality extrapolation may range from 17,000 to68,000 over 50 years."#Extra: detailed complaint submitted to BBC over the program critiqued in this video :http://www.nfznsc.gn.apc.org/docs/news/NFLA_BBC_Fukushima_final_complaint.pdf#@ 1:53 I cite a false analogy Al Khalili commits, which takes this form:1. Fukushima and the tsunami are similar in that both were disasters. 2. The tsunami's harm is measured by its death toll before 9/14/11.3. Therefore, Fukushima's harm is measured by its death toll before 9/14/11.That argument from analogy is assumed implicitly in his comparison aired on Sept 14, 2011. We cannot conclude, as he wishes us to, that the tsunami was far worse unless we accept that analogy as true. However, it's a false analogy on account of the fact that the harm of radiation exposure is also measured by the deaths it causes years and decades later..
福島第一 Fukushima Unit 3 Report - Steam-Explosion Model GoddardsJournal 2011-09-04 | UNIT 3 REPORT: http://iangoddard.com/fukushima01.htmlSee this model illustrated: http://youtu.be/VZoBb-8oxdgand a short overview of it: http://youtu.be/d9zXxI8ZihsA steam explosion does not necessarily exclude a nuclear criticality as considered in my first video (in fact the explosion of the Borax test reactor was both a criticality and a steam explosion http://youtu.be/8WfNzJVxVz4?t=13m37s ), but at the same time a steam explosion does not require a nuclear criticality because interactions of molten fuel and water can be sufficient to generate a steam explosion.A few cites on ex-vessel steam explosionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18811248.2006.9711159#previewhttp://jolisfukyu.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/fukyu/mirai-en/2006/5_7.htmlFigure 4.3-4 in this paper: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0210/ML021080117.pdf
福島第一 Fukushima Unit 3 Plume プルーム (HD) GoddardsJournal 2011-06-21 | プルームのデータは、文部科学省からのものです。Plume data from the Ministry of Education, Japan: Lower-Elevation Plume - 低標高のプルームweb.archive.org/web/20110905015300/http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/other/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/05/10/1305748_0315_06.pdfHigher-Elevation Plume - 高標高のプルームweb.archive.org/web/20110925181820/http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/other/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/05/10/1305748_0315_07.pdfThis depicts Arnie Gundersen's theory of Unit 3's explosion. Unlike depicted herein, I now believe the fuel pool was not involved in the unique Unit 3 explosion (see my video outlining my reasoning http://youtu.be/Hc-p-gtpKLM published before it was proven the pool was not involved). But at the time of this video, it was a popular theory not without indications. From the leaked U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission preliminary assessment of Fukushima : "Fuel pool is heating up but is adequately cooled, and fuel may have been ejected from the pool (based on information from TEPCO of neutron sources found up to 1 mile from the units, and very high dose rate material that had to be bulldozed over between Units 3 and 4)." Page 10: http://cryptome.org/0003/daiichi-assess.pdf"A Neutron source is a device that emits neutrons." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source It was plausibly interpreted that neutron sources ejected from the pool would be part of a fuel rod. An explanation for the NRC report's description of ejected neutron sources remains unknown. However, now I believe the best explanation for why the explosion of Unit 3 differed dramatically from that of Unit 1 is that it uniquely experienced ex-vessel steam explosion: http://lewrockwell.com/orig4/goddard2.1.1.htmlA steam explosion does not exclude a nuclear criticality (in fact the explosion of the Borax test reactor was both a criticality and a steam explosion http://youtu.be/8WfNzJVxVz4?t=13m27s ), but at the same time a steam explosion does not require a criticality because interactions of molten fuel and water are sufficient to generate a steam explosion.
Fukushima Explosion Measurements 福島第一 GoddardsJournal 2011-05-24 | This is just to let my subscribers know I'm still here, busy working on my next video. These are a few of the analytical elements of it that I decided to post now as a preview without explanation other that what should be obvious in these visual displays. The full video these are a part of is taking forever! by translate.google.com : これは私の加入者は、私がまだここにいる私の次のビデオで大忙しだお知らせするだけです。これらは私が説明内容は、これらの視覚的なディスプレイで明らかにする必要があることを、他のことなくプレビューとして、今すぐ投稿することを決めたその分析要素のほんの一部です。完全なビデオは、これらの永遠に取っているの一部です！ NY Times cites fuel in fragments or particles found up to a mile away: "United States government engineers sent to help with the crisis in Japan are warning that the troubled nuclear plant there is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely [...] according to a confidential assessment prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. [...] The document, which was obtained by The New York Times [...] The document also suggests that fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown 'up to one mile from the units,' and that pieces of highly radioactive material fell between two units and had to be "bulldozed over," presumably to protect workers at the site." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html From the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's confidential assessment of Fukushima : "Fuel pool is heating up but is adequately cooled, and fuel may have been ejected from the pool (based on information from TEPCO of neutron sources found up to 1 mile from the units, and very high dose rate material that had to be bulldozed over between Units 3 and 4)." Page 10: http://www.wdr.de/tv/monitor//sendungen/2011/0407/pdf/Assessment.pdf "A Neutron source is a device that emits neutrons. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source ニューヨークタイムズは、燃料の部分は、最大見つかりました引用マイル離れたところ： "米国政府のエンジニアが問題を抱えた原子力発電所は、いつまでも続く可能性が新鮮な脅威[...]原子力規制委員会が作成した機密情報の評価に応じて、幅広いに直面しているが警告している日本の危機を助けるに送信されます。文書ニューヨークタイムズ[...]により得られた文書を、[...]また、フラグメントまたは炉上の使用済燃料プールからの核燃料の粒子が単位から1マイルまで'吹き飛ばされたことを示唆している'と高レベル放射性材料の部分は、2つのユニット間の落ちたことと、"おそらく、サイトでの労働者を保護しています。"以上のブルドーザー"しなければならなかった
福島第一 Fukushima Unit 3 Reactor Well GoddardsJournal 2011-05-17 | Looking directly at the reactor well of Unit 3 before the explosion: (1) http://images.scribblelive.com/2011/5/17/c13036f9-9322-4602-a467-44887264cb0c.gif (2) http://images.scribblelive.com/2011/5/17/da62a519-5c58-4972-a8c6-659198922f0d.jpg @ http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/phototour.html Accurate floor plan of Units 3 and 4 (location of containment lid reflects its location in Unit 4 since the reactor in Unit 4 is empty and opened), in the video we're looking through the open Tool Pit into (or onto) the Reactor Well (exactly as in the photos above)): http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/reactorlayout.html Images that show Unit 3 was bellowing steam heavily, centered from the reactor well March 17 http://blogs-images.forbes.com/oshadavidson/files/2011/05/06hH4y75zG0ti_2645.jpg On or before March 21 http://media.syracuse.com/news/photo/2011-03-21-ap-nuclear-steamjpg-01db4710ae43cae9.jpg Infrared images on Unit 3 show the hot spots around the primary containment: The hottest spot is the largest point of emission seen in this video. lh3.googleusercontent.com/-igGlJ5nIl3A/TYeaSWrOc9I/AAAAAAAAA8k/cMF1N9ReFuw/s1600/Fukushima_hoch_DW__1340857z.jpg 3号機の赤外画像は原子炉格納容器の周りのホットスポットを表示 ホットスポットはこのビデオで見られる最大の蒸気排出量のポイントです。
Fukushima Unit 3 ☢ Two Theories - 福島第一原発3号機 GoddardsJournal 2011-05-05 | In this Unit-3 update the fact that Unit 1 had weaker upper-deck walls is considered as a possible causal factor in the differences between the Unit 1 and 3 explosions. Also considered is how the stronger walls of Unit 3 might have helped a hydrogen explosion initiate a prompt criticality. 本ユニット-3アップデートでは1号機は弱い上部デッキの壁を持っていたという事実は、ユニット1と3の爆発の違いの可能性因果因子として考えられている。また、3号機の強力な壁は、水素爆発が即発臨界を開始貢献している可能性があります方法です考えられる。 # Supplemental Evidence That Unit-1 Walls Differed From Units 3 & 4 GE's Mark-1-reactor illustration shows weaker upper-deck structure seen on Unit 1: http://clubtroppo.com.au/files/2011/03/GE_BWR_cut-away.jpg Upper-deck walls inside Unit 3 seen here: http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/f1-np/info/2010/b110028-j.html Examples of solid concrete construction of Unit 4 at upper-deck section (as seen in this video, the infrastructure of Unit 3 matches Unit 4): http://whatworldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/reaktor-nuklir.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqMes7_OAlw Photo from upper-deck interior showing non-concrete walls and lattice girders (NPP unknown, but containment matches Unit 1) http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/rflg-fl1.jpg Photos of Corrugated Sheet-Metal Siding Used for Unit-1 Walls Blown Off On Ground http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/110311/images/110429_1f_1.jpg http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/110311/images/110429_1f_2.jpg # Contrary to conventional theory, it may be the case that nuclear power plants can have nuclear explosions. Recent findings indicate the Chernobyl explosion may have been driven by an explosive release of nuclear energy, not a hydrogen explosion are previously assumed. These important findings were reported in a paper in 'Pure and Applied Geophysics' http://www.springerlink.com/content/d71710g0012116x4 which reads: "The alternative version [ of how Chernobyl exploded ] is based on the assumption of a large instant energy release of nuclear energy. Convincing evidence in favor of this version was for the first time obtained by Radium Institute employees on the basis of an analysis of atmospheric xenon radionuclide samples collected in the area of Cherepovetz and of the analysis of the value of 133Xe/133mXe isomers activity ratios. [...] it should be acknowledged that the hypothesis of a nuclear mechanism of enormous instant energy yield in the Chernobyl accident seems quite convincing, as is supported by experimental data; these data are in good agreement with the calculated results." 翻訳 http://translate.google.com 核爆発は、原子力発電所で発生する可能性がありますことを示す証拠として、バズビーは、チェルノブイリの爆発（水素）エネルギーになると推定されてきた原子力エネルギーではなく、化学物質の放出によって駆動されていることが最近の知見を挙げている。これらの重要な知見は純粋応用物理の論文で報告されている http://www.springerlink.com/content/d71710g0012116x4 "[はチェルノブイリが爆発した方法]を別のバージョンの原子力エネルギーの大規模なインスタントエネルギー放出の前提に基づいています。このバージョンの有利な証拠を説得Cherepovetzの領域で133Xe/133mXe異性体の活性比の値の分析の収集大気キセノン放射性核種の試料の分析に基づいて、ラジウム研究所の従業員によって得られた初めてのこと。 [...]それは実験データでサポートされている、チェルノブイリ事故で膨大なインスタントエネルギー収率の核メカニズムの仮説はかなり説得力のあるようだ承認されるべきです。これらのデータは、計算結果とよく一致している。"
MSNBC ☢ Chernobyl Radiation is Health Elixir!! GoddardsJournal 2011-04-28 | MSNBC interview debunked:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBTwTScuxasStudies cited in order cited:Biol Lett. 2007 October 22; 3(5): 483--486.http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/5/483.fullBiol Lett. 2009 June 23; 5(3): 356--359.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679916National Academy of Sciences' consensus position on low-dose radiation:"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial."http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11340Gill, V. (2010, July). Chernobyl zone shows decline in biodiversity, BBChttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027Radiat Environ Biophys. 2010 May;49(2):139-53. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19862545See additionally regarding strokeBMJ. 2010 Jan 14;340:b5349. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20075151Source of Chernobyl children shown Chernobyl Children's Project International/Vesnovahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzpiEMz7A6ESpecial thanks to MoxNews for posting what I critiquedhttp://www.youtube.com/user/MoxNewsDotCom
Fukushima ☢ Unit 3 implosion - 福島県 内破 - frame-by-frame GoddardsJournal 2011-04-24 | First seconds of the Unit-3 blast. The Unit-3 event wasn't so much an 'explosion' as an *implosion* that's structurally similar to a tornado that sucks the massive concrete bunker in and straight upwards. 翻訳 http://translate.google.com ユニット3高炉の最初の秒。ユニット-3のイベントはあまり構造の大規模な具体的なバンカーと直線上を吸う竜巻に似ている*の崩壊として*'爆発'はなかった。 # Contrary to conventional theory, it may be the case that nuclear power plants can have nuclear explosions. Recent findings indicate the Chernobyl explosion may have been driven by an explosive release of nuclear energy, not a hydrogen explosion are previously assumed. These important findings were reported in a paper in 'Pure and Applied Geophysics' http://www.springerlink.com/content/d71710g0012116x4 that reads: "The alternative version [ of how Chernobyl exploded ] is based on the assumption of a large instant energy release of nuclear energy. Convincing evidence in favor of this version was for the first time obtained by Radium Institute employees on the basis of an analysis of atmospheric xenon radionuclide samples collected in the area of Cherepovetz and of the analysis of the value of 133Xe/133mXe isomers activity ratios. [...] it should be acknowledged that the hypothesis of a nuclear mechanism of enormous instant energy yield in the Chernobyl accident seems quite convincing, as is supported by experimental data; these data are in good agreement with the calculated results." 翻訳 http://translate.google.com 核爆発は、原子力発電所で発生する可能性がありますことを示す証拠として、バズビーは、チェルノブイリの爆発（水素）エネルギーになると推定されてきた原子力エネルギーではなく、化学物質の放出によって駆動されていることが最近の知見を挙げている。これらの重要な知見は純粋応用物理の論文で報告されている http://www.springerlink.com/content/d71710g0012116x4 "[はチェルノブイリが爆発した方法]を別のバージョンの原子力エネルギーの大規模なインスタントエネルギー放出の前提に基づいています。このバージョンの有利な証拠を説得Cherepovetzの領域で133Xe/133mXe異性体の活性比の値の分析の収集大気キセノン放射性核種の試料の分析に基づいて、ラジウム研究所の従業員によって得られた初めてのこと。 [...]それは実験データでサポートされている、チェルノブイリ事故で膨大なインスタントエネルギー収率の核メカニズムの仮説はかなり説得力のあるようだ承認されるべきです。これらのデータは、計算結果とよく一致している。" # Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen observes that the explosion of Fukushima Unit 3 was a *detonation* which therefore can't be explained by a hydrogen-gas explosion alone. Joining Professor Busby, Gundersen posits a nuclear (not hydrogen gas) explosion to explain the massive blast of Unit 3... 原子力技術ア Arnie Gundersen さんは、福島3号機の爆発したがって、単独で水素ガスの爆発では説明できない*デトネーション*されたことを観察する。教授バズビーへの参加、Gundersenさんは、3号機の大規模な爆発を説明するために核（ない水素ガス）爆発の仮説... See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9lv5foUItM
