Share this post:
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Dr. Caldicott MD - Nuclear Industry Causing 50–60% Decline In Sperm Count/Fertility In North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand -  NCRP/ICRP Corruption - Negative Effect Of Man Made Ionizing Radiation On Human Eggs, Embryo, Sperm, Fetus, And Newborn - ALARA Standard

META STUDY FINDS 50 TO 60 PERCENT SPERM COUNT REDUCTION IN US, EU, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND OVER LAST 40 YEARS; WHAT DO THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON THAT COULD BE CAUSING THIS?

Your Sperm Is In Trouble
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2017/07/25/your-sperm-is-in-trouble/?

This comprehensive meta-regression analysis reports a significant decline in sperm counts (as measured by SC and TSC) between 1973 and 2011, driven by a 50–60% decline among men unselected by fertility from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Because of the significant public health implications of these results, research on the causes of this continuing decline is urgently needed.
https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/doi/10.1093/humupd/dmx022/4035689/Temporal-trends-in-sperm-count-a-systematic-review

Pamm Larry Hi, all..wanted to get this out there..someone wrote me with this info. Pretty important stuff that give us more info on what's going on with all these poisons in our world. I thought you may be interested in this new study of 7,500 studies on trends in sperm counts that shows a significant ongoing decline, pointing to impaired male health and decreasing fertility. Researchers found that among men from North America, Europe and Australia, who were not selected for the study according to fertility status, sperm concentration and total sperm count has declined more than 50% in less than 40 years.

Media coverage included: Vice News 

The study, “Levine et al. Temporal trends in sperm count: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis” published in the peer-reviewed journal Human Reproduction Update yesterday."


Sperm Counts Plummeting...But Not Everywhere The Young Turks

The nuclear industry is present in all of the countries named where sperm counts are plummeting, but not in the countries where sperm counts are staying stable. 

DR. CALDICOTT MD DESCRIBES NEGATIVE EFFECT OF LOW DOSE RADIATION ON HUMAN CELLS, INCLUDING SPERM AND EGGS IS EQUIVALENT OF FORCED NAZI LIKE MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION WITHOUT CONSENT, KNOWLEDGE OR LEGAL PERMISSION

Credit/source; Teknorg

Dr. Helen Caldicott MD talks about the nuclear bomb testing fallout effects on embryos and fetuses, (via very low dose radiation effects) as well as adults in the video above. These negative health effects continue on today, and will continue for hundreds of thousands of years into the future, according to this medical and nuclear radiation expert.
VIDEO: https://youtu.be/4qX-YU4nq-g  1 hour

She is predicting epidemics of disease and deaths continuing on into the future of radiation induced diseases, genetic diseases, birth deformities, and cancers, all thanks due to the nuclear age and the peaceful use of the atom, and nothing else. She calls the atomic age random premeditated genetic engineering, via a forced medical experiment that no one agreed to.

Who are you going to trust and listen to? Are you going to believe a pro nuclear industry worker handling deadly radioactive elements, who received his training from pro nuclear PR people? Or will you believe and trust a professional medical doctor trained in the health effects of nuclear radiation on human health? 

STUDY: THERE IS NO THRESHOLD FOR FETUS IRRADIATION

PT July 29, 2015 No threshold for fetus irradiation, Risk of childhood cancer from fetal irradiation.
R Doll, R Wakeford

ABSTRACT: The association between the low dose of ionizing radiation received by the fetus in utero from diagnostic radiography, particularly in the last trimester of pregnancy, and the subsequent risk of cancer in childhood provides direct evidence against the existence of a threshold dose below which no excess risk arises, and has led to changes in medical practice. Initially reported in 1956, a consistent association has been found in many case-control studies in different countries. 

The excess relative risk obtained from combining the results of these studies has high statistical significance and suggests that, in the past, a radiographic examination of the abdomen of a pregnant woman produced a proportional increase in risk of about 40%. 

A corresponding causal relationship is not universally accepted and this interpretation has been challenged on four grounds. On review, the evidence against bias and confounding as alternative explanations for the association is strong. Scrutiny of the objections to causality suggests that they are not, or may not be, valid. A causal explanation is supported by evidence indicating an appropriate dose-response relationship and by animal experiments. It is concluded that radiation doses of the order of 10 mGy received by the fetus in utero produce a consequent increase in the risk of childhood cancer......
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9135438

This same principle applies to sperm, eggs, an embryo or fetus. They are all hyper sensitive to heavy metal poisons and ionizing radiation. 


IONIZING RADIATION CAUSES SPERM, EGG, FETUS, EMBRYO DEATH, MALFORMATIONS, OR MENTAL RETARDATION;  CELL DOUBLE DNA BREAKS CAUSED BY X RAYS, LEADS TO PERMANENT GENETIC DEFECTS IN FUTURE GENERATIONS, DEATH BY A THOUSAND DNA CUTS

X-irradiation induces cell death in fetal fibroblasts.

Abstract

The impact of ionizing radiation on developing organisms has been widely studied for riskassessment purposes. Even though efforts have been made to decrease received doses to as low as reasonably achievable, the possibility of accidental exposure has to be considered as well. Mammalian gestation is usually divided into three periods. Radiation exposure during the 'pre-implantation period' may essentially result in embryonic mortality while exposure during the 'organogenesis period' may characteristically lead to malformations. In humans, the 'fetal period' is one of particular sensitivity to radiation induction of mental retardation, especially if the exposure occurs between weeks 8-15 of gestation. It is also admitted that prenatal irradiation may increase the risk of leukemia and childhood cancer, with an equal risk over the whole pregnancy. 

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of moderate to high doses of X-irradiation on mouse skinfetal fibroblasts, one of the cell types subjected to the highest dose of radiation. Exposure of the cells to X-rays led to a rapid and significant increase in γ-H2AX foci, indicative of high levels of DNA double strand breaks. High doses (>2 Gy) also led to a pronounced G2-arrest and a decrease in the number of cells in the S phase, which was followed after 24 h by a decrease in cell survival and an increase in the level of apoptosis and necrosis. This study shows that mouse fetal skin fibroblasts are sensitive to high doses of X-irradiation. Furthermore, we report a better repair for higher doses than lower, which seems to indicate that little DNA damage is not necessarily repaired immediately. However, more sensitive approaches are necessary to identify the risk associated with low doses of radiation.

The body repair mechanisms can sometimes repair single strand DNA breaks, but it cannot repair DOUBLE DNA BREAKS. The DNA break is terminal and lasts forever, being passed on from one generation to the next, forever. As more and more DNA breaks happen due to constant exposure to DNA breaking radiation, the outcome for each generation grows worse and worse.

This has been proven in Belarus, where children exposed to cumulative low dose radiation are having worse and worse health outcomes at birth as each generation comes along. The number of healthy births keeps on declining and is now in the single digits  10 percent.


What happens when your DNA is permanently damaged?

LOW DOSE CUMULATIVE NUCLEAR RADIATION AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM IN CHILDREN

“…This minute amount – one trillionth of a Curie – is much less than the present reporting limit used by the EPA of 15 picocuries per liter of milk – even though, as we have shown, such small amounts, far below the government’s reporting requirements, have drastic health ramifications. In fact, concentrations of one to 10 picocuries per liter of milk occur routinely during normal operation of commercial nuclear reactors under existing radiation standards. It therefore appears that the existing standards for allowable radiation – based on observing the effects of short exposures to high doses of external X-rays and gamma rays that occur in medical uses and the direct flash of bomb-radiation – have vastly underestimated the risk of low-level, chronic exposures. [See Figure 7]

"Thus, the rapid rise of serious biological effects at very small doses followed by a levelling-off at higher doses explains the present underestimate of low-dose effects, which are based on a linear extrapolation from studies done at high doses. The new studies following Chernobyl and Three Mile Island not only point to the dangers from nuclear accidents but explain the unexpectedly large increases of infant and total mortality rates in areas near nuclear reactors observed in recent years.

These results imply that the effects of releases of radioactivity into the environment are thousands of times more serious than presently calculated on the basis of cancer risk to adults from short external X-rays and gamma radiation exposures….

There are two sides to every story. The pro nuclear industry point of view on this subject is that man made heavy metal poisons and radiation is healthy for you, and cannot hurt anyone. Radiation is healthy in the same doses for adult healthy males as it is for an embryo or fetus. 

Man made radiation cannot cause mutations or harm according to the pro nuclear apologists, who believe in the hormesis theory, described in part by Galen Winsor below..


The artistic rendition created by Dr Goodheart and AGR above shows an alpha particle passing through DNA, damaging it on the way through. 

Just one hot particle next to a sperm or egg, embryo, fetus can do this damage... Guess what happens next? 

PRO NUCLEAR APOLOGISTS PROMOTE QUACK HORMESIS THEORY AND CLAIM ALL HEAVY METAL RADIOACTIVE POISONS EMITTING DEADLY DNA DAMAGING AND CANCER CAUSING IONIZING RADIATION ARE GOOD FOR YOU, CANNOT CAUSE HARM OR MUTATIONS


The Nuclear Scare Scam - Galen Winsor
Interviewer: Very interesting. Can nuclear radiation cause mutation in people and animals?

Galen: If a cell gets too much radiation, it dies. And so if it is a sperm or an oocyte, why, they die. They don’t reproduce, and there are no mutations. I think the good Lord built that safety factor in.

Interviewer: So you’re saying that mutation in future generations is an unfounded fear?

Galen: Yes. And the studies of the people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have borne that out. Those people do not have that. Now they show the immediate effects of too much radiation. The women who were pregnant, the embryo showed very similar effects to rubella, to measles, some deformities certainly from that radiation insult, but that’s not the kind of mutation that’s going to go on to the next generation.
VIDEO: https://youtu.be/ejCQrOTE-XA 1 hr plus

It is important to understand that this 'expert' has no medical degree, and his job was working in plutonium processing plants, working with the most hazardous material on the planet. He believes this substance is harmless and actually good for you, via the hormesis theory. His view is that all radiation limits and rules should be done away with, completely. In other words, if someone wants to spray high level nuclear waste over a city from a plane, that should be perfectly ok and reasonable. 

People inside the industry and those hired by them (including some medical doctors) love to claim that poisonous heavy metal radioactive elements are good for you and your kids, just like the sugar industry claims sugar is good for everyone. And of course, the tobacco industry claimed that smoking cannot hurt anyone and that smoking will not cause cancer. Do you believe these industry claims?

Now, what does a medical doctor trained in the effect of radiation on cells and human health have to say about this same subject? Are you interested in hearing the other side of the story? 

DR CALDICOTT PREDICTING EPIDEMIC OF GENETIC DISEASES AND HEALTH EFFECTS IN THE FUTURE


Fukushima and Chernobyl 'accidental' radiation releases are on top of the epidemics of disease and death that she is predicting, and just makes the epidemic that much worse. 

The problem with (govt/military) plutonium and most other radiation studies is that they did not seem to focus on children, fetuses or embryos. According to Dr Caldicott, children are 20 times (to 2,000 times for fetus) more sensitive to radiation than adults, just for uranium. This makes all of the studies on adults worthless, because none of the adult studies can be applied to children or babies, much less a fetus or an egg/sperm, and the studies do not cover the effects of plutonium on the above either. 

PETKAU EFFECT CONFIRMS HARM TO HUMANS, PLANTS AND ANIMALS DUE TO LOW DOSE CUMULATIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE


A low dose of radiation can and does cause harm via the Petkau Effect. Petkau did an an experiment with very weak radiation and found that just 0.7 rads delivered in 11½ hours (1 millirad/min = 0.61 mSv/h) ruptured a cell membrane. This was counter to the prevailing assumption of a linear relationship between total dose or dose rate and the consequences.[3] What dose of radiation (lower than this) does it take to just damage a sperm or egg, (not kill it) thus causing a DNA break or damage, which then results in a deformed child or a genetic disease? 

"Considering the fact that immature, undifferentiated and rapidly dividing cells are highly sensitive to radiation, it is not surprising that embryonic and fetal tissues are readily damaged by relatively low doses of radiation. It has been shown in experiments with mice that deleterious effects may be produced with doses of only 10 rads delivered to the embryo during the period of organogenesis."
http://www.ehs.washington.edu/rsotrain/radprotectionprinciples/biological_effects.pdf



“The most important consideration is the generally accepted value judgment that early embryonic losses are of little personal or social concern.” Dr R. Mole, 1979, a member of ICRP – The international committee which makes the dose limits WORLDWIDE ignores LIFE. http://bjr.birjournals.org/content/52/614/89

Who is behind the massacre of the innocents? Who is responsible for the drop in women's and men's fertility rates? Look to the nuclear 'regulators', the complicit mass media, the politicians and the nuclear industry itself.. 

RADIATION READING, TYPE OR NUMBER CONVERSIONS


For gamma, x-ray and beta, the multiplication factor is 1, one rad equals one rem and one Gray equals one Sievert.

Another radiation converter is here..














Conventional Units














Systeme International (SI) Units














Activity














Activity
1 Ci = 3.7 x 1010 disintegrations / second














1 Bq = 1 disintegration / second















1 Ci = 1000 mCi














1 Bq = 2.7027 x 10-11 Curies














1 mCi = 1000 uCi














1 kBq = 1,000 Bq = 2.7027 x 10-8 Ci = 2.7027 x 10-5 mCi














1 mCi = 37,000 kBq = 37 MBq














1 MBq = 1000 kBq = 1,000,000 Bq = 0.027027 mCi














Dose














Dose














1 Rad = 100 ergs / gram = 0.01 J / kg















1 Gy = 1 J / kg = 100 Rad














1 Rad = 0.01 Gy














1 Gy = 100 centigray (cGy)















1 cGy = 1 Rad














Dose Equivalent














Dose Equivalent














1 Rem = 1000 mrem














1 Sv = 1 J / kg = 100 Rem














1 Rem = 0.01 Sv














1 mSv = 0.1 Rem = 100 mrem














1 mrem = 0.01 mSv

http://www.colorado.edu/EHandS/hpl/RADHandbook/Introduction.html

CURRENT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DOSES FOR FETUS OR EMBRYO IS 5 m/Sv/Yr ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, IN LINE WITH NRC RULES

According to the US government regulation, the following are the maximum 'safe' doses for a fetus or embryo: 

835.206 Limits for the embryo/fetus.(a) The equivalent dose limit for the embryo/fetus from the period of conception to birth, as a result of occupational exposure of a declared pregnant worker, is 0.5 rem (0.005 Sv).(b) 

Substantial variation above a uniform exposure rate that would satisfy the limits provided in 835.206(a) shall be avoided.(c) If the equivalent dose to the embryo/fetus is determined to have already exceeded 0.5 rem (0.005 Sv) by the time a worker declares her pregnancy, the declared pregnant worker shall not be assigned to tasks where additional occupational exposure is likely during the remaining gestation period.[58 FR 65485, Dec. 14, 1993, as amended at 72 FR 31926, June 8, 2007]

835.207 Occupational dose limits for minors. The dose limits for minors occupationally exposed to radiation and/or radioactive materials at a DOE activity are 0.1 rem (0.001 Sv) total effective dose in a year and 10 percent of the occupational dose limits specified at § 835.202(a)(3) and (a)(4). [72 FR 31926, June 8, 2007]

Regulatory Information

Code of Federal Regulations
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title10-vol4/xml/CFR-2011-title10-vol4-part835.xml#seqnum835.206

According to Wikipedia; "The rem and millirem are CGS units in widest use among the American public, industry, and government.[3] SI units are the norm outside of the US, and they are increasingly encountered within the US in academic, scientific, and engineering environments. The SI unit of dose equivalent is the sievert (Sv); conversion is straightforward, as 1 Sv = 100 rem by definition:

100.0000 rem=100000.0 mrem=1 Sv=1.000000 Sv=1000.000 mSv=1000000 µSv
1.0000 rem=1000.0 mrem=1 rem=0.010000 Sv=10.000 mSv=10000 µSv
0.1000 rem=100.0 mrem=1 mSv=0.001000 Sv=1.000 mSv=1000 µSv
0.0010 rem=1.0 mrem=1 mrem=0.000010 Sv=0.010 mSv=10 µSv
0.0001 rem=0.1 mrem=1 µSv=0.000001 Sv=0.001 mSv=1 µSv


The conventional units for dose rate is mrem/h. Regulatory limits and chronic doses are often given in units of mrem/yr or rem/yr, where they are understood to represent the total amount of radiation allowed (or received) over the entire year. In many occupational scenarios, the hourly dose rate might fluctuate to levels thousands of times higher for a brief period of time, without infringing on the annual total exposure limits. 

There is no exact conversion from hours to years because of leap years, but approximate conversions are:1 mrem/h = 8766 mrem/yr0.1141 mrem/h = 1000 mrem/yr

The ICRP once adopted fixed conversion for occupational exposure, although these have not appeared in recent documents:[4]8 h = 1 day  40 h = 1 week   50 week = 1 yr

Therefore, for occupation exposures of that time period,1 mrem/h = 2000 mrem/yr x 0.5 mrem/h = 1000 mrem/yr" 

Violating this maximum 'safe' radiation exposure means that someone should be held accountable, according to Section 830.5. Civil and criminal penalties can be applied to all those responsible for violating this maximum dose to fetuses and children. 

Volume: 4Date: 2011-01-01Original Date: 2011-01-01Title: Section 830.5 - Enforcement.Context: Title 10 - Energy. CHAPTER III - DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. PART 830 - NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT.

830.5 Enforcement.The requirements in this part are DOE Nuclear Safety Requirements and are subject to enforcement by all appropriate means, including the imposition of civil and criminal penalties in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR part 820. 

CURRENT NRC DOSE LIMITS FOR EMBRYO OR FETUS IS THE SAME AS FOR ADULT HEALTHY MALE NUCLEAR FACILITY WORKERS; 5 m/Sv/Yr

C. Dose Limit for Embryo/Fetus of a Declared Pregnant Occupational Worker

Currently, the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 20.1208(a) set the dose limit for the embryo/fetus of a declared pregnant worker at 5 mSv (500 mrem) for the entire pregnancy. Section 20.1208(d) provides allowances for delays in the declaration of pregnancy by workers. If the dose equivalent to the embryo/fetus has exceeded 5 mSv (500 mrem), or is within 0.5 mSv (50 mrem) of this dose, at the time the worker declares the pregnancy to the licensee, then the dose to the embryo/fetus cannot exceed 0.5 mSv (50 mrem) for the remainder of the pregnancy (10 CFR 20.1208(d)). In addition, licensees are to make efforts to avoid substantial variation above a uniform monthly exposure rate to satisfy the dose limit (10 CFR 20.1208(b)). These requirements are based on the ICRP Publication 26 (1977) recommendations. However, ICRP Publication 103 (2007) recommends that the dose limit for the embryo/fetus of a declared pregnant worker be the same as that for a member of the public, which is 1 mSv (100 mrem).

Prior to the 1991 amendments to 10 CFR part 20, the NRC's regulations did not contain a specific dose limit for the embryo/fetus of a declared pregnant occupational worker. Instead, as a matter of policy, the NRC used a single annual limit for both genders and relied on information in Regulatory Guide 8.13, “Instruction Concerning Prenatal Radiation Exposure,” which was first issued in March 1975 (ADAMS under Accession No. ML13350A220) to maintain exposures to the embryo/fetus ALARA.

In developing Regulatory Guide 8.13, the Commission considered the recommendations in NCRP Report No. 39 (1971), “Radiation Protection Criteria.” The NCRP recommended that during the entire gestation period, the maximum permissible dose equivalent to the embryo/fetus from occupational exposure of the worker should not exceed 5 mSv (500 mrem). The ICRP Publication 26 (1977) recommended limiting the working conditions of the declared pregnant worker in such a manner that it is unlikely that the embryo/fetus would receive a dose greater than 5 mSv (500 mrem) for the entire gestation period (51 FR 1092; January 9, 1986).

Thousands of pregnant women are occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation each year. There are radiation-related risks throughout pregnancy that are related to the stage of pregnancy and absorbed dose. Exposure of the embryo/fetus to ionizing radiation could cause adverse health effects, such as cancer and developmental abnormalities. The susceptibility of the embryo/fetus to damage by radiation is well established and data suggests that the period from 10 weeks to 17 weeks in the development of a fetus may be especially critical. 

Because of this susceptibility, limiting the dose to the embryo/fetus to 5 mSv (500 mrem) or less during the entire pregnancy is generally considered desirable (51 FR 1092; January 9, 1986). Accordingly, the NCRP Report 54 (1977), “Medical Radiation Exposure of Pregnant and Potentially Pregnant Women,” recommended that the total dose equivalent to the embryo/fetus from occupational exposure of the expectant mother not exceed 5 mSv (500 mrem), and that once the pregnancy is known, exposure of the embryo/fetus not exceed 0.5 mSv (50 mrem) in any month.

ICRP CLAIMS THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENDERS, ADULT MALE AND EGG, SPERM, FETUS OR EMBRYO


The ICRP Publication 60 (1991) made clear that the embryo/fetus should be regarded as a member of the public when considering the protection of female workers who are or may be pregnant. In ICRP Publications 60 (1991) and 103 (2007), the ICRP concluded that there is no reason to distinguish between the genders for the purposes of controlling occupational exposures. 

However, under the ICRP recommendations, if a female worker declares her pregnancy, then additional controls must be considered to protect the embryo/fetus. The ICRP also stated that the methods of radiation protection for occupational workers, who are or may be pregnant, should provide a level of protection for the embryo/fetus equivalent to that provided for a member of the public. The ICRP Publication 103 (2007) recommended approach is that the working conditions of a pregnant worker, after declaration of pregnancy, should be such that it is unlikely that the additional dose to the fetus would exceed about 1 mSv (100 mrem) during the remainder of pregnancy.

2013 NCRP REPORT RECOMMENDS REDUCING PRENATAL RADIATION DOSE TO 1 mSv


On May 24, 2013, NCRP Report No. 174, “Preconception and Prenatal Radiation Exposure: Health Effects and Protective Guidance,” was released. It updated and expanded upon the information in NCRP Report No. 54. The report noted that scientific knowledge has increased and public concerns have changed in the past 36 years since NCRP Report No. 54 was published. Like the findings of ICRP Publication 103 (2007), the report recommended a dose limit of 1 mSv (100 mrem), including dose from the intake of radionuclides, to the embryo/fetus of a declared pregnant worker and recommended applying the concept of ALARA to these exposures.

Although the assessment of doses to the embryo/fetus from exposures to external radiation can be related directly to exposures of the pregnant worker, assessment of doses from intakes of radionuclides is not straightforward. Doses to the embryo/fetus may result from the inhalation or ingestion of radionuclides by the mother during or before pregnancy, and additional doses to the newborn child may result from the transfer of radionuclides in breast milk. 

The ICRP publications provide dose coefficients for the offspring (embryo/fetus and newborn child) following radionuclide intake by the mother before or during pregnancy and during breast feeding. In many important cases of potential radionuclide intake, doses to the offspring may exceed doses to the mother; such cases should be taken into account in the development of radiation protection programs.(26)

To provide adequate radiation protection for the embryo/fetus, and to minimize the restriction on employment, the NRC recognized the importance of female workers voluntarily informing their employers of their pregnancy and the estimated date of conception, so that arrangements can be made to restrict potential exposures. 

The pregnant worker has the fundamental responsibility for deciding when or whether she will formally declare her condition to her employer. This position is derived from court rulings concerning a woman's rights regarding pregnancy. Having a formal declaration of pregnancy derives from legal, not health protection, considerations (56 FR 23373; May 21, 1991). If an occupational worker chooses not to declare her pregnancy, then the licensee will not be required under the Commission's regulations to limit her dose to the 5 mSv (500 mrem).

The undeclared pregnant occupational women are protected under the NRC's regulations for all workers. The normal occupational dose limits would still be in effect and would have to be complied with, and the dose would also have to be kept “as low as is reasonably achievable.” In addition, as part of her initial employment, the woman, like all occupational workers, should receive instructions in radiation protection (10 CFR 19.12), and a copy of the current version of Regulatory Guide 8.13 (56 FR 23373; May 21, 1991).

ICRP 2007 RECOMMENDATION IS 1 mSv PER YEAR MAXIMUM RADIATION DOSE


The ICRP Publication 103 (2007) recommends that the dose to the embryo/fetus of a declared pregnant worker provide the same general level of protection as that offered for a member of the public, which is 1 mSv (100 mrem). The ICRP recommends applying the 1 mSv (100 mrem) criterion after the declaration of pregnancy by the occupational worker.

The NRC has determined that it is appropriate and scientifically justified to explore whether to change the dose limit for the embryo/fetus to 1 mSv (100 mrem). In its 1991 final rule that amended 10 CFR part 20, the NRC changed the dose limit for a member of the public from 5 mSv (500 mrem) to 1 mSv (100 mrem); however, it did not make the corresponding change to the dose limit for the embryo/fetus. Lowering the dose limit for the embryo/fetus of a declared pregnant occupational worker would align the NRC's regulatory requirements with current scientific data. The data indicate that the embryo/fetus is more sensitive to radiation than initially surmised. This approach would also align the NRC's regulations with the ICRP Publication 103 (2007) recommendations. The option of applying the limit over the entire gestation period, or only to the portion of time following declaration, would need to be explored in greater detail.

The Issue Paper 3, “Dose Limit for the Embryo/Fetus of a Declared Pregnant Occupational Worker,” provides a more detailed discussion and is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14084A339. In addition, the following questions are intended to elicit information from the public, the regulated community, and other stakeholders to obtain this information.
QUESTIONS

Q3-1: Are there any significant anticipated impacts associated with reducing the dose limit to the embryo/fetus of a declared pregnant woman, including operational impacts? What are the potential implementation and operational costs?

Q3-2: Are there any benefits or impacts associated with applying the reduced dose limit over the entire gestation period, or only to the period after declaration?

Q3-3: Are there any anticipated implementation impacts on recordkeeping if the dose limit to the embryo/fetus is lowered to 1 mSv (100 mrem)? What are the potential implementation and operational costs?

Q3-4: Are there technological implementation issues, such as limits of detection, which would make adoption of the ICRP Publication 103 (2007) recommendation difficult in certain circumstances?

Q3-5: Are there data on actual dose distributions to the embryo/fetus of a declared pregnant worker? What are the trends for these data?

WHAT IS ALARA? (AS LOW AS REASONABLY ACHIEVABLE)


D. Individual Protection—ALARA Planning

Each NRC licensee is required to develop, document, and implement a radiation protection program commensurate with the scope and extent of its licensed activities. (27) In addition to meeting expressed dose limits, the NRC requires its licensees to apply the ALARA principle to their licensed operations. Section 20.1003 defines the term ALARA as “making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits in this part [10 CFR part 20] as is practical consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken . . .” (28) The NRC's current ALARA requirements are provided in subpart B of 10 CFR part 20, “Radiation Protection Programs,” and are contained in 10 CFR 20.1101(b) and (d). The current occupational dose limits are provided in subpart C of 10 CFR part 20, “Occupational Dose Limits,” and 10 CFR 20.1201 provides the occupational dose limits for adults.

In the United States, the majority of occupationally exposed individuals receive less than 20 mSv (2 rem) per year as reported to the NRC. (29) However,a small percentage of individuals receive larger exposures up to, and occasionally above, the NRC's current annual occupational limit of 50 mSv (5 rem). While nuclear power reactor operators have been successful in reducing individual exposures, such that only a very limited number of individuals exceed 20 mSv (2 rem) in a year, (30) this is not the case in other segments of the regulated community. 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2009-0279-0067

Via ChasAha November 27, 2014  " ALARA – "As Low As Reasonably Achievable"
For results attributed to Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants event:

"Elevated levels of air particulate and radioiodine were measured during the period March 22 through April 23 attributed to the Fukushima Nuclear power plants event. Elevated levels were measured through-out the United States."

- FPLC Annual Report

"The measurements verify that the dose or dose commitment to members of the public, due to operation of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, during the surveillance year, are well within "as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)" criteria established by 10 CFR 50, Appendix I"
- FPLC Annual Report

Here's proof our Nuke plant didn't do it.

However… On the other hand, it IS PROOF, that Fukushima dosed us without any warning. It further proves we are not prepared for ANY fast moving, quick spreading radiological event.

· Question: Who determines what is REASONABLY achievable?
· Answer: The Nuclear Industry and its cohorts.

The problem is…
NONE of this future robbing 'scam' is REASONABLE!"

SUMMARY OF ABOVE REGULATIONS AND LAWS DETAILS THE NEED FOR DRASTICALLY LOWER RADIATION LIMITS FOR EMBRYOS AND FETUS

The oldest laws and regulations around nuclear workers did not address pregnant women, infants or fetuses, when setting maximum allowable radiation amounts. This meant that women got the same radiation as healthy adult men, and infants as well as a fetus or egg, all got the same maximum allowable dose, which was 20 mSv/yr.

The current regulations dropped the allowed maximum dose for pregnant women to 5 mSv for a nine month pregnancy, which would realistically create an effective annual allowable dose rate around 3 mSv/yr.


OLD VERSUS NEW RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND RADIATION AND PREGNANT WOMAN


The 'new' recommendations by both the ICRP and the NCRP drop this maximum dose down further to 1 mSv for a pregnant mom, during her 9 months. Effectively, this drops the annual allowed exposure down to around .7 mSv/yr for pregnant women. 

Oldest laws                                              20 mSv/yr
Current laws                                             5 mSv for 9 months 
New ICRP/NCRP recommendation       1 mSv for 9 months

These new lower maximum radiation exposure recommendations for pregnant women have not been applied or made into law, despite them being suggested since 2007. How much caring and safety/health concern does that show from the nuclear regulatory industry about it's female, pregnant workers? 

FEMALE XRAY TECHS GET UP TO 50 mSv/yr, EVEN PREGNANT ONES


The NRC says that some pregnant women may even be exposed to double the maximum for nuclear workers. 

"For example, industrial radiographers have a somewhat greater percentage of individuals above the average annual dose level of 20 mSv (2 rem) recommended in ICRP Publication 103 (2007). Stakeholder interactions have led the NRC staff to conclude that some of these individuals may be receiving doses close to the 50 mSv (5 rem) limit over multiple years. As described in Section IV.E. of this ANPR and Issue Paper 6, “Reporting of Occupational Exposure” (ADAMS Accession No. ML14084A344), detailed information on these cumulative exposures is difficult to ascertain because some segments of the regulated community are not required to report occupational exposure, therefore making it difficult “to assure that lifetime exposure of workers repeatedly exposed near the limits is minimized” (52 FR 2822; January 27, 1987).

This would mean that a pregnant women could be exposed to 50 times what the current recommended maximum radiation limits are, if she is working as an Xray tech in either a dental or medical setting.

Bottom line, even the very LOW DOSE of ONE medical Xray to the embryo or fetus has been shown to double the risk of leukemia or other radiation caused diseases in a child, which is medical doctors who are aware, do not Xray pregnant women. The question is, what does radiation from an Xray do to sperm and/or eggs? 

INFANT DEATHS IN USA CAUSED BY LOW DOSE FUKUSHIMA RADIATION - DR. SHERMAN 


In the video, the casualty rate of infants in the US is discussed, as a direct result of invisible, uncontrolled Fukushima radiation releases. The expert above estimates an additional 17,000 babies were killed, while the study below estimates an additional 50,000 deaths of newborns, just in the 3 months following Fukushima.


Peer Reviewed Study Shows 14,000 U.S. Deaths from Fukushima

Where did these casualties come from, if the 'official' pro nuclear estimates and charts show that no deaths should have happened, because the radiation doses were too low to cause any deaths or health problems in anyone? 

from a distance April 13, 2015 arclight really does a great job interviewing....Some points from his interview with Dr. Mangano:

* published 33 articles in peer-reviewed medical journals

* found high and elevated cancer rates around nuclear power plants; thyroid cancer, childhood leukemia, and breast cancer

* baby teeth study; collected 5,000 baby teeth and tested them for strontium 90 – the levels of s90 in teeth were highest near nuclear plants; they were rising over time; and were the same trends as local childhood cancer. This was the only study of radiation in-bodies of Americans near nuclear plants

* Need to get the information to the public

NO ONE HAS COME UP WITH OFFICIAL RISK NUMBERS FOR HOT PARTICLE RADIATION EFFECT ON SPERM, EGGS OR RAPIDLY DEVELOPING EMBRYO/FETUS UNDER TWO WEEKS AGE

The problem with the above 'official' charts and tables is that none of them apply to hot particles next to an egg, sperm or a fetus in the first two weeks of pregnancy. All of the studies focus on fetuses older than this. Fetuses older than two weeks are less sensitive to radiation due to cells dividing less rapidly. No studies have been done on 'hot' particles affecting eggs or sperm, and no studies have been done on very young fetuses, under 2 weeks of age. "Irradiation may produce true genetic mutations in the immature germ cells of the fetus for which no threshold dose has been established."

In other words, there is no way to calculate the damage caused. There is no way to determine a maximum allowable dose, just because when a hot particle gets close to or inside in germ cells of a fetus, it will cause DNA damage, and that will result in genetic diseases, health issues, deformities and deaths. 

WEIGHTING FACTORS USED TO CALCULATE EQUIVALENT DOSE BY NUCLEAR AGENCIES SUCH AS ICRP, WHO, NRC



Weighting factors WR (formerly termed Q factor) used to calculate equivalent dose
according to ICRP report 92[1]

RadiationEnergywR (also Q)
x-raysgamma rays,
beta raysmuons
1
neutrons< 10 keV5
10 keV - 100 keV10
100 keV - 2 MeV20
2 MeV - 20 MeV10
> 20 MeV5
protons, charged pions> 2 MeV2
alpha particlesnuclear fission products,
heavy nuclei
20


Thus, for example, a given amount of energy absorbed in the form of 15 keV neutrons should be assumed to produce 10 times the damage caused by an equal amount of energy absorbed as X-rays or gamma rays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_biological_effectiveness

THIS WEIGHTING FACTOR MODEL MINIMIZES HEALTH RISKS AND HARM CAUSED BY RADIATION, IGNORES REAL WORLD DANGERS AND RISKS FROM HEAVY METAL AND RADIOACTIVE POISONS ON MOST SENSITIVE POPULATION, EMBRYO AND FETUS


For a more detailed analysis of the TEDE model and the major issues that this model suffers from, click on the following links at end of this article.

A FERTILIZED EGG, EMBRYO OR FETUS DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WEIGHTING FACTORS, IT EXPERIENCES GENETIC ENTROPY AND MUTATIONS


A fertilized egg, embryo or fetus does not really care about weighting factors or risks of radiation, or total doses per year. A fertilized egg is most vulnerable to radiation due to it's fast growth and rapid cell division.

Below is a picture of a hot particle of plutonium inside of an intestine in the top picture and inside of a kidney in the second picture below.

Imagine that this hot particle of uranium, plutonium or cesium is inside of a fertilized egg, inside of a fetus, embryo. What if these hot particles are next to a sperm/eggs? What do you think will be the result?



If man made heavy metal radiation hits the DNA inside the rapidly dividing cells it damages the DNA. Before the DNA damage can be repaired, the cell has split and multiplied the damaged DNA into more cells. The cells of a rapidly dividing fertilized egg can easily be damaged by either exterior radiation sources, or by interior sources such as an absorbed hot particle of plutonium, which is within radiation damage range of that plutonium particle. 

There is a huge difference between an alpha particle outside the body, an X-Ray, and a 'hot' alpha plutonium particle right next to or inside of a fertilized cell or set of cells. Go to minute 35 in the following podcast to listen to Arnie Gunderson explain how a 'hot' particle affects cells around it. 

The 'hot' particle can also be absorbed by a fetus. Plutonium can and does substitute for iron inside of a fetus, which is even worse because the damaging effect from radiation and heavy metal poisons is INSIDE the rapidly cell dividing fetus. There is no way to calculate the damage this causes, or even to assign a 'weighting factor' or a risk factor, or a maximum permissible dose or an ALARA to this situation, because it will cause DNA damages, health issues, birth defects, and/or death of the fetus, correct?

RADIOPHOBIA: NUCLEAR A INDUSTRY BLAMES PREGNANT MOTHERS WITH RADIATION EXPOSURE FOR ALL HARM CAUSED TO INFANT


The nuclear industry is slowly going in the direction of zero excess radiation above background, because it knows all of this, but refuses to give the reality above any credence. They know the truth of this, so they are slowing but surely dropping the allowed maximum radiation that a pregnant woman can be exposed to. 

In the one study done on moms who received an XRay (external radiation only) of the lower abdomen it appears that there was a statistically significant increase in leukemia risk among children whose mothers had received diagnostic x-rays during this period. 

What typically happens if a woman gives birth to a baby with health issues, defects or if it is stillborn, is that the mother is blamed, because she is suffering from a disease known as Radiophobia. In other words, man made heavy metal radiation cannot cause the harm that the medical professionals are taught to ignore and deny. 

NUCLEAR EXPERTS OFTEN COMPARE BANANAS TO POISON HEAVY METAL MAN MADE RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS AND XRAYS


Nuclear experts often deny or ignore the 'weighting' factor', which means that external radiation such as an Xray is much less harmful than internal radiation from an alpha particle for example. As the chart shows above, the weighting factor for an alpha particle is 20 times that of an X-ray, dose for dose. Many experts will claim falsely that the radiation in potassium is as harmless as plutonium, cesium, strontium or any other man made radioactive heavy metal poison. 

A medical Xray is much less radiation than any of the above maximum allowed doses for pregnant women. But just one Xray can and does cause a huge increase in the leukemia rate as that exposed, radiated fetus grows up into a child or young adult. 

PLUTONIUM ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE DANGEROUS THAN OTHER RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS INTERNALLY


Now add on top of that 20 times worse factor for a hot plutonium alpha radiation particle, the fact that the sperm or egg is right next to the plutonium particle or maybe even has it inside of itself, when it gets fertilized and divides rapidly. What do you think this intense 20 times more dangerous than an X-ray for an extremely rapidly dividing cell means? We still have not even touched the heavy metal toxicity and mutagenic quality of the plutonium, and this is added on top of that DNA alpha radiation breaking effect. 

Bottom line, what all of this this means, is that the 'official' computer calculations by the 'experts' showing no deaths or injuries caused by low dose radiation are completely bogus and flawed, because they are based on flawed and bogus assumptions which are then fed into computers, which spit out bad estimates. Garbage in = garbage out.

The government chart and nuclear expert estimates DO NOT apply to the mom before conception, or to early stage pregnancy, or to egg/sperm cells exposed to a a 'hot' plutonium particle right next to them, for example, nor do they study the effect of plutonium on eggs, sperm or the fetus specifically. Plutonium is considered much more toxic than uranium, because it has never existed before on Earth and is entirely man made. There are no studies about this specifically. For more on this, click on;

EVERY DOSE OF RADIATION IS CUMULATIVE AND ADDS TO LIFETIME RISK OF CANCER, GENETIC DEFECTS, DNA DAMAGE, GENETIC DISEASES, OTHER DISEASES


X-rays by comparison to plutonium, uranium, strontium, iodine, xenon or any other man made element are completely harmless, because they pass through the body and do not stay. These various 100 plus radioactive elements coming out of a nuclear accident and then going into the egg, sperm or pre two week old fetus are orders of magnitude more dangerous; that is where the 50,000 deaths come from. Why is this so hard to understand among the pro nuclear industry folks? Why do the 'experts' keep insisting no one died, and no one will die from Fukushima, when the statistics and body count show the exact opposite, despite all of the coverups? 

Some experts estimate that the effect of a hot radioactive particle such as plutonium located right next to or inside of a sperm, egg, or on a pre 2 week old fetus may be up to 2 million times more dangerous than the equivalent radiation dose to a healthy adult male. Would you estimate any different risk when combining the risks of plutonium high energy alpha radiation AND heavy metal toxicity, inside or next to a cell such as an egg, sperm or just fertilized egg? 


ANYONE WHO IS PRO LIFE, PRO FAMILY, PRO CHILDREN SHOULD BE AGAINST NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY OF ANY KIND


Cataclysmic June 10, 2015 "I have often posted about pro-life must be anti-nuke, so, where are they? Where are their statements, bunch of hypocrites if you ask me. When I see them gather, I ask them about Fukushima, most know nothing. I suggest the destruction of our species, babies with deformities, dead and still born babies, babies of all species suffering and dying needlessly. Why not a peep out of these "pro-lifers"? Pro-life my ass! 

If you care about life, then you must be anti-nuke, to say nothing means you are against life. The nuke cabal kills, maims, deforms, and sickens more life on this planet than any other thing we have ever done.

Pro-life = anti-nuke period!

No nukes!"

SUMMARY


Bottom line, according to the above quoted nuclear experts, medical doctors and other scientists, there is no safe dose of radiation, and all radiation dosages are cumulative. The pro nuclear experts can argue all they want about how 'safe' nuclear power is, but people keep on dying from even the 'natural' radioactive elements such as radon and thorium, which humans have been exposed to for millions of years. 

How much more toxic and dangerous is plutonium on a cellular level, when humans have never seen it before in human history? Could it be that the effect of plutonium is much like diseases brought over by 'settlers' on American Indians? Those diseases were never seen before, and in most areas, up to 90% or more of those Indians exposed to those diseases died.

We will all get to see what happens, because billions of people got exposed to nano hot particles of plutonium from Fukushima, and breathed them in. The latency period clock is running out, just like a sand timer. When the sand runs out, and the latency period is over, we will see the full and true negative impact that Fukushima will have, and not just on the most vulnerable who have already paid with their lives in many countries.

MUSIC/ART ACTIVISM


"I Am the Walrus" is a 1967 song by The Beatles, written by John Lennon and credited to Lennon/McCartney.
VIDEO: https://youtu.be/HwSSEKzDn1Q

WHAT YOU CAN DO; RESEARCH THE DARK SIDE OF THE NUCLEAR MONOPOLY

A Green Road Journal has the largest, most organized, deepest set of articles, videos and pictures exposing the dark side of the nuclear monopoly in the world.

Zero Nuclear Weapons Peace And Justice Project; First Strike Policy, Ban Nuclear Bombs, DU, Down Winders, Acute Radiation Sickness, Nuclear War, Dirty Bombs, Bomb Shelters

Zero Rads In Children And Adults Eco Justice Project - Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Radiation Exposure

Zero Rads Extraction Eco Justice Project; Uranium Mining, Enrichment, Nuclear Fuel Chain, Open Air Testing, Fracking

Zero Internal Rads Eco Justice Project; Negative Effects Of Internal Radiation Exposure, Risk Models, Hormesis, Radiophobia, Radiation Monitoring Networks

Making Invisible Heavy Metal Radioactive Poison Visible Eco Justice Project; Ionizing Heavy Metal Poisonous Radiation In Food/Water/Products, Geiger Counters, Dosimeters, Radiation Readings, Test Labs, Conversions, Global Detector Network

Zero Harm To Animals, Insects, Birds And Plants Eco Justice Project; Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Heavy Metal Radioactive Poisons In Animals, Insects, Birds And Plants

Zero Nuclear Power Plant Threat Eco Justice Project; Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Fuel, Movie Reviews, Next Generation Nuclear Plants, Terrorists

Radiation Research, Education, Database Eco Justice Project; Individual Radioactive Elements/Isotopes, USA Radiation, Radiation Exposure Prevention, Reversal, Chelation

Eco Justice Art - Artists As Activists; Art, Aging, Poetry, Lyrics And Lawsuits Project; Lawsuits, Aging Nuclear Reactors, Recertification, Music, Lyrics, Poetry

Zero Rad Waste Eco Justice Project; Long Term Storage Of Nuclear Waste, Decommissioning, Ocean Dumping, Incineration, Decontamination, Water Contamination, Dry Cask Storage

WHAT YOU CAN DO; ENDORSE, LEARN, TRANSFORM, DONATE, SHARE, SUPPORT, SPONSOR, CONNECT, COMMENT, AND/OR COLLABORATE

DONATE

Please help AGRP get this news out... thanks for your generous and very appreciated support! What you support grows and expands. What you withhold support from shrinks, shrivels and disappears. Even .50 cents per month is a great help. What is teaching the science of sustainable health worth?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donate To A Green Road Project; Help Dr. Goodheart Teach How To Make A Positive Difference For Seven Future Generations Of Children, Animals, Plants And The Planet

TRANSLATE

Click to Translate; 60 languages - German, French, Russian, Spanish

JOIN THE NETWORK OF OTHER ACTIVISTS; PLUG INTO AGRP


* Join the AGR Network. Forward this or any other article by clicking on the social media facebook, google plus and/or twitter buttons below any AGRP article. The first step for activists is to bring awareness of an issue to the public, by being informed yourself. Which news and information network do you prefer to plug into and network with?








 Email AGRP

RSS Feed

Subscribe to; A Green Road Project Magazine, monthly issues
It is easy to join the AGRP network, and your email will never be rented, sold or shared.

Subscribe/sign up, give feedback, or offer news tips or story ideas by sending an email to agreenroad@gmail.com . Subscribe by typing the word subscribe in the subject line.

COPYRIGHT

Wayne Dyer - What You Think, You Become (Wayne Dyer Meditation)

"Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, "ALLOWANCES ARE MADE FOR FAIR USE" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute, that otherwise might be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." For more info go to:www.lawcornel.edu/uscode.

Copyright protected material on this website is used in accordance with 'Fair Use', for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis, and will be removed at the request of the copyright owner(s). Please read Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: SHARE THIS ARTICLE

A Green Road; Teaching the Science of Sustainable Health. 

Keep asking - what works for 7 future generations without causing harm? 

Support AGR and share this article via by copying and pasting title and url into;

Website and contact page

Index, Table Of Contents

End


Dr. Caldicott MD - Nuclear Industry Causing 50–60% Decline In Sperm Count/Fertility In North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand -  NCRP/ICRP Corruption - Negative Effect Of Man Made Ionizing Radiation On Human Eggs, Embryo, Sperm, Fetus, And Newborn - ALARA Standard
https://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2014/01/us-govt-doe-835206-radiation-limits-for.html

Reactions:
Share this post: