Letter to the editor: “differences in radiation” november 14, 20

view pdf for the product

dear ladies and gentlemen, please print the letter to the editor on:


3350 tons of nuclear reactor rubble are rolling in
by markus klohr october 16th ... that the rubble from the test reactor near karlsruhe had radiation of less than ten microsieverts. for comparison: the natural radiation in the atmosphere is more than 2000 microsieverts. ...


letter to the editor:

can natural and artificial radioactivity be equated?

this is one of the most explosive information gaps in the public eye. contrary to the repeatedly emphasized statement by the operators and the authorities informed by them that there are no differences between natural and artificial radioactivity and that exposure to, for example, x-rays from natural radiation is the same as from x-rays from a reactor accident, the difference in reality is enormous and fundamental.
the constant and very weak natural radioactivity to which our biological repair mechanism has adapted over the course of earth's history consists, with a few exceptions, of >immaterial radiation that hits the body from outside, sometimes does not even penetrate the skin and, once absorbed by the body, no longer radiates there afterwards. the source of radiation itself is either not on the earth at all, but is located in the sun or in the cosmos or is firmly bound in rocks in the earth. only to some extent, and this is limited to a few radionuclides (e.g. potassium-40, radon-222), natural radioactivity is bound to matter that can enter the body. and only this travels through life as a material source of radiation. the rest, as i said, is external cosmic or terrestrial radiation, the source of which never comes into direct contact with us. from her we only get the bullets, so to speak, but not the guns. radioactivity escaped from nuclear power plants, even if it is only slightly above the natural radiation level, consists exclusively of radioactive atoms, i.e. the radiating matter itself.
for the usual measuring devices it is the same whether the radiation comes from a source in the cosmos or deep from the earth or whether this source is in the form of radioactive atoms directly in front of the measuring window. it's different for a living being. so the natural (largely matterless) radiation, with the exceptions mentioned, can never settle in the body, nor can it - and this also applies to the natural radioactive nuclides, as long as they are present in constant dilution with their stable isotope, such as potassium-40 - accumulate in the bones, in soft tissue or in the thyroid. in addition, the radiation coming from outside covers our body cells in a statistical distribution and without preference for any type of tissue - a burden that our genetic repair mechanism can apparently cope with to some extent, although it may already be overwhelmed by the increased fallout level from nuclear tests since the 1960s.
again: radiant matter from a reactor accident can in principle be absorbed by the organism without exception, whereby the radiation source itself is located in the body and continues to radiate there, even if it is not from the outside is more measurable. the radiation also has a concentrated effect on the surrounding tissue, whose repair capacity may no longer be sufficient, especially if local accumulation via the food chain occurs unnoticed in certain tissues, cell types or inside a cell. over time, this can be several thousand to a million times greater than the environment.

source: frederic vester, billanz einer ver(w)irrung

i would be very happy about an answer

--
with kind regards

wolfgang oberacker


oberacker natur technik






Malik Management St.Gallen AG
Geltenwilenstrasse 16

CH-9001 St.Gallen