Cellphone Radiation? Probably Worse For You Than Fukushima Because It's Stuck to Your Head!

That's right. Unless you live near or around the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plants, or the nearby areas affected, then there are many things that are much more dangerous to you and your families' well-being than crap spewing out of the Dai-ichi nuclear power plant.

People need to keep things in perspective. Of course the Fukushima nuclear accident is serious business. For me, I thank God I don't live there... Actually, no. That's not true. I thank me. I'd never live close to a nuclear power plant anyway. Neither would I live close to any sort of refinery, oil producing facilities or toxic waste dumps. I always questions the sanity of people who do... I always wonder why, when something bad happens, then the people who do live near these places complain as if they are surprised by disaster.


Seems to me disaster has a way of striking all around the world all the time.


Like I said, when it comes to your health and the welfare of your family, there's lots of things you should be concerned about... If you don't live near Fukushima then there's stuff going on all around you that just aren't as glamorous as nuclear accidents so they aren't reported by the main stream mass media, yet they have a much higher chance of ruining your health or your families' health than Fukushima ever could.


Here's a list of a few:


Did you know that For Every One Death Due to Nuclear Power, 4,000 Die Due to Coal? 


Or how about Benzene in Cars! This Will Kill More People Than Fukushima Will


And today's interesting tidbit comes from Activist Post. It is entitled Is Your Cell Phone Killing You?

An excellent infographic has been released, which covers many of the physical and mental health problems, as well as the financial burden sold to an increasing number of people who feel they "cannot live without" a cell phone.

As shown below, this obsession manifests in a myriad of ways that affect individual health and social interaction....

There is one other area key area that is not covered in the infographic, but is also worth mentioning -- the radiation effects of cell phones, especially on the young.

Experts have said that cell phones are capable of causing a number of health problems, including depression, infertility and damage to your DNA.

In 2011, the WHO/IARC released a report stating that cell phone radiation may have a carcinogenic effect on humans. In fact, the World Health Organization actually said that cell phones are in the same cancer-causing category as lead, engine exhaust, and chloroform. 

Considering the hundreds of millions who live thousands of miles away from Fukushima with how much they have a radioactive device stuck to their head all day, I'd say that this issue demands some serious consideration.

Here's more details and facts from this very interesting infographic:

1) More people can't live without their cell phone:

* The average person glances at their cell phone 150 times a day

* 68% of people experience phantom phone vibration when anticipating a phone call or notification

* 43% of iPhone users would go shoeless for a week rather than temporarily release their phones

* 22% would forego brushing their teeth

* 73% of people sleep with their cell phones

2) This obsession can lead to mental and health problems

* Fear and anxiety can increase coagulation and increase heart disease by a factor of four

* 57% feel anxiety when they run out of battery or credit or have no network coverage

* 70% of women and 61% of men fear losing their phones (it's called "nomophobia" or "no mobile phone phobia")

* 50% feel anxious when they don't have their mobile phone with them 

* 25% of nomophobia have experienced accidents while messaging or talking on the phone

3) Sleep deprivation

* People lose an average of 45 minutes a week of sleep due to cell phone usage

* 63% of smart phones users use a social networking site before going to bed

The article then goes on to suggest ways to fight back against cell phones (and I heartily agree!)

1) Turn off cell phones 45 minutes before bedtime to increase sleep quality

2) Take a trip unplugged! Go to where there is no TV, network or computers! 

3) Resist constantly checking your cell phone for messages. If it's important, then they will call you

May I add?:

4) Turn it off at meal time

5) Turn it off during meetings and when you are not at work

6) Never use if for an alarm clock

7) Turn off your cell phone for 12 hours a day, everyday

Cell phones are bad news. Not only are they bad for your health, they are ruining people's quality of life. 


One person commented to me that, "... they can't be as bad as breathing in Fukushima radiation..." To that another friend said, "No. You just shove them up a hole in your head and talk on them for hours..." Good point.

Turn those damned things off! 


Refer to this great video that I wrote about at New Year's in Turn off those digital devices and learn to live again:

Not only will turning off your cell phone for at least 12 hours a day improve your life, it will improve your health.


For a related article, please read: Radiation and Reason - the Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear 

The US Dollar is Dropping Like Dead Flies All Over the Place

This from Zerohedge is about how many nations, including staunch ally Japan, are quietly concluding business deals and trade that do not involve the US dollar - the world's supposed reserve currency. This needs no comment from me excepting that I'm wondering when gold and silver are going to go ballistic.

Zerohedge reports: 


For anyone wondering how the abandonment of the dollar reserve status would look like we have a Hollow Men reference: not with a bang, but a whimper... Or in this case a whole series of bilateral agreements that quietly seeks to remove the US currency as an intermediate. Such as these:

"World's Second (China) And Third Largest (Japan) Economies To Bypass Dollar, Engage In Direct Currency Trade",

"India and Japan sign new $15bn currency swap agreement",  

"China, Russia Drop Dollar In Bilateral Trade", 


"China And Iran To Bypass Dollar, Plan Oil Barter System", 


and now this: "Iran, Russia Replace Dollar With Rial, Ruble in Trade, Fars Says." And ironically, the proposal to dump the greenback did not come from Iran. Per Bloomberg: "Iran and Russia replaced the U.S. dollar with their national currencies in bilateral trade, Iran’s state-run Fars news agency reported, citing Seyed Reza Sajjadi, the Iranian ambassador in Moscow. The proposal to switch to the ruble and the rial was raised by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at a meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Astana, Kazakhstan, of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the ambassador said." Is Iran gradually becoming the poster child of an energy rich country that just says no to the dollar: "Iran has replaced the dollar in its oil trade with India, China and Japan, Fars reported."... Read more




It won't be too long until Japan, China and Russia will complete bilateral trade agreements with the Eurozone nations in exchange for purchasing European Bonds or European Financial Stability Facilities (FSF).  Oh, but don't worry, Only China, Japan, Russia, India, Brazil and the EU will make these transactions in other currencies besides dollars... Everyone else will still use good old US made paper! Who will that be, you ask? Well, there's the USA, and er... Ummmm...

Another Wide Spread Cause of Illness that Affects Everyone - Probably You Too!

This blog started out as a blog about Marketing, Media and Japan. But as time went on, and due to the March 11 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster and the foaming-at-the-mouth rantings of people who were claiming that we all were going to die, I switched the focus of this blog to blasting those clowns out of the water. Now, I see where I have to refocus on writing about just how messed up people are and how f'ed up their priorities are.


The year is 2011. People all over the world are complaining about nuclear power. No one says anything about coal and oil even though, for every unit of power produced, those industries kill more than 5,000 times more people than those who die from nuclear power. 


People in the west are talking about their health, safety and the environment. They are "getting back to nature", "natural", "eating healthy", "living right" and "exercising", etc., etc. People complain and moan about things like nuclear power and killing dolphins and the environment, etc. all the while they stuff their faces with processed foods, drive their cars like idiots, and do all sorts of things to their bodies that will kill them years before their time and way before any nuclear radiation will.


But I continue to flog a dead horse.


Actually, I am on vacation in Hawaii now and have come to observe another very curious behavior of people these days. This behavior cannot be good for you but you see people doing it all the time. This behavior has been proven to cause high blood pressure, heart disease and even birth defects, yet people still do it regularly.


Hawaii has scenic beauty, natural forests, beautiful unspoiled beaches. Clean. Cleanliness. Unpolluted. Healthy. Natural.


Yes. Healthy and natural... Excepting for the 65% of all people over 30 years old who are overweight here. 80% of the people over 40 are obese. 


Very healthy, except for the people.... But those are the unhealthy.. There are some healthy ones. At least they look that way. Those are the the young and beautiful people who are keeping their bodies fit with exercise....


I walk along an empty beach. There's no sound except nature; the wind, the waves, the birds. Silence. It is heaven to a person who has spent over three decades in Rock music as a musician and at a Rock music radio station. On the beach here I have only the sounds of nature; it is heavenly silence and extremely calming and very healthy. My stress levels drop to zero.


Also, on these quiet beaches, runners go by every morning on their daily jog. While doing something great for their bodies, they do something terrible for their minds. They all do the same thing: They wear headphones.

One guy wore headphones in a thunderstorm...

He's lost half his hearing... Ewww!

Everyone knows the benefit of natural sounds. Everyone knows the benefit of silence. Everyone knows that sound pollution is a cause of many physical and mental disorders. Yet these people, surely surrounded by man-made industrial noise all day, choose to spend their quiet time alone blasting loud music into their ears.


Go figure.


Here's what Wikipedia says about Health Effects from Noise Pollution:

Noise health effects are the health consequences of elevated sound levels. Elevated workplace or other noise can cause hearing impairment, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, annoyance and sleep disturbance. Changes in the immune system and birth defects have been attributed to noise exposure, but evidence is limited. Although some presbycusis may occur naturally with age, in many developed nations the cumulative impact of noise is sufficient to impair the hearing of a large fraction of the population over the course of a lifetime. Noise exposure has also been known to induce tinnitus, hypertension, vasoconstriction and other cardiovascular impacts. Beyond these effects, elevated noise levels can create stress, increase workplace accident rates, and stimulate aggression and other anti-social behaviors. The most significant causes are vehicle and aircraft noise, prolonged exposure to loud music, and industrial noise.

Why do people do good things for their body while doing such bad to their physiology and mind? Why do people appreciate the beauty of nature, yet they seem to not be able to appreciate the sound of nature?


It is quite odd the damage that people will voluntarily do to themselves. I'm not saying that listening to headphones is always bad. I think it might be fine to relax in contrast to, say, a ride on a packed commuter train. But when you have the rare chance to listen to nature, you'd be wise to take it.


Of course, in this article, once again, I will be attacked as some sort of "non-expert" but, like I said, over three decades in music as a paid professional makes me an expert and one of the few people who have made a good living in music. 


When music is your business and it is how you live, trust that you come to appreciate the health benefits of silence and natural sound.


I have no TV or stereo at my home and I certainly don't carry a stereo in my pocket. 


There's enough man-made noise pollution as it is. If I can hear nature and silence, I will choose that whenever and wherever possible. For your health, you should too.  

Notes and Dead Babies From the Fukushima Apocalypse

People really like to exaggerate. People really like to bend the truth to fit their agenda.


Most times that agenda is politically or financially motivated. At other times that agenda is pure and simple narcissism and those who are guilty of this are very many. These people insist upon being right no matter what and no matter how much facts get in the way.


Not being an expert on everything, and with a mass media background and much news experience, I like to stick with the facts... Just the facts.

Shell in Nigeria. For every 1 person who dies from nuclear power, 

900 will die from industrial uses of oil...

 And that doesn't include innocents killed in wars for oil.

The people who have an agenda are easier to understand than the narcissists, money is a great motivator. The motivation of a narcissist is a dark and strange place. 


Many narcissists are so often completely illogical that they write things and fail to recognize to comical nature of their comments.


In my post of June 20, entitled, Return of the Coal Industry and; Massive Health Problems and; Deaths Because of it, I wrote (and linked) to proof that about 3.3 million people a year, every year, die from pollutants from coal and oil based industrial pollutants. I also linked to proof that, per unit of energy, for every one person who has died from nuclear power, 4,000 die from coal industrial uses alone. Throw in oil and the death rate is more than 5,000 times and that doesn't include millions killed in wars for control of that oil. 

Aerial view of massive environmental destruction at Kingston Coal Factory

But the anti-nuclear crowd can't have that. They cannot argue with facts so they come up with nonsense comments. Like this one that was directed to me on Twitter:


"Is it OK for you to portray nuclear risk so low that someday coworkers will lose health, cannot feed their kids cuz they're dead?"


Yes, thank you. If you consider the level of risk so low then that is your value judgement. I portray the facts. That is what I deal in. What do you have to say about the fact that many more people die from coal or oil pollution than nuclear power? 


Also, those people working at Fukushima are not slave workers. This is not ancient Egypt or 18th century slave nations. Those people can quit that job anytime they wish. If they die? Well, have you never heard of life insurance? It was created for just such unforeseen emergencies as, well.... death.


Or is that case different if, as you say they "cannot feed their kids cuz they're dead," due to a much larger killer than nuclear energy; the coal industry and oil industry? Where are your protests about that which is demonstrated and proven as a bigger killer and destroyer of our environment?


By the way, I've noticed that protesting the oil industry is not the trendy flavor of the week... It sure was in the 1970's!


I sure do wish school's would start teaching math and logic as well as critical thinking skills. Our world sure could use it.... 


Sigh...


In a post yesterday, I blasted a writer for calling Fukushima "Japan's nuclear apocalypse."


It is total and complete nonsense to hyper bloviate and call Fukushima a "nuclear apocalypse." That's just total and complete rubbish.


I already explained what the definition of apocalypse is. It is defined as: "imminent destruction of the world and the salvation of the righteous. There's also great or total devastation and doom." 


Get that? Destruction of the world. Doom. Death. Everyone dead. This is not a fender bender.


About the BP Oil spill, some writers were even calling that an apocalyptic event. Total deaths? 11 so far. Many health issues and many more deaths to come most probably. But factually, only 11 so far. You call that apocalypse?


They called Chernobyl "apocalypse" too. So far, the total number of predicted dead from Chernobyl? According to the Chernobyl Forum: 4,000. You call that apocalypse? Very unfortunate for those who died, but hardly what I'd call "apocalypse." 


There's been a litany of events over the past 150 years that have been called apocalypse. The biggest one that comes to mind was World War II. How many people were killed in WWII? Over 60 million. 


They called that one apocalypse too. 60 million is a lot of deaths, but still not the apocalypse. Last I looked humanity was still infesting this planet. 


Words have meanings and when those words are misused, they become tools of propaganda. Intelligent people would be wise to take notice. Chernobyl happened over 25 years ago. They called that apocalypse? Laughable. Did you know that, since Chernobyl, over 17,500,000 people have died in car accidents worldwide? Over 1.2 million people per year and over 3,200 people per day die in car accidents worldwide! I suppose if we are going to be so loose with our terminology I could say that if you want to avoid the apocalypse, then you'll want stay out of your car and off the roads.


The total number of deaths from the Fukushima "Nuclear apocalypse" so far? 


Zero.


And this event at Fukushima some are calling "Japan's nuclear apocalypse"? Pardon me if I do not soil my pants in fear like some people are doing.




NOTE: Finally a big thanks to Michael Distacio of Rock Challenge Japan for reminding me of this great article. It heartens me that Scientific American, a journal of science publication, criticized the same article as I did. The only difference is that while I railed on Arnie Gundersen's nonsense. The Scientific American took other scientists to task:  


"...physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and [sic] may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.” The implication is clear: Radioactive fallout from the plant is spreading across the Pacific in sufficient quantities to imperil the lives of children (and presumably the rest of us as well)."


(snip)


That data is publicly available, and a check reveals that the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths.


Read more here.

Return of the Coal Industry & Massive Health Problems & Deaths Because of it

Who hasn't heard the proverb, "Be careful of what you wish for, because you just might get it?" 


You might have also heard what Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."


Now, after the accident of Fukushima, many people seem desperately to be wishing for a end to nuclear power the world over - forever. I don't. In spite of all its warts, nuclear power is still a young technology that should get better, cleaner and safer as time progresses (if the government gets out of the way) and, as I've written many times, the worst thing that could ever happen to us would be to lose a cheap source of clean energy.

Pinocchio - When You Wish Upon a Star

Anyone who thinks for a moment what the alternatives are - and has a grasp on business concepts like cost effectiveness - would know that the alternatives are not good.


Think what you would do... Think what you will do when your gasoline, heating and energy, and grocery bills go up double or triple in the next five to ten years as the price of oil and energy skyrocket? 


That's what's going to happen without nuclear power...And people are wishing for this? Madness.


In a previous post, I quoted Seth Godin. The post was entitled, For Every One Death Due to Nuclear Power, 4,000 Die Due to Coal. Seth Godin wrote in Triumph of Coal Marketing comparing deaths due to various energy sources compared by terrawatt hour:


For every person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die due to coal, adjusted for the same amount of power produced... 



Seth also links on to another article and chart showing the statistics comparing deaths due to differing energy sources. Interestingly, in one example, even though Solar power accounts for less than 0.1% of world energy and nuclear is 5.9% of world energy, more than ten times more people die annually from Solar power than nuclear power.


The lesson of that post was the fact that people today believing nuclear power is much more dangerous to human health than coal or the oil industry is is a triumph of big business marketing by those coal and oil industries. 


My final comment was: 

When you live in western society and whenever the facts do not bear out what you believe, you can bet your bottom dollar that most probably tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on marketing, advertising and promotion to help create the ideas that you believe. 

It's true. Oil and coal kill many more people worldwide annually than nuclear energy does (and that doesn't include millions of middle eastern men, women and children killed by the west over these last 20 years in order to allow the USA and her western allies to control the oil). Yet people in the west do not protest about the coal industry or oil industry and the wars... But they will lose their diapers over nuclear power.

It is a gross hypocrisy of the west and western people. When will they ever learn that their thoughts are so controlled by the mass media?

CLICK ON IMAGE TO SEE LARGER VIEW

From the Next Big Future:

Air pollution from fossil fuel (coal plants and oil used in cars and trucks) and developing countries burning wood or coal inside their homes are one of the biggest causes of all kinds of death and illness.

Worldwide, indoor smoke from solid fuel combustion causes about 21% of deaths from lower respiratory infections, 35% of deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and about 3% of deaths from lung cancer.

Indoor air pollution from solid fuel use and urban outdoor air pollution are estimated to be responsible for 3.1 million premature deaths worldwide every year and 3.2% of the global burden of disease.

In the year 2004, outdoor air pollution in urban areas was responsible for almost 1.2 million deaths (2% of all deaths) and 0.6% of the global burden of disease. Transportation-related air pollution, which is a significant contributor to total urban air pollution, increases the risks of cardiopulmonary-related deaths and non-allergic respiratory disease. Some evidence supports an association of transportation-related air pollution with increased risks of lung cancer, myocardial infarction, increased inflammatory response and adverse pregnancy outcomes (e.g. premature birth and low birth weight).

Exposure to particulate matter, including metals, has been linked to a range of adverse health outcomes, including modest transient changes in the respiratory tract and impaired pulmonary function, increased risk of symptoms requiring emergency room or hospital treatment, and increased risk of death from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases or lung cancer. Particulate matter is estimated to cause about 8% of deaths from lung cancer, 5% of deaths from cardiopulmonary disease and about 3% of deaths from respiratory infections.

These deaths are directly linked to pollutants in our air, water and food. The biggest contaminant and cause of pollution in our air is directly from the coal or oil industries.

Now, governments of some nations like Germany have promised to phase out nuclear power. What fools. What, pray tell, are their alternative energy sources going to be?

If anyone claims that renewable energy sources can meet our needs by mid-century. Wrong! This just in:

A blunder of staggering proportions by the IPCC

Steve McIntyre has uncovered a blunder on the part of Pachauri and the IPCC that is causing waves of doubt and calls for retooling on both sides of the debate. In a nutshell, the IPCC made yet another inflated claim that:

…80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century…

Unfortunately, it has been revealed that this claim is similar to the Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 fiasco, with nothing independent to back it up. Worse, it isn’t the opinion of the IPCC per se, but rather that of Greenpeace. It gets worse.

Steve McIntyre discovered the issue and writes this conclusion:

It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.

Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.

Those are strong words from Steve. Read his entire report here.

Well if renewable sources cannot meet our needs, then what's left? Aha! Oil and Coal! Wow! How about that? Who'd a thunk it?

The future of Oil? Wonderful! Not for supply, or for you mundanes who have to buy the stuff to live, but for the oil companies and their shareholders the future looks very bright. Read, Peak oil: 'Nothing to worry about' – but Labour knew the real facts.

That leaves us with coal. Oh yes, What everyone has been wishing for. A return to nature! Coal comes from the earth. It is natural! Besides how Seth Godin showed above that for every person killed by nuclear energy, 4,000 die from coal energy, here's a glimpse of how healthy coal is for you and your kids: The Dangers of Coal-Burning Power Plants.

Everyone screams for an end to nuclear power. They scream that the Japanese government is lying about the situation. They scream that the end is near. And, yet, the fact remains that no one has yet died from the Fukushima nuclear accident. Some claim that tens of thousands will die over the next 20 ~ 30 years due to Fukushima. Oh really? What about actual deaths from fossil fuels? The Yarra Valley Climate Action Group collating data from all over the world have come up with this: 


"0.3 million people die annually world-wide from societally-imposed, fossil fuel-based electricity generation pollutants (carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, volatile organics and heavy metals, notably mercury) and 170,000 people die annually world-wide from coal burning-based electricity generation..."

Throw in that (about) 333,000 (0.3 million) in with the 170,000 and the 3 million worldwide stated above, and you start showing some real problems with fuel based energy production and pollutants. That's a total of over 3.4 million worldwide last year alone. Deaths from Chernobyl? From the Chernobyl GMN6 (Russian site) these figures that have been hotly debated by both sides: 

30 lives were lost during the accident or within a few months after it. Figures from the Ukraine Radiological Institute suggest that over 2500 deaths were caused by the accident...

Now, the hypocrisy and arrogance of the anti-nuclear crowd (who was also the believers in AGW just a few years ago) is coming to a fore and we're heading down a dangerous path towards economic and environmental ruin. Again, what are you going to do when your fuel, gas and grocery bills begin to skyrocket? What are we going to do without a cheap clean renewable source of energy? Don't look now, but the situation in China will surely have huge ramifications on the rest of the world.

From Gregor.us entitled, "China Coal and the Great Doubling": Back in 2005 it was clear to a number of observers that China’s trailing rate of coal consumption was so strong, that its demand was on course to double by the end of the decade. As of 2010, this is precisely what’s happened. From a jump between 2002-2003, around 850 Mtoe (million tonnes oil equivalent), China is now consuming 1713.5 Mtoe as of last year, according to the BP Statistical Review. | see: China Coal Consumption in Mtoe 2000-2010. 

It only took China 7-8 years to achieve this great doubling. While the sustainability of this rate of growth is certainly in doubt, it bears mentioning that last year a number of global coal producers increased production to help China meet its needs. Indonesia, in particular, raised its production of coal by an almost insane 20% over 2009. Indeed, a number of the regions that I have previously identified as having deep, recoverable reserves raised production in 2010 by substantial margins. The global transition back to coal is fully on course, with a veritable second Age of Coal now on the horizon. 


Yes. Yes. Quite wonderful. The return of the coal based industry and industrial production of coal. Coal and oil use skyrockets just when everyone is screaming for an end to the nuclear industry. China doubles their coal production and use; many nations begin to follow suit. The price of oil continues to rise. 


You know, there was a time when everyone was screaming to use nuclear power in the late 1960's and 70's because the oil and coal industry were ruining the environment.


On a practical sense, the increase in use of coal and increase in price of gas means a huge rise in the cost of living. This also means a return to greatly polluted skies, rivers and oceans. This pollution also means a huge increase in the rates of a variety of cancers, lung disorders and heart diseases. As the use of oil and coal increase, as is proven by history, deaths from these sources will greatly increase. 


This is not conjecture. It is proven by historical record.


It also has an ironic positive note for those with a socialist bent, when prices go way up, consumption goes way down. The thinking goes that, when everyone is poor, this cuts down on pollution - though the record of the old Soviet Union and China don't seem to bear out these ideas.  


You wish for a permanent end to nuclear power? Be careful of what you wish for. For you just might get it.