The Ionizing Radiation Coverup
A few days ago we wrote about the differences between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, and why we can't compare eating a non-ionized banana to receiving low doses of ionizing radiation from Japan. For weeks we debated why certain media reps' and officials were downplaying the potential health effects from low-level ionizing radiation to the public.

Perhaps one reason was as simple as psychological denial. The other, as we feared, could be to maintain order from a large-scale panic and slowly feed the public unusual data over longer intervals.

We'd like to look at the evidence and data surrounding the Low Level Radiation Campaign(, and how it plays an impact for many of our friends around the world since March 11th, 2011.

Dr. Busby recently published an article on the Fukushima Radiation Risks. The British scientist studies the long-term health effects of ionizing radiation. Although for weeks the public has been told by experts that there are very few similarities between Chernobyl and Fukushima, Dr. Chris Busby says that they are very similar in the ways we are all being lied to about the seriousness of health consequences later down the road. An extensive video explains the concepts of the Low Level Radiation Campaign, for those not familiar with it.

Where the problems seem to stem is in the outdated model being used by nuclear agencies, the UN, educators and the media. When we keep hearing such statements, such as "miniscule levels of radiation," or "low levels of radiation are safe," it is because these are referring to the outdated model from the International Commission of Radiological Protection (

However, The European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) developed a different model, which determines internal absorption of ionizing radiation. The model correlates higher cancer rates with low-level doses of ionizing radiation 100 times over the ICRP's risk model. For instance, with a population of 30 million in Tokyo, the older ICRP model predicts a 100 deaths from cancer over the next 50 years with radiation levels at 100 to 500 nSv/hour. The low level ECRR model predicts 120,000 deaths under the same parameters. Birth defects, heart disease and other health risks are also calculated.

However, if this sounds alarming regarding the vast gulf between the two models' predicted numbers of cancer rates, Dr. Busby frankly speaks out on Russian television in this video about Japan and Fukushima about the health effects for Japanese people.

Another video, a trip down memory lane into Chernobyl history, where Dr. Busby (and others) suggest that Chernobyl was a partial cover-up regarding the risks and health effects of its fallout. Scientists even go so far to say the cover-up in Chernobyl amounts to genocide. This video, Nuclear Controversies, created by Wladimir Tchertkoff (2003), details scientists debating at the UN regarding Chernobyl's long-term health effects.

What can we make of it and what should we do in our current crisis of low-level radiation coming from Fukushima? Why even today is the low-level radiation model regarded in a trivial manner in comparison to other models and theories?

Published April 4th 2011, the Herald Sun Reports that Japan withheld radiation levels between the 12th of March until the 24th. The data was higher than previously reported over a more extended area of coverage than previously revealed. The public reasoning is that officials did not know how high the radiation levels were at the time, until much later.

We suspect much more is to come over the next months. We have yet to know the full extent of the truth. Registered & Protected
Photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing and when they have vanished there is no contrivance on earth which can make them come back again.
-Henri Cartier-Bresson-

Public Commons

We see the beauty in decay and the shadowed dreams of the forgotten.