Radiation 101: Electromagnetic Spectrum, Bananas and RadioPhobia

It’s important to understand some of the types of radiation we can experience every day. Radiation, in a general context, refers to a source of energy that travels through space and may be able to penetrate certain materials. A good analogy is light. As we get more specific about various types of radiation, it’s helpful to view sources of radiation as part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum

Within the electromagnetic spectrum different types of radiation are mapped in intensity and grouped into ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation. All sources of ionizing radiation are essentially man-made (X-rays, nuclear radiation), except for very low-level ultraviolet rays with slightly higher frequencies than visible light. Cosmic energy is also ionizing, but the atmosphere and ozone layer try to deal with filtering out cosmic radiation daily.

As we move to the far end of ionizing radiation we can notice that frequencies are higher and waves are shorter. Natural non-ionizing radiation, which we encounter every day, tends to be less energetic with longer wave lengths.

What is Ionizing Radiation?

Ionizing radiation simply means particles or electromagnetic waves that are energized. This causes electrons to detach from atoms or molecules. Ionization creates free radicals, and we’ve all heard much about free radicals and the health consequences for the last decade to understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing particles or waves.

Do we live in a radiated world? Yes. Do we live in an inherently ionized world? Nope. There’s a huge difference. Ionizing radiation is linked to cancers, heart disease and genetic coding malformations, to name a few. Non-ionizing radiation consists of radiowaves, microwaves and infrared to name a few.

Bananas and RadioPhobia

When you eat a banana, you get a good source of naturally non-ionized potassium. Due to the fact that a banana consists of non-ionized radiation we can be assured eating it will not create genetic birth effects. Conversely, if that banana was exposed to high or low levels of ionized radiation from a nuclear plant – you’d likely throw that banana out and not eat it. You can read about our previous article Why We Can't Compare Eating a Banana to Nuclear Fallout here. 


Eating one banana per day X 365 days per year = 
36 μSv per year dosage


Bananas contain a rare radioactive isotope of potassium, which undergoes three types of beta decay. Just like in bananas, Potassium-40 also exists in the human body, but remains a fraction of the 160 grams of potassium the human body contains. Potassium-40 should not be confused with the other stable isotopes of potassium.


There are three potassium isotopes. K-39 (a stable isotope), the most abundant approximately 93% total; K-41 is next at almost 7% and is also a stable isotope. The radioactive isotope, K-40 has a very low concentration of 0.0118% and has a very long half-life of 1,260,000,000 years. I'll still take two bananas please!


So the next time the atomic energy run media tells you we live in a radiated world lumping both ionized and non-ionized sources of energy together (so don’t worry about low levels of nuclear radiation) – tell them to shove it.

We'll also hear all about radiation-phobia in the news and business owners who are instructing citizens to support the economy because civilians won’t buy their radiated products. Your health is more important than their fat bank accounts so don't pay attention to them either. You can read about the Ionizing Radiation Coverup Here.

It is my opinion the average person as we aggregate together is going to finally tell the atomic industry, including media and government supporters of atomic energy industry that we have had enough. We will not care to support the atomic agenda any longer. When this finally happens they will finally have no choice and will be weeded out by the people.

“By and For the People.”

We put together this 2-part article to counter-balance the idiocy of those who prefer to stick their head in the sand (so be it - let them) and provide our insights to anyone interested in more facts and opinions on the world wide web. It may or may not have been the best way to dessiminate information, because all types of radiation under various levels (both ionizing and non-ionizing)can wreak biological havoc at different times.

However, for the media and for those who stick their head in the sand is it correct to tell others less knowledgeable that we live in a radiated world so who cares - why worry? All levels of radiation bring risks, and we live in a highly radiated world nowadays compared to thousands of years earlier. The point is no one needs more radiation. Period.

Some would prefer to just wait things out, live in denial, until humans visibly demonstrate mutant genetic tendencies. Other intelligent beings prefer to use their intelligence and act proactively, question things and find solutions BEFORE we get to that point. At that point, it's too late. Obviously such persons care not about the future generations in such short-sightedness and self-centered living. I think few would question the moral and spiritual emptiness of our cultural times.

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(llrc.org), 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 (ICRP.org).

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.