Radiation Health Effects URLS [Archive]

theroyprocess

Nov19-03, 09:35 AM

Hard science is impersonal...the morality of science is of public concern.
Discussing these issues with the late Dr. Roy, professor of physics
emeritus....he said "the question IS not can it be done...but SHOULD
it be done" with respect to new science. Dr. Roy was a prodigy and
was writing papers on nuclear theory as a teenager. He was a pioneer
in nuclear physics....who became outspokenly antinuke during his
astounding career.
He was not the only one to voice their concerns and careers against
a radioactive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eminent nuclear chemist and cardiologist Dr. John Gofman
wrote the following letter, May 11, 1999:

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720

LETTER OF CONCERN

To Whom It May Concern,

During 1942, I led "The Plutonium Group" at the University of California, Berkeley, which managed to isolate the first milligram of plutonium from irradiated uranium. [Plutonium-239 had previously been discovered by Glenn Seaborg and Edwin McMillan]. During subsequent decades, I have studied the biological effects of ionizing radiation---- including the alpha particles emitted by the decay of plutonium.

By any reasonable standard of biomedical proof, there is no safe dose, which means that just one decaying radioactive atom can produce permanent mutation in a cell's genetic molecules [Gofman 1990: "Radiation Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure"]. For alpha particles, the logic of no safe dose was confirmed experimentally in 1997 by Tom K. Hei and co-workers at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [USA] Vol. 94, pp. 3765-3770, April 1997, "Mutagenic Effects of A Single and an Exact Number of Alpha Particles in Mammilian Cells."]

It follows from such evidence that citizens worldwide have a strong biological basis for opposing activities which produce an appreciable risk of exposing humans and others to plutonium and other radioactive pollution at any level. The fact that humans cannot escape exposure to ionizing radiation from various natural sources ---which may well account for a large share of humanity's inherited afflictions- is no reason to let human activities INCREASE exposure to ionizing radiation. The fact that ionizing radiation is a mutagen was first demonstrated in 1927 by Herman Joseph Muller, and subsequent evidence has shown it to be a mutagen of unique potency. Mutation is the basis not only for inherited afflictions, but also for cancer.

Very truly yours,

[signed]
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph D
Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States: 215 atmospheric tests + 815 underground tests = 1,030
USSR: 219 atmospheric tests + 496 underground tests = 715
UK: 21 atmospheric tests + 24 underground tests = 45
France: 50 atmospheric tests + 160 underground tests = 210
China: 23 atmospheric tests + 22 underground tests = 45

The grand total of global atmospheric tests = 528

Source: Page 52, "Atomic Audit, the Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons Since 1940," Stephen Schwartz, Editor, Brookings Institution Press,
Washington D.C., 1998.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plutonium Fallout

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/RadxPlutonium.html

Hardy, E.P., Krey, P.W. and Volchok, H.L. (February 16, 1973). Global
inventory and distribution of fallout plutonium. Nature. 241. pg. 444-445.

The following letter is one of the most important ever published in the
British journal Nature, providing baseline data about the dispersal of
weapons testing-derived fallout plutonium as well as plutonium isotopes
derived from the 1964 satellite accident. Hardy, et. al. used the
reporting unit of mCi/km2. This can be converted directly to the more
understandable (for the layperson) reporting unit of pCi/m2. Few areas
in the northern hemisphere contain less than 1 pCi/m2 of fallout 239Pu,
1/2 T 24,240 years. Even though this fallout is stratospheric rather
than tropospheric, the higher values in soils are correlated to some
extent with locations having the greatest annual precipitation, as well
as mid-latitude locations. One to four pCi/m2 of fallout 239Pu is the
minimum baseline level of plutonium contamination in the northern
hemisphere. More recent research identifies numerous areas with much
higher levels of plutonium in soils, see especially the data collected
pertaining to the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado.

Below is a scan of page 444 followed by a more readable enlargement of
the table. See RAD 8:5 Anthropogenic radioactivity: Baseline data:
Plutonium and Americium for more comments on this article and other
information on plutonium fallout. For more information on this
satellite accident, consult RAD 11:9 Anthropogenic radioactivity: Major
plume source points: Nuclear Powered Satellite Accidents.

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Scans/naturepg1.jpg

New Book by Dr. Rosalie Bertell:

http://www.iicph.org/planet_earth.htm

LURCH

Nov19-03, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
[please disseminate in your networks]

Uranium Medical Research Centre [www.umrc.net] have definitively stated and
published the fact that the urines of Afghan civilians near sites of bomb
explosions contained U236 [Croatian Medical Journal, October
2003, http://www.cmj.hr/index.php?D=/44/5/520]

Now this I find a particularly distressing discovery. Especially in light of the fact that, AFAIK, depleted uranium is not used in bombs, is it?

selfAdjoint

Nov19-03, 08:26 PM

If you read the report, it says they found NON-depleted uranium in the urine and also in the bomb craters. This is puzzling as they admit, although the report goes on to speculate about new generation munitions (bunker-busters with uranium coatings). Why non-depleted uranium would be used for these is anybody's guess. Cheaper? By this time I wouldn't put anything past this administration.

russ_watters

Nov21-03, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by LURCH
Now this I find a particularly distressing discovery. Especially in light of the fact that, AFAIK, depleted uranium is not used in bombs, is it? Good catch. Doesn't make any sense. But hey, who says rantings have to make sense? By any reasonable standard of biomedical proof, there is no safe dose, Just out of curiosity, have you ever been exposed to direct sunlight? Does it terrify you?

LURCH

Nov21-03, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
If you read the report, it says they found NON-depleted uranium in the urine and also in the bomb craters. This is puzzling as they admit, although the report goes on to speculate about new generation munitions (bunker-busters with uranium coatings). Why non-depleted uranium would be used for these is anybody's guess. Cheaper? By this time I wouldn't put anything past this administration.

Ah yes, I see it refers to natural uranium. This brings up some interesting possibilities. The idea that the U.S. government went to the trouble and expense to mine the uranium and then did not process the metal is not one of them. To my thinking, this leaves two viable alternatives.

The first is that there are deposits of natural uranium in the soil. This seems to me to be the most likely explanation. This could potentially be good news, as a valuable resource that the Afghans could use to help restabilize their economy.

The second is more alarming, but less probable IMHO. If the uranium is not native to the area, then it has to have been brought in from outside. Why would Afghans want to import uranium, if not to enrich it, possibly to build weapons of mass destruction?

Nereid

Nov21-03, 09:33 PM

John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph D, quoted by theroyprocess: The fact that humans cannot escape exposure to ionizing radiation from various natural sources ---which may well account for a large share of humanity's inherited afflictions- is no reason to let human activities INCREASE exposure to ionizing radiation. So, no more long distance flights in modern jet aircraft (a human activity which significantly increases exposure to ionising radiation), time to return to ships and trains. Cosmic rays are ionising radiation, and human exposure to it increases significantly with height.

Better ground all astronauts too.

How to do the cost-benefit calculations? Don't forget to throw freedom and choice into the mix.

theroyprocess

Nov22-03, 01:49 PM

Activists Make Nuclear Waste a Russian Election Issue

MOSCOW, Russia, November 18, 2003 (ENS)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2003/2003-11-18-19.asp#anchor3

Environmental activists across Russia plan to stage protests on November
25 against the import of nuclear waste that are intended to influence
public opinion in advance of national elections.

Two weeks ahead of the December 7 elections to the State Duma
(Parliament), Russian environmental groups will organize protests and
information pickets, actions and performances aimed at informing voters
across country on the positions of candidates on nuclear waste issue.

Ecodefense, Russia's national anti-nuclear group since 1998, says
actions will take place 20 large cities on November 25, conducted by
some 50 environmental groups.

The campaign is aimed at building a strong civil society by forcing
parliamentarians to be more responsible.

"The new elections are coming, and we have to remind voters which Duma
members voted in favor of the import of nuclear waste," Ecodefense said.
"Through effective public pressure we need to force the new parliament
to disapprove the nuclear waste legislation as amoral and anti-democratic."

In 2001, the Duma approved legislation allowing the Ministry of Atomic
Energy (MinAtom) and the nuclear industry to import high-level
radioactive waste such as spent nuclear fuel.

At the same time, nearly 90 percent of citizens demonstrated their
opposition to the new legislation, holding hundreds of actions all
across the country. The parliament ignored mass public opinion.

The Russian nuclear industry has announced it will import over 20,000
metric tons of nuclear waste from across the world for long term
storage. The industry expects to earn nearly $20 billion for new reactor
construction and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.

But Ecodefense says that for the past several years the nuclear industry
has been under strong public pressure, and cannot find new customers for
its spent fuel services.

At the same time, Russia is having problems dealing with its own spent
nuclear fuel. In Murmansk today, Victor Akhunov, head of the Russian
Ministry of Atomic Energy's Department of Ecology and Nuclear
Installation Decommissioning, told a meeting of an International Atomic
Energy Agency expert group that Russia has 200 metric tons of spent
nuclear naval fuel that it has little chance of reprocessing. He called
the backlog Minatom's "most difficult current challenge."

--

Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~

See also http://nucnews.net - NucNews Links and Archives

Technology exists to transmute, denature and forever ELIMINATE
nuclear waste, plutonium and "dirty bomb" elements from nuclear
waste. But the nuke industry and governments can extort far more
tax payers money by threatening the public health and world peace
with nukes. At least some Russians are objecting!

http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess

Nereid

Nov22-03, 09:03 PM

Interesting info theroyprocess.

However, I would be more convinced to take the case you are so energetically promoting more seriously if you addressed the questions I asked in my last post in this thread.

theroyprocess

Dec3-03, 09:18 AM

Nereid,

What 'choice' did these babies have? Your Titanic is sinking.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4808545-107983,00.html

It is not surprising that pro-nuke industry spin
doctors and apologists are claiming the plutonium
and other isotopes found in baby teeth from the
Sellafield contamination cited in the news stories
allegedly pose little threat to health. Cancer rates
are nearly 1 in 2 today from the chemical and
radioactive cess pool we live in.

On other web sites, it has been argued that there
is no difference between death from man made
radioactive environmental contamination...and
being killed in a car crash or any other lethality.
This is a confabulated argument used to distract
and confuse the very real health threat from
radiation. It is an ancient psy-ops technique to cause
doubt and befuddle the publics mind, also known
as 'divide and conquer'.....by creating doubt.
If the nuclear juggernaut is allowed to carry on
as they have, the future is bleak indeed. Gort...
klaatu, barada, nickto.....kapish!
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis F. Nester
Phoenix,AZ

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0308/S00219.htm

http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess

Nereid

Dec3-03, 07:33 PM

[b(] [:((]
Whatever damage babies and others may suffer as a result of nuclear fallout (etc), they suffer 100, 1,000, maybe a million times as much damage from natural sources of radiation. However I have yet to see you address this issue!
[:((] [:((] [:((]

If the Roy Process can render radionuclides harmless, it would be *far* better to use it to reduce the damage caused by naturally-occurring radioactivity. Better how? Better in a) greater reduction in harm to babies per $ of investment; b) greater chance of acceptance (sure beats tilting at windmills any day).

BTW, how many 'unnecessary' baby cancers are caused by their irresponsible parents taking them on trans-pacific flights? Perhaps you could start a movement to prosecute the parents? the airlines??

theroyprocess

Dec3-03, 09:40 PM

The Nuremberg codes state that 'No medical experimentation can be
allowed without prior INFORMED CONSENT'......because of the quack
sadist Dr. Mengele et al......what a joke the Nuremberg codes have
become. It is as if the Holocaust never happened and those people
suffered and died for nothing.

I have posted enough to convince a rational person that it is better to
avoid ionizing radiation for health sake and that burial of nuclear waste
will not work...I posted the Roy Process material Dr. Roy encouraged me
to do before he died. With little money I did my best.

On the Tom Brokow national TV news show tonight...there was a segment
about the recent deaths from flu and a doctor stating the urgent need
for getting flu shots. Did you get yours yet? Here is some information
that may confuse you about the alleged safety and effectiveness of
flu shots....do you want to 'volunteer' for this experiment on your health?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flu Shot Season - Think twice before you shoot!

I'd like to repeat the Flu/Alzheimer's connection that so many of you have asked about. According to Hugh Fudenberg, MD, the world's leading immunogeneticist and 13th most quoted biologist of our times (nearly 850 papers in peer review journals), if an individual has had five consecutive flu shots his/her chances of getting Alzheimer's Disease is ten times higher than if they had one, two or no shots. I asked Dr. Fudenberg why this was so and he said it was due to the mercury and aluminum that is in every flu shot (and some childhood shots). The gradual mercury and aluminum buildup in the brain causes cognitive dysfunction. Is that why Alzheimer's is expected to quadruple? Notes: Recorded from Dr. Fudenberg's speech at the NVIC International Vaccine Conference, Arlington, VA September, 1997. Quoted with permission. Alzheimer's to quadruple statement is from John's Hopkins Newsletter Nov 1998. Dr. Fudenberg's web address is www.nitrf.org. Interesting info on treating autism on the site.

Randall Neustaedter OMD author of The Vaccine Guide says this: The flu vaccine gets the most-useless-vaccine-of-all-time award. Now the CDC is recommending the vaccine for children under two years old and all adults over 50. Don't fall for it.

Flu Facts

* Flu vaccine manufacturers are notoriously inaccurate at predicting the appropriate viruses to use in an individual year's vaccine, rendering the vaccine ineffective.

* Flu vaccine is relatively ineffective in those patients most at risk of flu complications.

* The vaccine has caused GBS in recipients during several different flu seasons.

* Those most at risk of flu complications probably share a higher risk of adverse reactions to the flu vaccine as well.

Fluzone is the new flu vaccine for babies (recommended 6 months to 23 months). You can get it as a 0.25 mL prefilled syringe (for pediatric use) and as a 0.5 mL prefilled syringe. Fluzone contains mercury: 25 µg mercury/0.5 mL dose. It also has chicken embryos and formaldehyde and Sucrose, Sodium phosphate, Sodium Chloride, Mercury, Gelatin, Polyethylene Glycol p-Isooctylphenyl Ether, Hemaggluttinin.

To view the package insert: Click Here

To get the info from the drug company: Click Here

Most MMR studies are meaningless, investigation claims

Now comes this from The Guardian" A massive review of the evidence on the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine has concluded that most studies to date have been meaningless, and that more research into the vaccine's long-term effects is needed. The review found that only 20 out of 3,500 safety studies of MMR could help determine whether it contributes to the development of a variety of conditions, including autism. The review's author, Dr Thomas Jefferson, said "In most of the studies we assessed, it was almost impossible to ascertain what had actually been done.

www.thinktwice.com

Nereid

Dec3-03, 10:55 PM

theroyprocess wrote: I have posted enough to convince a rational person that it is better to avoid ionizing radiation for health sake Do you take flights that cruise for an hour or more at 30,000+ feet? Do you refuse to have X-rays taken, of any part of your body? Do you go to ski resorts with an altitude of >5,000 feet, and stay there for several days? Have you ever got sunburnt? (and so on)

The hard question - which it seems you are unwilling or unable to answer - is how to assess the trade-offs which must inevitably be made?

For example, when does it make more sense to take X-rays than suffer (maybe die) a tooth abscess, a bone spur, a kidney stone, breast cancer?

theroyprocess

Dec4-03, 09:07 AM

Nereid,

The issue is informed consent. You need to know so much about
making a truly informed decision in this world...it is impossible.
The average person is misinformed about practically EVERYTHING!

I have a question for you. Should it be legal to recycle radioactive
materials from decommissioned nuclear reactors into manufacturing
commercial products. Is it a serious if not fatal health threat to wear a radioactive
belt buckle.....to have a radioactive baby carriage...car.....cooking pots,
silverware etc. ????

There is a debate on talk shows right now...is diabetes blackouts an excuse
for traffic accidents. I can see the lawyers argue "they knew or should have
known" to control their diabetes. Well....DOES THE DOE, NRC, EPA KNOW
OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN...RELEASING NUCLEAR WASTE INTO COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS IS A SERIOUS HEALTH THREAT !!!!

Hiring 'scientists' to simply announce the "acceptable" radiation exposure
is now higher...to legally allow it....will and has put scientists in the publics
mind with politicians, lawyers and prostitutes!

russ_watters

Dec4-03, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
I have a question for you. Should it be legal to recycle radioactive
materials from decommissioned nuclear reactors into manufacturing
commercial products. Is it a serious if not fatal health threat to wear a radioactive
belt buckle.....to have a radioactive baby carriage...car.....cooking pots,
silverware etc. ???? A uranium belt buckle would be heavy and ugly.

The utter absurdity of what you are suggesting there makes non-sarcastic comment impossible. What you suggest is just too far outside reality to address seriously.

The issue is informed consent. You need to know so much about
making a truly informed decision in this world...it is impossible. And yet you keep posting your crap and ignoring important information. There are lots of things more important to your health that you DO have control over and continue to ignore for some inexplicable reason. From now on, I'll end all of my responses to you with the same question (asked several times before) until you answer it or at least acknowledge that you understand how important it is:

Are you terrified of the SUN?

theroyprocess

Dec6-03, 08:22 PM

Russ,
What kind of 'crap' question is "Are you terrified of the Sun".
Was Lawrence of Arabia terrified of the Sun! Don't waste
my time with your nonsense.

Nereid

Dec6-03, 08:55 PM

I have a question for you. Should it be legal to recycle radioactive materials from decommissioned nuclear reactors into manufacturing commercial products Answer: of course! To the greatest extent possible, we *should* recycle ALL waste, whether it's cardboard packaging, food scraps, furnace slag, ... or radioactive materials from decommisioned nuclear reactors.

How, where, when, etc are important questions; it's not always economic to recycle (back) into products which are put back into production ('commercial products') or sold to consumers ('consumer products'). Further, there are important questions of health and safety, and in this respect radioactive materials are no different from hazardous chemicals or dangerous forms (e.g. small objects which can choke if accidentally swallowed).Is it a serious if not fatal health threat to wear a radioactive belt buckle.....to have a radioactive baby carriage...car.....cooking pots, silverware etc. It depends on how radioactive these consumer goods are, and how easily the radionuclides can break free. However, as all belt buckles, baby carriages, cars, cooking pots, silverware etc are radioactive, I'm not sure what use I, you, Russ, or any other reader of PF could make of that information.

Are you advocating that all baby carriages be banned because they are contain radionuclides?

theroyprocess

Dec7-03, 03:34 PM

Sunlight...gravity....ocean tides...etc...exists without opinion.
If science is supposed to be in the service of mankind...
we are talking politics....not pure science. So what is the
most cost effective, non toxic way to go? It seems just the
reverse is chosen and nukes IS the most toxic, longest lived
threat to mankind ever devised whose hidden agenda is
military weapons of mass destruction. Not free electric power
"TOO CHEAP TO METER".

selfAdjoint

Dec7-03, 04:15 PM

The idea that nuclear power's secret agenda is weapons is just too off the wall. Is Con Edison, which runs several nuke power plants in Illinois secretly in the WMD business? Get outta here!

Nereid

Dec7-03, 06:29 PM

Sunlight...gravity....ocean tides...etc...exists without opinion. True. Skiing at altitudes of >5,000 ft; flying at 30,000 ft; going out into the sun without a sun-screen/hat etc; belt-buckles, silverware, baby carriages made of steel (all steel is radioactive); ... are all optional. They ALL involve an increase in exposure to ionising radiation.

Perhaps we should make baby carriages out of wood? Oops, wood is radioactive too. Um, how about pure gold? That's not radioactive.[:))] Bit heavy if you have to go a flight of stairs though. [;)]

russ_watters

Dec7-03, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Russ,
What kind of 'crap' question is "Are you terrified of the Sun".
Was Lawrence of Arabia terrified of the Sun! Don't waste
my time with your nonsense. Whaddaya know - you finally acknowledged seeing the question. From your response though, it doesn't appear that you understand the question. Nereid's response is a good explanation.

So to rephrase and be brief:

The sun send us ionizing radiation and has been conclusively proven to cause cancer. So are you terrified of the sun? And if no, why not?

theroyprocess

Dec8-03, 06:11 PM

Hope this sinks in this time !!!

Subject: RADIATION BIOLOGICAL EFFECT--DR. BERTELL

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/NRBE/NRadBioEffects.html

Radiation and thyroid disease:

http://www.rabble.ca/everyones_a_critic.shtml?x=26069

TWO BULLET ROULETTE

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030922&s=bivens

Eminent nuclear chemist and cardiologist Dr. John Gofman
wrote the following letter, May 11, 1999:

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720

LETTER OF CONCERN

To Whom It May Concern,

During 1942, I led "The Plutonium Group" at the University of California, Berkeley, which managed to isolate the first milligram of plutonium from irradiated uranium. [Plutonium-239 had previously been discovered by Glenn Seaborg and Edwin McMillan]. During subsequent decades, I have studied the biological effects of ionizing radiation---- including the alpha particles emitted by the decay of plutonium.

By any reasonable standard of biomedical proof, there is no safe dose, which means that just one decaying radioactive atom can produce permanent mutation in a cell's genetic molecules [Gofman 1990: "Radiation Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure"]. For alpha particles, the logic of no safe dose was confirmed experimentally in 1997 by Tom K. Hei and co-workers at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [USA] Vol. 94, pp. 3765-3770, April 1997, "Mutagenic Effects of A Single and an Exact Number of Alpha Particles in Mammilian Cells."]

It follows from such evidence that citizens worldwide have a strong biological basis for opposing activities which produce an appreciable risk of exposing humans and others to plutonium and other radioactive pollution at any level. The fact that humans cannot escape exposure to ionizing radiation from various natural sources ---which may well account for a large share of humanity's inherited afflictions- is no reason to let human activities INCREASE exposure to ionizing radiation. The fact that ionizing radiation is a mutagen was first demonstrated in 1927 by Herman Joseph Muller, and subsequent evidence has shown it to be a mutagen of unique potency. Mutation is the basis not only for inherited afflictions, but also for cancer.

Very truly yours,

[signed]
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph D
Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States: 215 atmospheric tests + 815 underground tests = 1,030
USSR: 219 atmospheric tests + 496 underground tests = 715
UK: 21 atmospheric tests + 24 underground tests = 45
France: 50 atmospheric tests + 160 underground tests = 210
China: 23 atmospheric tests + 22 underground tests = 45

The grand total of global atmospheric tests = 528

Source: Page 52, "Atomic Audit, the Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons Since 1940," Stephen Schwartz, Editor, Brookings Institution Press,
Washington D.C., 1998.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plutonium Fallout

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/RadxPlutonium.html

Hardy, E.P., Krey, P.W. and Volchok, H.L. (February 16, 1973). Global
inventory and distribution of fallout plutonium. Nature. 241. pg. 444-445.

The following letter is one of the most important ever published in the
British journal Nature, providing baseline data about the dispersal of
weapons testing-derived fallout plutonium as well as plutonium isotopes
derived from the 1964 satellite accident. Hardy, et. al. used the
reporting unit of mCi/km2. This can be converted directly to the more
understandable (for the layperson) reporting unit of pCi/m2. Few areas
in the northern hemisphere contain less than 1 pCi/m2 of fallout 239Pu,
1/2 T 24,240 years. Even though this fallout is stratospheric rather
than tropospheric, the higher values in soils are correlated to some
extent with locations having the greatest annual precipitation, as well
as mid-latitude locations. One to four pCi/m2 of fallout 239Pu is the
minimum baseline level of plutonium contamination in the northern
hemisphere. More recent research identifies numerous areas with much
higher levels of plutonium in soils, see especially the data collected
pertaining to the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado.

Below is a scan of page 444 followed by a more readable enlargement of
the table. See RAD 8:5 Anthropogenic radioactivity: Baseline data:
Plutonium and Americium for more comments on this article and other
information on plutonium fallout. For more information on this
satellite accident, consult RAD 11:9 Anthropogenic radioactivity: Major
plume source points: Nuclear Powered Satellite Accidents.

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Scans/naturepg1.jpg

New Book by Dr. Rosalie Bertell:

http://www.iicph.org/planet_earth.htm

chroot

Dec8-03, 06:16 PM

My opinion is that theroyprocess is at least somewhat insane. theroyprocess, why do you completely ignore every question that has been posed to you?

- Warren

theroyprocess

Dec9-03, 01:18 PM

I don't bother with frivolous questions that pose a confabulation.
You are selling the pro-nuke bias with the typical misinformation
and insane logic. You say radiation exists, therefor it's OK for you
to murder the whole world with it...on tax payers money!

You can't fool all of the people...all of the time.

chroot

Dec9-03, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
I don't bother with frivolous questions that pose a confabulation.
A... confabulation? I'm not sure this is the word you intended to use.
You are selling the pro-nuke bias with the typical misinformation
and insane logic.
I'm not selling anything. I'm on the side of virtually everyone else on this forum: man-made radiation exposure is, except in places like Chernobyl, entirely negligible when compared to the natural background. That's it. I'm not pro-nuke, and I'm not spreading any falsehoods. I also don't feel my logic is insane. While it's not proof that you're insane, the fact that virtually everyone else on this forum thinks you are is telling.
You say radiation exists, therefor it's OK for you
to murder the whole world with it...on tax payers money!
Can you please reference the passage in which I said it was okay to "murder the whole world with it?" This really doesn't seem like something I would say, so I'd like you to provide a reference to my statement.
You can't fool all of the people...all of the time.
Why do you think I intend to fool anyone? I am not part of any conspiracy, despite your apparent paranoia.

- Warren

theroyprocess

Dec10-03, 01:59 PM

Chroot,
Despite your apparent 'denial' nuclear power is in it's last gasp.
Can not make it without heavy subsidies like 'legitimate' industry
must. The next accident will put an end to it since Chernobyl, TMI
was not enough.

russ_watters

Dec10-03, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by chroot
man-made radiation exposure is, except in places like Chernobyl, entirely negligible when compared to the natural background.... While it's not proof that you're insane, the fact that virtually everyone else on this forum thinks you are is telling. Though I hesitate to use the word "insane" (I'm not a psychologist), its always bizarred to me how people can ignore facts like this one. Its a very simple fact, irrefutable, and he/she completely ignores it. I'd really like to know if h/she just doesn't understand it (its a pretty simple concept though), understands it but doesn't undersand the implications, thinks its a lie, etc. That would be a good insight into what's going on inside theroyprocess's head. Thats why I keep asking the sun question: Are you terrified of the Sun? The only response I got suggests, h/she doesn't understand the question.

theroyprocess

Dec10-03, 06:25 PM

Radiation and Depleted Uranium Weapons:

WARNING: Graphic pictures of deformed babies.

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

chroot

Dec10-03, 06:49 PM

theroyprocess,

I think your newly-found target for paranoia, depleted uranium, is one of first sensible beliefs you've expressed here. I agree whole-heartedly that depleted uranium is an environmental and physiological hazard. I also wish it weren't used.

On the other hand, I strongly doubt that the authors of your alarmist flash animation are being fair to their audience. No sources were listed for any of their figures. In addition, flashing pictures of deformed babies, with absolutely no evidence that they are actually demonstrably a result of depleted uranium exposure -- or even are from the right time periods, or the right places -- delivers a blow to their credibility. My bet is that not a single image used in that animation can be conclusively shown to have anything to do with depleted uranium.

- Warren

Nereid

Dec10-03, 07:06 PM

Warren,

If you look through this thread (or maybe it's another one nearby in MKaku.org Forum) you'll see that this isn't the first time theroyprocess has posted that link.

She didn't answer any of the questions asked of her following the other posting(s) either.

Let's see what luck you have.

russ_watters

Dec11-03, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by chroot
I think your newly-found target for paranoia, depleted uranium, is one of first sensible beliefs you've expressed here. I agree whole-heartedly that depleted uranium is an environmental and physiological hazard. I also wish it weren't used. How much worse do you consider it than lead?

chroot

Dec11-03, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
How much worse do you consider it than lead?
Not a whole lot worse. I wouldn't want to have vaporized lead all over my house either.

- Warren

russ_watters

Dec11-03, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by chroot
Not a whole lot worse. I wouldn't want to have vaporized lead all over my house either.
I guess the main difference then is its easier to vaporize uranium?

chroot

Dec11-03, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
I guess the main difference then is its easier to vaporize uranium?
Well, yeah -- uranium is pyrophoric. Lead is not.

- Warren

chroot

Dec11-03, 01:47 PM

And here are some good links to balanced, fair assesments of the impacts of the chemical and radiological effects of depleted uranium. The first is from Argonne National Lab, and intends only to determine the risk coefficients for various mechanisms of biological uranium contamination:

http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Depleted-Uranium.pdf

The second is an "almagamation" paper by two guys at the University of Maryland and Princeton. It appears an awful lot of research went into this paper, and I think its presentation is quite fair.

http://www.puaf.umd.edu/faculty/papers/fetter/sags-du.pdf

My final opinion on the matter? I think DU is nasty stuff, both from a radiological and a chemical standpoint. It is no more chemically dangerous than other compounds like lead (a milligram's not going to kill you), but it burns spontaneously in air and aerosolizes easily upon impact, making it easier to get into the body. It's not significantly radioactive (rather low specific activity, 175,000 times lower than plutonium-239) to be dangerous unless rather significant amouts are ingested or inhaled -- but I would bet that some of the soldiers involved in these battles (or some of the very stupid cilivians playing with the spent rounds) have exceeded this threshold. I feel fairly certain that at least a few people will (or have) developed cancers due to DU exposure.

On the whole, I think most of the alarmism about DU is unfounded. I'm also certain that DU is not responsible for the deformed babies shown in theroyprocess's flash site -- but, at the same time, I think its use constitutes a definite ethical problem. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means "tame as a kitty cat" and 10 means "instant wretching death," I personally rank DU as a 4. Your opinions?

- Warren

theroyprocess

Dec14-03, 02:50 PM

Here it is again....deadly, long-lived radioactive waste leaks
into our precious groundwater....and some industry spokesman
will state....'poses no threat to health'. They should go hang
themselves like Judas!
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sellafield leaks worse than feared
Fears for drinking supply as radioactive pollution at nuclear plant
contaminates groundwater

By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
Sunday Herald - 14 December 2003

http://www.sundayherald.com/print38691

Radioactive contamination of the groundwater under the Sellafield nuclear
complex is worse than thought and British Nuclear Fuels isn’t doing enough
about it, says the government’s English watchdog, the Environment Agency.

The agency has told the local community in Cumbria it is “not satisfied”
with the progress being made by the state-owned company in understanding the
spread of pollution. New evidence indicates the contamination is
“potentially significant”.

“BNFL has messed up again,” alleged Pete Roche from the environmental group,
Greenpeace. “Contamination of groundwater is a serious matter, and BNFL has
displayed a lackadaisical attitude in its efforts to discover the source.”

BNFL admitted two years ago that the radioactive wastes, technetium-99 and
tritium, had been found in boreholes on the site. Last year, the government’
s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate reported that the contamination was
also detectable outside the site.

Now the Environment Agency is suggesting it has spread further. “The agency
is concerned that the current contaminated land study is indicating that
there is potentially significant contamination of groundwater,” it reported
to the Sellafield local liaison committee a few days ago.

“The lateral spread of technetium-99 and tritium on the Sellafield site
appears to be greater than last reported. The agency considers the develop
ment of deeper boreholes should lead to a greater understanding of the
vertical spread of contamination into the aquifer beneath the site. The
agency is not satisfied with BNFL’s progress in such work.”

The agency’s inspectors are worried BNFL is not using the best practice when
it samples groundwater. “We are very keen to protect the aquifer,” one of
them told the Sunday Herald. “We are pushing BNFL very hard on this.”

Environmentalists fear contamination of the sandstone aquifer under the site
could affect drinking water.

“It’s disgraceful that this liquid radioactive plume is being allowed to
spread out-side Sellafield unchecked and out of hand,” Martin Forwood, a
member of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (Core).

“That it now appears to involve not just technetium-99 but a number of other
radioactive materials, and to have penetrated the sandstone aquifer below
Sellafield, is a major concern and a threat to drinking water supplies. BNFL
and the Environment Agency must come clean now with the public about what is
happening.”

There are several possible sources for the leak. One is six, huge, old tanks
containing 3000 tonnes of radioactive sludge, another is some old waste
disposal trenches and a third is a complex of ponds and silos containing
high-level waste.

“The most likely source is previously reported leaks from historic
facilities on the site. We are continuing our investigations to confirm the
precise source or sources,” said a BNFL spokesman.

“The levels found pose no threat to health, and are so low that
sophisticated techniques are required to measure them. The company has
already made improvements to its sampling regimes, and is developing an
integrated monitoring programme as suggested.”

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net *
(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. section 107) *

Nereid

Dec14-03, 03:24 PM

EDITED by enigma

*flooding deleted*

I wasn't kidding. No more links, no more articles. Not until you answer this:Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.The remote chance to kill a few hundred people and the chance to increase the probability of getting cancer by a fraction of a percent for a few hundred people

vs.

A guaranteed mortality rate of 70,000 per year plus a dramatic increase in asthma and other breathing related illnesses.

How is the first one worse?

This was posted by enigma, a PF Mentor, in the following Nuclear Engineering thread (The Nuclear Power Thread):
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9091&perpage=12&pagenumber=4

Later, enigma said: "I'm angry with theroyprocess not because of his beliefs, but because instead of stating his points, he's cutting and pasting pages and pages from all over the web to make his points for him without addressing any points made by the alternate viewpoint."

As far as I can see, Ms theroyprocess, you haven't answered any of the questions asked of you on this thread either.

Why is it that you do not answer simple, straight-forward questions on the material which you post?

theroyprocess

Dec16-03, 12:45 PM

Radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational
genetic diseases. Ultimately, genocide and extinction. This IS what
makes radiation "different" than other lethalities. I thought this was
obvious!

Nereid

Dec16-03, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational
genetic diseases. Ultimately, genocide and extinction. This IS what
makes radiation "different" than other lethalities. I thought this was
obvious! Assume for the moment that "radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational genetic diseases". Throughout your many posts you have not addressed the following questions:

1) in what ways is 'radioactive environmental contamination' qualititatively different from naturally occurring radioactivity, in terms of its human impact?

2) the incidence of 'radioactive environmental contamination' is several orders of magnitude smaller than naturally occurring radioactivity, by any metric to do with human health. Ergo, detrimental effects on human health arising from 'radioactive environmental contamination' are far outweighed by detrimental effects on human health arising from naturally occurring radioactivity. If your concern is human health, why aren't you working to reduce our exposure to naturally occurring radioactivity?

3) Efforts to reduce the harmful health effects on humans of radioactivity come at a price. Why is it more cost effective to reduce the already tiny incidence of 'radioactive environmental contamination' than to take simple steps to reduce exposure to naturally occuring radioactivity?

theroyprocess

Dec16-03, 05:51 PM

Nereid,

Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Rosalie Bertell and others have written books
about man made radioactive threats to human health. I have posted
their URLs on this site.

Nevertheless...I'm sure you will dismiss their work on some
confabulated reason anyway!

chroot

Dec16-03, 05:55 PM

Yes, Nereid is a fellow member of the International Scientific Conspiracy. We have agents everywhere! You'd be surprised to learn that relativity, quantum mechanics, and even Newton's laws are really just confabulations, and we've pushed them upon the unsuspecting public all this time!

- Warren

Nereid

Dec16-03, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Nereid,

Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Rosalie Bertell and others have written books
about man made radioactive threats to human health. I have posted
their URLs on this site.

Nevertheless...I'm sure you will dismiss their work on some
confabulated reason anyway! What I'm looking for *you* - the person posting lengthy material written by others - to do is answer three simple questions.

To clarify: why do YOU believe that man-made radioactivity is a much nastier, greater threat to human health than the naturally-occuring radioactive background we all experience now?

theroyprocess

Dec16-03, 06:13 PM

If I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time
savings for treatment...from a radioactive spoon , car,
beltbuckle...because some insect dumped radioactive waste
into commercial manufactured products....it's PREMEDITATED MURDER !!!
If you can't grasp that....your brain is so cooked you will NEVER
understand the problem!

chroot

Dec16-03, 06:20 PM

I dunno about you, but I've been thinking my belt buckle's out to get me for some time now. You should see the way it eyes me while it's lying on the floor beside my bed. I think it's definitely planning something.

- Warren

Nereid

Dec16-03, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
If I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time
savings for treatment...from a radioactive spoon , car,
beltbuckle...because some insect dumped radioactive waste
into commercial manufactured products....it's PREMEDITATED MURDER !!!
If you can't grasp that....your brain is so cooked you will NEVER
understand the problem! Oh, and if 'I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time savings for treatment...from' spending my winters skiing in the Alps, or flying thousands of hours on trans-Pacific airliners, or ... is that premeditated murder? or a form of suicide? Should I call my lawyers and sue the ski resort (because they didn't warn me about the increased risks of cancer from living at high altitude), or airline company (ditto)?

If you were my lawyer, supposing that I got cancer, how would you prove - in a court of law - that the man-made radioactivity in the spoon I used was the cause of my cancer, and not the *million* times greater natural radioactivity in the spoon?

theroyprocess

Dec16-03, 07:14 PM

If the public is being unknowingly posioned...or mislead and lied
to about some products or service advertised as "safe and effective"
which IS NOT. It is breaking THE NUREMBERG CODES...of informed
consent.

When your wife or daughter gets breast cancer and dies in agony.
Just TELL THEM.....your b.s.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday Herald - 26 October 2003
Revealed: UK mums’ milk second most toxic in world
Survey shows chemicals from everyday products are ‘poisoning’ breast milk
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Toxic contamination of mothers’ breast milk in Britain is among the highest in the world, a new survey by scientists has revealed.
Concentrations of chemical flame retardants, suspected of damaging brain development and causing cancer, are higher in the UK than in Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Canada. Scientists say the levels are “a real cause for concern”, while environmentalists describe them as “shocking” and “extremely worrying”.

The revelation comes as the European Commission prepares to water down its plan for regulating the 30,000 manufactured chemicals to which people are exposed in everyday consumer products. New controls to be published this week will be seriously weakened because of opposition from the chemical industry, backed by the British, German and French governments.

Scientists from Lancaster University tested the breast milk of 52 mothers in Lancaster and London for a group of chemicals known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), widely used in clothing, furniture and plastics to make them less flammable.

Some PBDEs were found in every sample, the highest being 68.6 nanograms per gram of fat and the average 6.6ng. These are much higher levels than every other country where comparable surveys have been done, except for the United States, which is by far the biggest user of PBDEs.

The toxic effects of PBDEs are poorly understood, though there is evidence from animal studies that they could impair learning, memory and behaviour, as well as trigger liver cancer. Scientists point out that they are structurally similar to PCBs, which have long been regarded as potential carcinogens and as a threat to reproductive and immune systems.

“We don’t know how PBDEs affect human health,” Kevin Jones, professor of environmental chemistry at Lancaster University, told the Sunday Herald. “But we do know that they are accumulating in our bodies and we suspect that they might be as toxic as PCBs. ”

He suggested that the high levels his team found in breast milk could come from the large amounts of PBDEs used in consumer products in Britain to comply with the country’s stringent fire precautions. His study is the first to investigate levels in British breast milk, and it is due to be published in a scientific journal within the next few months.

The marketing and use of two types of PBDEs will be banned by the European Commission from next August . But companies are switching to a third type not covered by the ban, but which scientists fear could be just as harmful.

Environmental groups say the new evidence about PBDEs strengthens the need for the European Commission to introduce a tough set of rules on hazardous chemicals this week. But leaked drafts of the latest EC proposals suggest that several of its key provisions will be abandoned.

The new regulations, known as Reach, will require much less safety information to be provided on two-thirds of the chemicals in use, as well as enabling companies to remain anonymous. Industry will only have to prove that chemicals are subject to “adequate control”, even if safer alternatives are available.

Recent research shows that many chemicals with potential health effects can be detected in a wide range of ordinary household items. Nonylphenols and phthalates, for example, have been found in Disney and Mothercare children’s pyjamas as well as in Woolworths bath ducks.

Earlier this month, the Food Standards Agency warned that a cancer-causing chemical called semicarbazide was migrating into food from the plastic seals on the lids of jars. Last month, the Sunday Herald disclosed that baby toys, nappies, clothes and plastics were contaminated with tin compounds known as organotins.

Now the discovery of PBDE flame retardants in breast milk has set more alarm bells ringing.

“It is extremely worrying,” said Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. He accused the British government of blocking agreement on the new European safety rules. “Given these shocking findings it is high time ministers stood up to the lobbying of chemical corporations and protected people from exposure to toxic threats.”

Another environmental group, WWF Scotland, is this week planning to release the results of blood tests it carried out for chemicals on 12 volunteers, including two MSPs, Sarah Boyack and Christine Grahame. Some of them may have tested positive for PBDEs.

“We cannot reveal individual results but the recent concerns over flame retardants mean that we will be looking particularly closely at these results,” said Dr Richard Dixon, head of policy at WWF Scotland.

“The European proposals to control chemicals are crucial to reducing the threat from the chemical soup we all live in. Until recently the UK supported radical reform of the laws on chemicals, so it is doubly disgraceful that Tony Blair has tried to water down the new testing system.”

The British Prime Minister wrote to EC President Romano Prodi in September, complaining that the proposed Reach chemical regulations were “a long way from being the fast, simple and cost- efficient procedure that was promised”. The letter was also signed by the French President, Jacques Chirac, and German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder.

The chemical industry also protested that the EC proposals would cost billions of euros and could put thousands out of work. As a result, EC environment commissioner Margot Wallström was forced to rewrite large chunks of the draft legislation, which she is due to publish on Wednesday.

But on Tuesday, thousands of protest postcards will be handed in to the EC office in Edinburgh by FoE Scotland.

The government’s environmental agencies also seem anxious to ensure that the rules remain strong.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency stressed that “prevention rather than cure is always a better option”, while Scottish Natural Heritage said that if the current Reach scheme was unworkable, other options should be explored.

The Scottish Executive, however, gave nothing away. Deputy environment minister, Allan Wilson, said: “We will study the proposals carefully to assess how well they balance environmental and health objectives with our desire to see a competitive and innovative chemicals industry.”

The new regulations are likely to be broadly welcomed by the Chemicals Industries Association (CIA), though it still wants further changes. “The commission has completed half the job in reducing the scope of the proposals,” said CIA director general, Judith Hackitt.

The new regulations will then go to the European parliament for comments. Environmentalists are hoping MEPs will be more receptive to their lobbying .

“Unless the European parliament strengthens this legislation it will not do anything to protect human health and the environment,” said Mark Strutt of Greenpeace. “The fight to get legislation that protects ordinary people from daily exposure to hazardous chemicals is just about to begin.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nereid

Dec16-03, 07:59 PM

Ad hoc Nereid scale of global damage to human health (0 = no net negative impact; open ended scale):

PBDEs - bad, 5
radioactive materials (man made) - not good, 1
radioactive materials (natural) - a million times worse, 106

theroyprocesses' assessment (inferred by Nereid, from reading theroyprocesses' posts):

PBDEs - 10
radioactive materials (man made) - 109
radioactive materials (natural) - 0

theroyprocess

Dec16-03, 08:19 PM

Dr. Kaku's comments on the Art Bell radio talk show..12/15/03

Recap
Nuclear Scenarios
Monday's guest, theoretical physicist Prof. Michio Kaku (mkaku.org) joined Art Bell (who was sitting in for George) in a conversation about the dark side of nuclear energy. Kaku detailed various little-known nuclear mishaps from earlier decades, such as a Soviet incident that happened in the Ural Mountains in the 1950's, which he called "the mother-of-all nuclear accidents before Chernobyl." The reactor was actually in flames and entire villages had to be evacuated, he noted.

"I would say I'm critical of nuclear power," Kaku said, pointing out that having a potentially unstable reactor near a large population center such as Indian Point (which is 20 miles away from New York City) creates a dangerous scenario. But while he believes small nation states and terrorists may soon have access to nuclear weapons technology, he suggested that the world was probably closer to the brink of extinction during the Cold War, when both the US and the Soviets seriously considered a first strike, which likely would have lead to a "nuclear winter."

cozzmikjoker

Dec17-03, 05:03 PM

I heard the interview, too. I can't believe I ever thought that Dr. Kaku was a whimpy hippie child. [:D]
I think he's actually pretty level-headed and has some very good reasons why he switched from being a nuclear proponent to a nuclear opponent.
I've never thought nuclear power plants were a good idea but had always been behind nuclear weapons M.A.D.
Well, we can't feel too sorry for ourselves, though, since Russia has had even more accidents.

Nereid

Dec17-03, 06:43 PM

{ø}

russ_watters

Dec17-03, 10:29 PM

Nereid, I'm pleased to announce that you have been nominated for the PF Foam Rubber Headband Award. Congratulations.

Warren on the other hand, was eliminated from contention VERY early in the game.

Edit: Nereid, your mailbox is full so I couldn't respond to your PM. The award is to keep you from hurting yourself while you bang your head against the wall.

cozzmikjoker

Dec18-03, 01:01 PM

{ø}

Nereid, does this mean that you're not cool with Michio's opinions on nuclear stuff?

Nereid

Dec18-03, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
{ø}

Nereid, does this mean that you're not cool with Michio's opinions on nuclear stuff? cozzmikjoker,

It means that I would like to engage in a fact-based debate with theroyprocess concerning the material which she posts, and her own views. However, the total of her answers to my questions (and others') so far is the null set.

As to what Michio's opinions on nuclear power, weapons, use of radioactive materials in medicine, science, industry, ... are, all there is in this thread is a couple of snippets from one radio interview, of which but 7 words are Michio's own. If he posts to this thread, I'd be glad to engage in a debate on his opinions.

What are your own views on the topic of public health aspects of radiation?

cozzmikjoker

Dec18-03, 03:42 PM

Wish it were possible to paste the interview on here. Maybe if Cory and Mike are around, they'll create some sound files.
The doctor's arguments are very convincing.

Nereid

Dec19-03, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
Wish it were possible to paste the interview on here. Maybe if Cory and Mike are around, they'll create some sound files.
The doctor's arguments are very convincing. What are your own views? Which arguments do you find particularly convincing? Can you summarise them?

Nereid

Dec19-03, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
The silkwood movie is a good reminder of what goes on
even today.

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/2003/120303survey.html Just so that I don't misunderstand ...

Your answer to the question "Why is it more important to reduce the use of nuclear power than reduce long-haul flights and time spent at high-altitude ski resorts, from the perspective of reduction in radiation-causes health problems?" is "Because whistleblowers have a hard time".

cozzmikjoker

Dec19-03, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Nereid

What are your own views?

My view used to be that I was against nuclear power plants because it's not worth the risks and it's still my view.
My view also used to be that I was pro nuclear weapons. Amen to Mutually Assured Destruction.
And of course I still think we have to protect ourselves (sometimes your only defense is the threat of offense) BUT someone needs to invent weapons that won't poison the earth.

Which arguments do you find particularly convincing?

I don't argue anymore. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, had enough. I have a life and also I'm on too many other boards, so there's just not enough free time to rattle cages on here.

Can you summarise them?

And no, I don't summarize well. I sent something to Dr. Kaku once and I got a response demanding that I summarize it and I couldn't do it. Sorry. [:))] But yeah, the doctor had some interesting information about the dangers of nuclear stuff. Too bad you didn't hear it.

That said, Nereid, it's your turn why to tell us why you're such a big fan of nuclear power plants and weapons, if indeed you are....?

Nereid

Dec19-03, 06:41 PM

I'm interested to explore the relationship between radioactivity and public health, in the broader context of economic benefits and social values.

As you'll have seen from my questions to theroyprocess, there seems to be considerable emotion but not much reason behind an 'anti-nuclear' stance.

As with all choices in public health, there are pros and cons. So how do you go about making decisions, when all choices carry costs (monetary, health, collateral risks, ...), and all realistic ones deliver benefits?

That's why I came here - for an informed discussion and debate.

Being a board in Physics Forums, I also expect a high level of discussion on the underlying nuclear physics.

Is this why you're here too?

FZ+

Dec19-03, 07:06 PM

I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.

selfAdjoint

Dec19-03, 07:15 PM

There is also the element of choice involved. We can decide not to have nuclear power, but there is very little we can do to eleiminate natural radioactivity, and only limited ways to avoid it. So if N is the natural radioactive dose in some location, and P is the dose resulting from nuclear power at the same spot, then the fact that P < N is irrelevant to the choice should we have N or N + P? Especially if you also believe that there is no minimum dose for harm from radioactivity.

cozzmikjoker

Dec19-03, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.

Sounds like it's not worth the risk. It's the reason I won't have a loaded gun in my house.
Without the bullets, it CANNOT kill you. With the bullets, however, there is a remote chance that it could go off regardless of where it's stored.
I weigh it like this: if I'm going to die without a certain thing and that certain thing has the potential of killing me, I have no choice.
But if I can live without something and it has that same potential, why should I keep/use it?

Nereid

Dec19-03, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad. Interesting ... any particular nuclear problems? or is the use of all radioactive material a bad idea, whether in medicine (e.g. cancer therapy), industry (e.g. food sterilization), even science (e.g. RTGs on spaceprobes, testing GR)?

Perhaps the worse 'nuclear problem' is nuclear weapon proliferation; if so, do you truly believe we can put the genie back in the bottle?

russ_watters

Dec20-03, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
Originally posted by Nereid
Which arguments do you find particularly convincing?

I don't argue anymore. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, had enough. I have a life and also I'm on too many other boards, so there's just not enough free time to rattle cages on here. By "arguements" he meant "reasons." What are your reasons for your opinion? Or, what pieces of information were most important in forming your opinion? I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad. I think you are right, FZ+, but the problem is that most people don't know either the probability or the impact. So most people overestimate both the probability and the impact, leading them in the direction of theroyprocess - irrational fear of the unknown. Sounds like it's not worth the risk. [re: FZ+'s post] But he didn't SAY what the risks are!! See, this is exactly my point. Its as if the word "risk" itself is all the information you need. It isn't. There is a real and calculable risk associated with EVERYTHING we do as humans. To decide if something is worth the risk or not, you have to know WHAT the risk is.

cozzmikjoker

Dec20-03, 03:34 PM

Russ said: By "arguements" he meant "reasons." What are your reasons for your opinion? Or, what pieces of information were most important in forming your opinion

Well, we already know that radiation and nuclear stuff is deadly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Let's be realistic.

Look at chemotherapy. The radiation might kill some or most of the cancer but many people die because the radiation compromises their immune system and they die as a result of the effects of the radiation weakening them.
Keeping all of that in mind, if someone is going to tell me that anything nuclear is safe, then isn't the burden of proof upon them?

Finally, with the toxic waste that has been dumped in the past, I really don't want to put my faith in someone else to "do the right thing" when it comes to nuclear power plants. Sorry, no can do.

cozzmikjoker

Dec20-03, 06:35 PM

Knowing the answer to those questions is how you know what the risk really is

True. I have to admit having a bit of curiousity and wanting to take a peak at those autopsey reports that Dr. Kaku has on the workers killed in the nuclear labs.

There are other issues, too. Our society is becoming ill with chronic diseases at younger and younger ages (diabetes, obesity, heart disease) as a result of the changes in diet and sedentary lifestyle. I just don't think any of us want to add any more problems than we already have.
And then you've got the magnetosphere (depleting?) and we won't have as much protection from cosmic radiation and stuff.
We're going to helena handbasket, Russ. [*(]

theroyprocess

Dec27-03, 11:17 AM

FYI

Subject: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact details

Dear All,
some of you may already have this, just come through
from the ELP,(Earth Liberation Prisoners) which is
publicising his case. If anyone has any update on this
contact then please let me know. Dr Bandazhevsky needs
all the support he can get.
cheers
davey

Dr. Yurl Bandazhevsky
Ul. Kalvarijskaya 36
PO Box 35K
Minsk 220600, Belarus.

Serving 8 years for telling the world that the nuclear radiation around Chernobyl is worse than the Belarus Government has admitted.

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MANIFESTO FOR PR. BANDAZHEVSKY'S RELEASE AND
FREEDOM OF RESEARCH

Pr. Yury Bandazhevsky is currently imprisoned
in Minsk, Belarus since
June 2001. As a Doctor and an Expert on radiation
exposure caused by the
Chernobyl accident he was appointed in 1990 as
Rector of the Gomel Medical
institute. Gomel has been the hardest hit area by
nuclear releases. From
1990 to 1999, along with his wife Galina, also a
Doctor, Pr. Bandazhevsky
studied damages caused by Caesium 137: heart
diseases, cataracts, early
aging, etc.. He has discovered a measurable
relationship between nuclear
doses and various symptoms. In 1999, he published
his results at a time
when many people wanted to turn a blind eye to the
problems and wish to send
Belarus inhabitants back to the lands that are
still contaminated. Before his
arrest in July 1999 he had written a report
critical of the Belarus Government
official research conducted with international
funds regarding Chernobyl
after effects. Pr. Bandazhevsky was arrested
shortly after the issuance of
this report on the basis of a Presidential Decree
" for the Combat of
terrorism."

In 2001, he stood accused of having received
money from students
seeking admission to Gomel Medical Institute.
After a trial held before a
Military Tribunal he was sentenced to eight years
imprisonment. Expert
witnesses who attended the trial have noted at
least 8 infringements of the
Belarussian Criminal Code and the main prosecution
witness had retracted his
statement against Pr. Bandazhevsky. Pr.
Bandazhevsky is currently jailed in
a penal colony with harsh conditions tantamount to
a Gulag.

But we think that the right to a fair trial
is not the only one to have
been thwarted. Beside people's opinions about
things nuclear, what is at stake is
the RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, the right to conduct
research and the scientist's
right to communicate data. Also the right for
people to know it without
interference that is politically or economically
motivated.

THE INDEPENDENCE OF ALL RESEARCH in the
services of Humanity is as
important a principle as the independence of
Justice. Pr. Bandazhevsky's
imprisonment flouts both these principles.
Therefore, we, the undersigned,
ask for the immediate and unconditional release
of Pr. Bandazhevsky in
order that he can carry on his research without
interference at his
Institute.

We suggest that all scientists, researchers,
scholars and citizens
stand for these principles:

- Sign this manifesto for freedom of research
and Pr. Bandazhevsky's
unconditional and immediate release.
- But also to have Pr. Bandazhevsky appointed as
a Best Man (or Honourable
Citizen) of their cities, such as Paris and
Clermont-Ferrand (France)
- Or have him appointed as Doctor Honoris
Causa in their universities

We wish to publish this Manifesto in a large
newspaper and send it to the
Belarus Government. Please sign it and pass it
to all parties interested in justice, freedom of
speech, freedom to conduct objective research and
human rights asking them to sign it, too. Your
help is greatly appreciated and will go a long way
in helping to free Dr. Bandazhevsky and promote
accurate research and publication of the radiation
induced effects of Chernobyl on humanity.

theroyprocess

Dec29-03, 02:11 PM

FYI

Aleksei Smirnov,
Governments have a long history of cover-ups. A professor friend
of mine said 'the business' of government is to lie...lie...LIE!
This IS the reason Dr. Bandazhevsky is in jail...for daring to
tell the TRUTH about radiation health effects from Chernobyl.
So far as your government's 'recognized facts' on Chernobyl
caused sickness and deaths...a lie is a fact...not necessarily
the TRUTH !

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1993/may93/may93Gofman.html

Dennis F. Nester
Phoenix, Arizona
USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aleksei Smirnov (Mail.Ru)" <21185857772@mail.ru>
To: "davey garland" <thunderelf@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: <nucnews@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact
details

Shall we open discussion on Chernobyl effects using recognised facts
instead of blaming the Belarus government with no proof???
Best regards
Aleksei Smirnov

----------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact details

Dear All,
some of you may already have this, just come through
from the ELP,(Earth Liberation Prisoners) which is
publicising his case. If anyone has any update on this
contact then please let me know. Dr Bandazhevsky needs
all the support he can get.
cheers
davey

Dr. Yurl Bandazhevsky
Ul. Kalvarijskaya 36
PO Box 35K
Minsk 220600, Belarus.

Serving 8 years for telling the world that the nuclear radiation around
Chernobyl is worse than the Belarus Government has admitted.

theroyprocess

Jan10-04, 02:16 PM

FYI

The DU-caused deformities is not a matter of controversy
anyway, be it for kids of G.I.'s who were exposed to it...
http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html
or even less so for the kids whose mothers were living near
contaminated areas..
http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/contaminazioneitaly.htm
and this is the most "viewable" web page, another one (exhibitpicturs.html)
shows that deformities are similar to the ones near Chernobyl
after the (in)famous plant blew up, pour mémoire sampled here:
http://lille.indymedia.org/article.php3?id_article=11 (mirror)
http://membres.lycos.fr/mat66/special_tcherno.html

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

Nereid

Jan12-04, 05:55 AM

What is the number of cosmic ray-caused deformities, theroyprocess? Of those caused by 14C? 40K? Natrually occuring 235U and 238U? Thorium? Radium? Radon? Why aren't you concerned about these (they're just as preventable)?

russ_watters

Jan12-04, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
...DU... What does DU have to do with this thread? As we discussed in another thread, the problems with DU are chemical, not radiological.

theroyprocess

Jan13-04, 09:28 AM

Russ and Nereid,

If "God" kills you with natural source radiation...it's called death by natural causes.
If man kills you with radiation....it's called MURDER !

Explain it to the parents and the limbless babies when they are old enough
to understand...why it was OK for you to cause and profit from YOUR
radioactive products:

http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html

theroyprocess

Jan13-04, 10:50 AM

Russ,

You don't want real evidence...when some brave researcher has REAL
evidence....he is trashed by the status quo i.e.

Subject: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact details

Dear All,
some of you may already have this, just come through
from the ELP,(Earth Liberation Prisoners) which is
publicising his case. If anyone has any update on this
contact then please let me know. Dr Bandazhevsky needs
all the support he can get.
cheers
davey

Dr. Yurl Bandazhevsky
Ul. Kalvarijskaya 36
PO Box 35K
Minsk 220600, Belarus.

Serving 8 years for telling the world that the nuclear radiation around
Chernobyl is worse than the Belarus Government has admitted.

Nereid

Jan13-04, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Russ and Nereid,

If "God" kills you with natural source radiation...it's called death by natural causes.
If man kills you with radiation....it's called MURDER !

Explain it to the parents and the limbless babies when they are old enough
to understand...why it was OK for you to cause and profit from YOUR
radioactive products:

http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html If "God" kills you with plague, smallpox, TB, etc, it's called 'preventable death'.

If "God" kills you with skin cancer caused by excessive exposure to the Sun, it's called 'preventable death'.

If you die while digging coal from a deep-cut mine, or later (e.g. from 'black lung'), is that 'death by natural causes' or 'MURDER!'?

If you die as a result of long exposure to the fine particulates from diesel exhaust, is that MURDER! at the hands of the oil industry?

As Russ says (and as I've been trying to get you to debate for several months now), it's all about alternatives, costs, societal choices, etc.

What is the basis - logical, emotional, cynical, whatever - by which we go about making the inevitable trade-off's?

As this is PF, I would hope that we can debate the choices from the basis of sound data and sound science. And sound economics would be nice too.

russ_watters

Jan13-04, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Russ,

You don't want real evidence...when some brave researcher has REAL
evidence....he is trashed by the status quo i.e. What a cop out - you're saying you have real evidence but won't give it to me because you think I won't accept it. If this is because a lot of people have told you before that your data and/or analysis is flawed, maybe you need to start looking for another reason people disagree with you, besides a massive conspiracy?

Either way, by only spouting propaganda, you'll NEVER convince anyone who matters, only people who don't know enough to see that you don't have a real case to make.

theroyprocess

Jan14-04, 10:30 AM

The next Chernobyl magnitude catastrophe is
inevitable with 441 aging nuclear power plants
world wide. Governments are preparing by
storing and distributing iodine pills which does
not protect from the whole spectrum of radioactive
elements. It could all be prevented by abandening
nuclear power NOW and transmute and eliminate
high level nuclear waste forever. But this is
unlikely untill the next meltdown happens.

FDA APRROVED ANTI-RADIATION DRUGS

http://www.nukepills.com/contentbuilder/layout.php3?contentPath=content/00/01/08/65/98/userdirectory6.content

PLUTONIUM FOUND IN BABY TEETH

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4808545-107983,00.html

http://www.radiation.org/index.html

LIFE MAGAZINE SPECIAL

http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html

Germany buys anti-radiation pills for people near nuclear plants

BERLIN (AFP) Jan 11, 2004

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040111164235.3sourdwz.html

Germany has bought 137 million potassium iodide tablets to protect
people living near nuclear power plants from radiation exposure in case
of disaster, the environment ministry said Sunday.

A ministry spokesman said the move was unrelated to current terrorism
fears but was based on a recommendation by radiation protection authorities.

Potassium iodide is thought to protect the thyroid gland from absorbing
radiation.

News magazine Der Spiegel reported in an advance copy of its Monday
issue that Germany planned to establish seven centers across the country
in which people in a radius of up to 100 kilometers (60 miles) could be
treated in case of a nuclear emergency.

The majority of the tablets would be available at such centers.

Germany has agreed to phase out its 19 nuclear power plants over the
next two decades due to safety concerns.

--

Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~

See also http://nucnews.net - NucNews Links and Archives

russ_watters

Jan14-04, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by theroyprocess
The next Chernobyl magnitude catastrophe is
inevitable with 441 aging nuclear power plants
world wide. Governments are preparing by
storing and distributing iodine pills which does
not protect from the whole spectrum of radioactive
elements. It could all be prevented by abandening
nuclear power NOW and transmute and eliminate
high level nuclear waste forever. But this is
unlikely untill the next meltdown happens. Chernobyl killed roughly 40 people (YOU provided a source for that number). Air pollution kills 40,000 per year in the US alone. Which is worse?

Quick math: 40/(40,000*40 years) = 1/400,000. That's right, coal is over 40,000 times worse.

If we abandoned nuclear power today, it would be replaced in the short term (for the next 20 years at least) by coal and oil. Your solution would result in probably an additional 20,000 deaths a year from the added air pollution.

Nereid

Jan14-04, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
Knowing the answer to those questions is how you know what the risk really is

True. I have to admit having a bit of curiousity and wanting to take a peak at those autopsey reports that Dr. Kaku has on the workers killed in the nuclear labs.

There are other issues, too. Our society is becoming ill with chronic diseases at younger and younger ages (diabetes, obesity, heart disease) as a result of the changes in diet and sedentary lifestyle. I just don't think any of us want to add any more problems than we already have.
And then you've got the magnetosphere (depleting?) and we won't have as much protection from cosmic radiation and stuff.
We're going to helena handbasket, Russ. [*(] Despite the impression created in media reports, data on health etc suggests the world is a much better place today than even a decade ago. The big exception in the developed world (and increasingly the developing world) is, as you say, 'a result of the changes in diet and sedentary lifestyle' - a rise in obesity, heart disease, diabetes etc. If you believe in free will [;)], these results are the individuals' own choices, and should not cause us any lost sleep.

For folk in the developing world to attain material standards of living closer to those of folk in the developed world, a significant increase in energy supply will be needed. If this comes from burning fossil fuels, there will be severe impacts on the Earth and its passengers - global warming, massive species extinction, hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths (coal miners, oil workers, etc). If it comes from nuclear energy, there will be some impact too (a few hundred preventable deaths, according to theroyprocess's sources).

So, what choice should we make, and why? Remember that 'do nothing' condemns hundreds of millions of people in developing economies to poverty.

theroyprocess

Jan18-04, 01:19 PM

Nereid,

Explain it to these children if they live long enough to understand.

http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf02.html

theroyprocess

Jan18-04, 07:56 PM

To illustrate my point that radiation caused illness IS
imperceptible to the victim...until cancer appears years later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Woman's leukemia linked to radiation

By Marathana Furches
Newton Kansan January 18, 2004

http://thekansan.com/stories/011704/fro_0117040003.shtml

Toni Gough has never been to war and doesn't have military training, but she can tell you about the effects of nuclear radiation and government testing.

After Gough was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia in 2002, her doctor discovered she didn't have the correct genetic make-up for the disease. Gough later discovered her cancer was caused by a relative of a different sort -- Uncle Sam.

The U.S. government performed above-ground nuclear testing in Nevada from Jan. 21, 1951, through Oct. 31, 1958, and from June 30 through July 31, 1962.

"I just can't understand why the government did this. It bothers me that they knew, after the bombs were dropped in Japan, that radiation caused cancers and they still did testing in the United States," Gough said. "Who knew they were doing testing in Nevada?"

Gough didn't make the connection to her childhood home until she contacted family members and informed them of her situation.

"My doctor said that since my leukemia wasn't genetic, it most likely was caused by my being exposed to extremely large amounts of radiation. But my husband and I couldn't figure out when or where that could have happened," Gough said.

When an aunt heard of Gough's plight, she wrote back and told her niece that she had cancer, it was caused by nuclear testing and Gough should look into it and the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program.

Gough lived in Gila County, Ariz., from the time she was 2 until she was in junior high. She doesn't know whether her family was aware of the testing at the time.

"I was only 2 when we moved there and didn't really pay attention to things like that when I was young," Gough said.

While in Gila County, Gough's younger brother died at the age of 2. Doctors ruled out a birth defect as a cause of death. Gough believes there is a strong possibility the radiation could have had an adverse affect on her brother while he was still a fetus.

"It bothers me I never got the chance to know my brother, and that our government may have had a part in it," Gough said.

So Gough contacted the government and got the paperwork to apply for compensation through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The act provides "compassionate payments to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases as a result of their exposure to radiation released during above-ground nuclear weapons tests or as a result of their exposure to radiation during employment in underground uranium mines," according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice divides claimants into five categories: uranium miners, uranium millers, ore transporters, downwinders and onsite participants. Gough is classified as a downwinder.

Downwinders lived in areas affected by the nuclear testing in 10 counties in Utah -- Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, San Juan, Sevier, Washington and Wayne -- and five counties in Arizona -- Apache, Coconino, Gila, Navajo and Yavapai. The Nevada counties include Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine and "that portion of Clark County that consists of townships 13 through 16 at ranges 63 through 71," according to the Department of Justice. That portion of Clark County does not include Las Vegas.

Gough said she wants others who may be suffering from cancer that may have been a result of government testing to know about the compensation act.

more....

Nereid

Jan19-04, 05:22 PM

How about I collect newspaper stories on road accidents? You know, "Joan X, 34-year old mother of two infants, was tragically killed today when the SUV she was driving skidded on a patch of 'black ice' and collided head-on with a tank-transporter in YYY ...". In the US, I believe there are tens of thousands of such stories, every year.

Or, much less seen in any newspaper, "Wang Meiming, 34-year old mother from Xiping passed away yesterday after contracting blood poisoning from her local clinic. Neighbours said that, since her husband had died two years ago, Meiming had been unable to find work, and couldn't afford the medicine needed to save her life."

Can we please have a discussion based on science?

BTW, for every downwinder with leukemia, how many airline pilots are there with cosmic-ray induced leukemia?

russ_watters

Jan19-04, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
How about I collect newspaper stories on road accidents? You know, "Joan X, 34-year old mother of two infants, was tragically killed today when the SUV she was driving skidded on a patch of 'black ice' and collided head-on with a tank-transporter in YYY ...". In the US, I believe there are tens of thousands of such stories, every year.

Can we please have a discussion based on science? Great idea - with theroyprocess's penchant for news stories, mabye she'll believe them more than the facts we give her.

Important note: while virtually all of your stories, theroyprocess, contain only anecdotal evidence of individual deaths, I'll be posting stories with real, scientific evidence of thousands of deaths. With all due respect to that woman's aunt, I'll leave the diagnosis to the doctors and scientists. I also apparently need to point out that the allegation there was of weapons tests - nothing to do with commercial power. The anti-nuke crowd incorrectly lumps the two together all the time.

So here's an intersting link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,12188,854660,00.html

A few key quotes: "Even on a conservative estimate, air pollution is killing 10 times more people than road accidents every year. As individuals we must all take responsibility to reduce our contribution to pollution." Sorry Nereid - road accidents are trivial compared to air pollution. "According to the mayor's draft air quality strategy, published in 2001, 24,000 people a year die prematurely across Britain because of air pollution. We need to do more to bring emissions from motor vehicles in the capital under control." Yikes. 24,000 people. A year. Shocked, theroyprocess? The great London smog brought the capital to a standstill in December 1952. Adverse weather conditions and high levels of smoke from coal fires in homes formed a smog that brought death to thousands as it blanketed the capital. The some 4,000 deaths came in just four days. This one shocked even me - I'd never heard of such a thing.

Nereid

Jan19-04, 10:31 PM

Good points Russ.

May I also add that what happened in 1952 in London continues to happen today, in the winter in industrial cities of developing countries above ~30o N (or below, S). Taiyuan, Shijiazhuang, Lanzhou (even Beijing) are not household names ... but then they're not Americans who are dying, so it doesn't count, right? Maybe Wang Meiming was one of them?? (I'm in a black mood, and will probably regret these words).

russ_watters

Jan20-04, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Nereid
May I also add that what happened in 1952 in London continues to happen today, in the winter in industrial cities of developing countries above ~30o N (or below, S). Taiyuan, Shijiazhuang, Lanzhou (even Beijing) are not household names ... but then they're not Americans who are dying, so it doesn't count, right? I'm aware of that, but its a lot harder to find info on China. As bad as that London article is, western cities are virgin forests compared with Bejing and other Chinese cities.

edit: well, ok, not all that hard: http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kf0f/Air_polln_risks.htm
The results suggest that air pollution is responsible for more than 1 million deaths per year in China, or one in every seven deaths nationwide. A MILLION deaths a year! 1,000,000!!!

theroyprocess

Jan23-04, 12:16 PM

FYI

Even low radiation doses in infants may reduce future cognitive function

Diagnostic Imaging Online
January 22, 2004

http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/dinews/2004012201.shtml

Small amounts of radiation, equivalent to the doses used in CT scans of the skull, could adversely affect an infant's intellectual capacity in adulthood, according to a new study.

Swedish researchers studying the dose-related responses for both learning ability and logical reasoning found that the number of boys attending high school decreased in relation to the amount of ionizing radiation they had received as infants. Results of the study were published in the January issue of the British Medical Journal.

"This is the first study that shows effects at such low doses," said Dr. Per Hall, an associate professor of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

Hall and colleagues examined the records of 4577 men who had received radiation therapy for cutaneous hemangioma before the age of 18 months at the Karolinska University Hospital between 1930 and 1959. The types of radiation included beta rays, gamma rays, and x-rays, with the most common type of treatment using applicators containing radium-226. X-ray treatment included contact therapy at less then or equal to 60 kVp.

Today's CT scanners deliver far higher doses of radiation than ordinary x-rays, and new techniques such as spiral CT scanning deliver even higher doses.

After excluding subjects who had missing information and records, Hall and colleagues were able to analyze 2551 for high school attendance and 2211 for cognitive function. They found a significant decrease in high school attendance in boys who had received radiation doses higher than 100 mGy compared with those who had received the lowest doses of 1 to 20 mGy.

The researchers also reported a significant decreasing trend in cognitive test results for concept discrimination, general instruction, and technical comprehension in relation to increasing radiation doses received as infants.

Comments published along with the original paper raised several questions about the study. One concern was the fact that most children having a CT head scan today would not be receiving doses as high as 100 mGy and that radiation exposure and machines in the past were notorious for inadequate shielding protection and inaccuracy.

Hall noted in response that a Swedish survey found radiation doses for a CT head scan in children to average 68 mGy, going as high as 130 mGy.

"We believe that there is a causal relationship between ionizing radiation at low doses and decreased mental capacity," Hall said.

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

Nereid

Jan23-04, 05:09 PM

theroyprocess,

Do you have any URLs which give the radiation levels of the particulates in a) smoke from industrial plants (e.g. chemical, oil refineries, heavy metal smelting), b) coal-fired powerplant smoke, c) diesel engines?

I'm interested to know what sort of radiation dose people in developing economies get from inhaling air pollution. A detailed breakdown of the radionuclides would also be of interest.

Thank you in anticipation,
Nereid

theroyprocess

Jan29-04, 09:53 AM

This is a crime against humanity....the nuke industry is out of control.

NIRS RADIATION ALERT and UPDATE (1/2004)

Nuclear Power and Weapons Waste to go to Regular Landfills
and other “Non-Regulated Management”

Environmental Protection Agency joins Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Departments of Energy and Transportation in Deregulating Radioactive Waste

Comments due to EPA by March 17, 2004
Email to: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov

The US Environmental Protection Agency is planning to make a new rule that would allow nuclear waste to go to places that are not licensed for radioactive materials.

The goal appears to be to redefine radioactive materials, no matter what their source (nuclear power, nuclear weapons, naturally occurring or other), based on EPA-calculated and projected risks. The new category of nuclear materials (once called BRC or Below Regulatory Concern) would supposedly not need radioactive regulatory controls. EPA does not consider all the potential health effects of radiation and hazardous materials in estimating the risks. They have never demonstrated the accuracy of their predictions.

1) First, EPA would allow mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes to go to facilities permitted for hazardous waste only (RCRA C hazardous waste dumps and processors).

2) Second, radioactive waste (not mixed with hazardous) could be permitted to go to places that do not have radioactive licenses or regulations, such as regular garbage dumps or incinerators or hazardous sites. EPA justifies this by claiming they will provide an acceptable level of protection from radiation risk. It seems obvious this would be a problem for communities around the waste sites, many of which already leak.

3) Third, EPA suggests that a “non-regulatory approach” to management of radioactive waste is an option and requests creative ideas for “partnering” with waste generators or other schemes to relieve the regulatory burden. Nothing would prevent radioactive materials from going to recycling facilities and being mixed with the normal recycling streams which are made into everyday household items like toys, cookware, personal use items, cars, furniture and civil engineering projects like roads and buildings.

4) This dangerous proposal dovetails neatly into the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rulemaking to deregulate and release radioactive material from control, ironically called "Control of Solids." The NRC is considering several options for nuclear waste deregulation including continuing the current case-by-case release procedures, starting new release procedures that are based on projected risks, sending the waste to sites that are not licensed for nuclear materials. NRC is claiming they could approve "restricted" release of nuclear waste meaning certain conditions would apply but that NRC would not enforce them--someone else, as yet un-named would.

The upshot is that NRC and EPA are joining forces to allow nuclear power and weapons waste which is now generally required to be regulated and controlled, to be released to waste sites never designed to take radioactive materials and either deliberately or unintentionally to the marketplace where it will come into routine daily contact with us, our children and environment.

5) To make matters even worse, the US NRC and US Department of Transportation are on the verge of finalizing new transport regulations (TSR-1) that would exempt various levels of hundreds of radionuclides from regulatory control in transit. This will make it easier for NRC and EPA to deregulate nuclear wastes since they will no longer require regulation, labeling or control as radioactive material during transportation. (This is especially distressing in light of increased security concerns about transportation of nuclear materials that could be used for dirty bombs. More unregulated nuclear materials will be on the roads, rails, barges and aircraft.)

6) Finally, the Department of Energy is in the process of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on releasing radioactive materials from its sites. In 2000, DOE halted the commercial recycling of potentially radioactive metals from certain contaminated area on its sites, but could resume it. DOE continues to allow radioactively contaminated metals out for unregulated disposal and to allow other radioactively contaminated materials out for recycling or unregulated disposal--soils, concrete, asphalt, plastic, wood, equipment, buildings, sites and more. EPA’s Nov. 18, 2003 notice would help legalize DOE’s release of nuclear weapons wastes from regulatory control.

ACTIONS:

1) Send a letter to the new EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt telling him what you think of the EPA's proposed action, encouraging him withdraw it.
Administrator Mike Leavitt, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1101A,
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20460
leavitt.michael@epa.gov

2) Comment to EPA and get organizations and landfill boards to do so at
a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov
The proposal is on the EPA website (www.epa.gov/radiation) and will be posted with comments on NIRS website (www.nirs.org) soon.

3) Tell EPA we need a 6 month extension to run their ideas by our communities that will be impacted.

4) Let your elected officials know how you feel about these dangers by sending them a copy of your letter to Secretary Leavitt, comments to EPA, NRC, DOT and/or DOE and telling them about your opposition to the federal rules that would deregulate and exempt nuclear materials from regulation.

For more information contact:
Diane D'Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), 1424 16th Street NW Suite 404, Washington, DC 20036, dianed@nirs.org, 202 328-0002 ext 16
See NIRS website under Campaigns at www.nirs.org for more info and actions.

russ_watters

Feb1-04, 11:00 AM

Something near and dear to me right now: INFLUENZA (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm) 36,000 Americans die each year from complications of flu. So far, this year has been worse than average.

theroyprocess

Feb1-04, 11:49 AM

Not just for James Bond anymore:

GAMMAWATCH Geiger Counter

http://www.gammawatch.com/geiger.htm

GEIGER COUNTERS

http://www.geigercounters.com/

theroyprocess

Feb8-04, 12:47 PM

UMRC Information Bulletin
February 6, 2004

Warning of uranium contamination risks to NGO staff, Coalition forces, foreign contract personnel and civilians in Iraq

February 6, 2004 – Recently completed laboratory analyses show two members of Uranium Medical Research Centre’s (UMRC) field investigation team are contaminated with Depleted Uranium (DU). The two field staff, one from Canada and the other, Beirut, toured Iraq for thirteen days in October 2003; five months after the cessation of Operation Iraqi Freedom’s aerial bombing and ground force campaign. Using mass spectrometry, UMRC’s partner laboratory in Germany measured DU in both team members’ urine samples.

The UMRC team surveyed US and British controlled combat areas and bomb-sites in southern Iraq, including Baghdad, An Nasiriyah, As Suweiriah and Al Basra (details can be found at UMRC.net, Abu Khasib to Al Ah’qaf: Field Investigation Report). The conditions responsible for the team’s DU contamination are considered to be inhalation of resuspended ultra-fine soil and dust particles saturated with uranium and airborne uranium oxides and metallic particulate. Uranium was used in anti-tank penetrators, suppression ordnance and bunker-defeat warheads deployed during the 26 days of Operation Iraqi Freedom by both US and UK forces. The contamination of UMRC’s team members occurring over a two-week period, many months after the main conflict, represents a risk to civilians, non-governmental organisations’ staff, Coalition armed forces and foreign contractors and diplomatic staff.

In 1997, UMRC was the first study group to detect DU in the urine of Canadian, British and US troops who served in Gulf War I. The urinary excretion of battlefield uranium was identified six years following exposure. In January 2004, the US Department of Veterans Affairs admitted it had detected DU in the urine of US forces who are not retaining DU shrapnel, in 2000, eight years after Desert Storm. In 2001 and again in 2002, UMRC measured high concentrations of artificial uranium containing the synthetic isotope, 236U, in Afghan civilians exposed to the detonation plumes of bombs deployed during Operation Enduring Freedom.

In November 2003, the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) released a formal statement to the Guardian disclaiming UMRC’s Operation Telic findings of high levels of radioactivity in British-led battlefields. The MOD stated unequivocally that battlefield uranium residues remain stable inside defeated Iraqi tanks and cannot be made biologically available to humans. Since then, the MOD has found unusually high concentrations of uranium excreted in the urine of its 1st Armoured Division troops who served in Basra (September 2003, UK DU Oversight Board Meeting minutes, Gulf Veterans Illnesses Unit, UK Ministry of Defence). The MOD’s recent findings in its troops now deployed back to Germany, coupled with the contamination of UMRC’s staff demonstrate the need to initiate immediate solutions to protect exposed civilians and foreign personnel in Iraq.

Preliminary results of UMRC’s laboratory analysis of field samples of civilian urine, soils and water samples indicate uranium contamination in several Iraqi cities and battlefields. Details of UMRC’s findings from US and British controlled battlefields and bombsites will be released later this month (February 2004). UMRC has offered its assistance to the United Nation’s Environment Program (UNEP) to guide UNEP’s post-conflict study team to radiologically contaminated bombsites and battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan. UMRC urges UNEP to undertake immediate studies and lead the implementation of a radiation protection program for Iraqi and Afghan civilians as well as a supervised environmental clean-up program, as early as possible.

For information:
T Weyman
Iraq Field Team Lead
Info@UMRC.net

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

theroyprocess

Feb10-04, 09:58 AM

http://www.radiation.org/index.html

THE FATAL FALLOUT PROJECT
Join us for a
FILM SCREENING &
PUBLIC HEALTH FORUM

NEW YORK · BOSTON

FILM
SCREENING

BE
THERE

New York City
February 11, 2004
6:00 pm screening
9:00 pm screening
Symphony Space
2537 Broadway @ 95th Street
New York, NY 10025-6990
Telephone: (212) 864-1414
Box Office: (212) 864-5400

Boston, MA
February 12, 2004
6:00 pm screening
8:30 pm screening
Brattle Theatre
40 Brattle Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Telephone: (617) 876-6837
Box Office: (617) 876-6838

THE
FILM

THE
DANGER
IS
REAL
"Fatal Fallout," A Documentary Film
by Gary Null, Ph.D.

"Fatal Fallout" is a documentary feature film that examines the potentially catastrophic consequences of a meltdown from a mechanical failure or terrorist attack at nuclear power plants located near major cities - such as New York, Los Angeles and Boston. Experts have stated that a meltdown or major radioactive release at such plants could result in chronic radiation sickness, cancer, or death for tens if not hundreds of thousands of the regions' citizens, and render much of these metropolitan areas permanently uninhabitable. Equally compelling, the film brings to light the dangers that low-level radiation emissions from the currently 103 operating nuclear power plants across the country pose to the health of people every day, given that populations living near nuclear reactors exhibit higher rates of breast and thyroid cancers, childhood leukemia, lower birth weights and higher infant mortality. Additionally, the documentary offers a hopeful vision for the future in its overview of safe energy alternatives, such as solar and wind, making "Fatal Fallout" not just a film, but a public health project.

THE
PROJECT

NEW YORK

BOSTON
The Fatal Fallout Project

"The Fatal Fallout Project" is a program that will screen in theaters in New York and Boston--two cities located within fifty miles of nuclear power plants. Following the screening, audience members at each location will be able to view and participate in a live public health forum. Communication is the purpose, the film exhibition program the vehicle, for raising public awareness of this vital public health issue.

Fatal Fallout film on VHS video coming soon:

Thanks for your interest in the film. It will be available online at www.garynull.com in a few weeks. It will sell for $19.95.

************************************************** *****

FATAL FALLOUT

"Keep them confused."
-President Eisenhower, in a memo to advisers when asked what to tell the public about the dangers of nuclear weapons testing and the construction of nuclear power plants.

Since 1895, and the discovery of X-rays by Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, scientists have known about the dangers of exposure to low-level radiation. Yet even after 100 years of incontrovertible evidence that the products of nuclear fission pose a severe and fatal threat to the human species, nuclear reactors and weaponry across the country and around the globe continue to operate and proliferate. Meanwhile, the atmospheric fallout from weapons testing and nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, continues to plague the health of human populations on a geographic scale as far west as Nevada and Wyoming, and as far east as Belarus and China.

Low birth weights, infant and breast cancer mortality rates, and leukemia - not to mention the widespread poisoning of our food, milk and drinking water predicted by Rachel Carson - are just some of the legacies of atmospheric bomb tests and power plants. The United States is now buckling under the sheer weight of the evidence against it and paying out-of-court settlements to people who were exposed to radiation. But then why does the Bush administration want to license new nuclear power plants and renew the license of as many as 103 nuclear power plants currently in operation? New York Times bestselling author, Gary Null, Ph.D., an acclaimed documentary filmmaker and syndicated radio host, investigates this deadly deception.

------------------------------------------------------

Neutralize Nuclear Waste, Plutonium & Dirty Bomb Elements

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0308/S00219.htm

russ_watters

Feb10-04, 02:13 PM

American Death Statistics (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm) Yearly accidental deaths from:

Transportation (all types) accidents: 46,749
Falls (furniture, stairs, ladders, ice, etc): 13,322
Mechanical (guns, machinery, fireworks, falling objects): 2,768
Drowning: 3,482
Other soffocation (choking, smothering, etc): 5,648
Electricity (shock, heat): 419
Smoke/fire: 2,776
Forces of nature: 1,223
Poisoning: 12,757

Total: 97,900

hitssquad

Feb11-04, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
theroyprocess,

Do you have any URLs which give the radiation levels of the particulates in a) smoke from industrial plants (e.g. chemical, oil refineries, heavy metal smelting), b) coal-fired powerplant smoke
--
Coal contains 10 ppm uranium, 25 ppm thorium, and also has much
larger quantities of aluminum, iron, sulfur, magnesium, titanium,
arsenic, mercury, & cadmium, all of which are quite poisonous, and
have half-lives of FOREVER. The burning of coal produces free
sulfur, dioxin, sulfur dioxide, CO2, and traces of many other
carcinogenic and mutagenic compounds. Burning coal produces acid
rain directly. Since current coal consumption is 5000 million tons
annually, simply using the 10 ppm and 25 ppm figures above,
therefore the burning of coal atomizes, releases and efficiently
disperses 50,000 tons of Uranium into the environment, and 75,000
tons of Thorium into the environment, annually. Do the math, and
have a good day.

Regards,

Paul
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/4961

--
Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Dec 1;36(23):4943-7.

Uraninite and fullerene in atmospheric particulates.

Utsunomiya S, Jensen KA, Keeler GJ, Ewing RC.

Department of Nuclear Engineering & Radiological Sciences, Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2104, USA.

Particulates emitted from coal-burning power plants typically contain very small amounts of uranium (<10 ppm). Because of the extremely low concentrations, the form of the uranium has been unknown. Using a variety of advanced electron microscopy techniques, we have identified for the first time nanocrystals of uraninite, UO2+x, encapsulated in carbonaceous matter (< or = 50 nm) similar to fullerene. We have also identified, for the first time, closely associated fullerenes, C60. The "carbon-caged" nanocrystals of uraninite are protected from the immediate oxidation that would lead to increased mobility of uranium in the environment. Still, the presence of uranium in the very fine fraction of atmospheric particulates provides another pathway for radiation exposure.

PMID: 12523404
--
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=coal+AND+(uranium+OR+radiation)

--
J Environ Radioact. 2002;61(2):191-201.

Evaluation of technologically enhanced natural radiation near the coal-fired power plants in the Lodz region of Poland.

Bem H, Wieczorkowski P, Budzanowski M.

Institute of Applied Radiation Chemistry, Technical University of Lodz, Poland.

Radionuclide releases together with escaping fly ashes (from 45 x 10(6) kg in previous decades to 8 x 10(6) kg annually in 1996) from the main local and several small coal-fired power plants resulted in a relatively small increase in natural radioactivity levels in the Lodz region. The natural gamma terrestrial radiation dose rates (1 m above ground level) were measured at 82 points including in the vicinity of power plants, in the center of the town and on edge of the town. The average dose rate value for the first area was 36 +/- 1.2 nGy h (-1), whereas the same dose rate for the edge of town was slightly lower 30 +/- 0.9 nGy h (-1) but this difference was statistically significant. Further confirmation of the technologically slightly enhanced exposure of the local population to natural radionuclides was achieved by gamma-spectrometry measurement of the uranium and thorium decay series radionuclides in the surface soil profiles (up to 30 cm depth). The average increase of 226Ra and 232Th radionuclides in the top layer of soil (0-10 cm) according to the 20+/-30 cm depth layer was 21% and 17%, respectively. However, due to the relatively low levels of 232Th (14.3 Bq kg (-1)) and 238U (16.8 Bq kg (-1)) in this area, the annual average effective dose from the natural terrestrial radiation for the local population is also relatively low, 0.28 mSv only.

PMID: 12066980
--
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=coal+AND+(uranium+OR+radiation)

The first hit returned by the following Google search is a modern classic in the genre of documentation of radiation emissions from coal-fired power plants:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=coal+AND+(uranium+OR+radiation)

--
...from the expected combustion of 111,716 million tons of coal with the release of 477,027,320 millicuries in the United States.... Global releases of radioactivity from the predicted combustion of 637,409 million tons of coal would be 2,721,736,430 millicuries.

For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

--
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Physicists Richard Garwin and Georges Charpak, in their 2001 book Megawatts and Megatons, calculate total exposures over 10,000 years for coal vs. once-through fuel-cycle nukes vs. closed fuel-cycle nukes. Coal doesn't come out looking so bad in that analysis:

________________________________________
Table 7.2 Collective effective dose to the public from
effluents of the nuclear fuel cycle. Dose commitment
in person-Sv per GWe-yr of operation.
________________________________________

Local and Regional Component:
________________________________________

Once Reprocessing
Source through and recycle Coal
________________________________________
Mining 1.1 0.9 0.002
Reactor operations (atmospheric) 1.3 1.3 20
Total local and regional 2.4 2.2 20

Solid Waste and Global Component:
________________________________________
Mine and mill tailings
(release over 10,000 yrs) 150 120
Reactor operations, disposal
of immediate waste 0.5 0.5
Reprocessing solid waste disposal 0 1.2 125
Reprocessing, globally dispersed (use of ash)
radioluclides (to 10,000 years) 0 217
Total for solid waste
and global component 150 339 125
________________________________________
Grand total 152 341 145

(Garwin and Charpak. Megawatts and Megatons. 2001. p198.)
http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/authors/garwin/

Multiplying those figures by the IRCP standard of .04 lethal cancers per person-Sievert, we see that the average once-through, the average closed-fuel-cycle, and the average coal plant kill 6.08, 13.64, and 5.8 people, respectively, per power plant unit year of operation.

These figures can vary dramatically within the realm of practicable variance in power plant management, and within the realm of practicable application of hygiene among the members of the affected populations (e.g., optimum anti-senescence diet; optimum supplementation with radioprotective antioxidants and chelators; optimum sleep quantity and quality; optimum stress reduction; etc.).

-Chris

theroyprocess

Feb11-04, 08:45 PM

Low Level Radiation Campaign email briefing. Please forward to other campaigners

TV researcher finds new cluster of childhood cancers and leukaemia far worse than Seascale

Twenty years on from the Yorkshire TV programme "Windscale the Nuclear Laundry" in which James Cutler revealed the existence of the notorious cluster of childhood leukaemia at Seascale near Sellafield, a researcher from HTV has done the same thing for the radioactively contaminated Menai Strait, which lies between the island of Anglesey and north Wales. Like YTV, HTV has identified the children involved and has interviewed them and their parents in a documentary to be broadcast on the Welsh language channel S4C 10th February. These are real children, so it will be hard for the authorities to deny the data. The cluster is more severe than Seascale and its statistical strength is far greater.

In the seaside town of Caernarfon leukaemia in the 0 - 14 year old age group is 28 times the UK national average (compared with Seascale's 12-fold excess). The excess risk is not confined to the town of Caernarfon. In the 34 wards surrounding the Menai Strait there were 6 cases of leukaemia 0-4 from 2000-2003, a Relative Risk (RR) of 7.8; between 1996 and 2003 there were 9 cases of brain and spinal cancer; RR = 5.4. The cancers include 3 cases of the rare eye cancer retinoblastoma on Anglesey. All are teenagers. In Conwy (another seaside town) there are two further cases, both under ten years old. Caernarfon has a further case, a child born in 1999 and diagnosed at age 3. Retinoblastoma has been associated with radioactivity since the Seascale cluster of leukaemia is accompanied by a 20-fold excess of retinoblastoma in children of Sellafield workers. The relative risks for retinoblastoma in the HTV research are uncertain because so far we only have one of the diagnosis dates, but a conservative calculation shows that excess risks for the area, compared with average rates, are between 5 and 15-times (this covers separate calculations for Anglesey and the whole of the county of Gwynedd). The statistical significance of all the results is high, so this is not a chance occurrence (for the detail see the report itself on www.llrc.org).

This news blows to shreds any credibility COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment) may have. COMARE was set up on the recommendation of the Black Committee which investigated the way in which the Seascale cluster was found. COMARE's deliberations have resulted in nothing but two decades of denial, hanging on the single flimsy premise that on "current knowledge" of the relationship between radiation and leukaemia, the level of dose local people were exposed should not have caused so many cases. Parents of young cancer patients in north Wales consistently comment that when they take their children to hospital they are surprised by the sheer numbers of children who come from the same areas. Workers at the Low Level Radiation Campaign were alerted by such anecdotes to look at data leaked to us by Wales Cancer Registry (WCR). We found anomalously high cancer rates along the Irish Sea coast, and inferred that radioactivity migrating onto the shore was the cause and that the dose/effect relationship cited by COMARE was simply wrong. COMARE has failed to conduct a proper investigation of our findings, fearing that to do so would increase our credibility and "open the door for others to lean on COMARE to recommend research." COMARE failed to ask the Welsh Cancer Intelligence Unit (WCISU - WCR's successor) how and why they wiped large numbers of cases off the WCR databases, in effect going back two decades to cure people. The whole sorry story is on www.llrc.org and there you can also download the report in which Dr Chris Busby has analysed the statistical status of what the HTV researcher found. You can even see the minutes of the COMARE meeting which listened to the Director of WCISU but not to us. LLRC is calling (not for the first time) for COMARE to be disbanded, as well as the other watchdog which was set up on Black's recommendation. This is SAHSU, the Small Area Health Statistics Unit; surely it would be best for public health problems such as Seascale to be found by official bodies routinely monitoring official data, rather than in embarrassing TV documentaries?

Suffice it to say SAHSU has never found anything. When asked to investigate the concerns of local people they ignore the way radioactive discharges are unevenly distributed by prevailing winds and by local topography, rivers and tides. When challenged (as they were recently at Bradwell in Essex) to look more realistically at data on cancer around an area of contamination they apply the totally inappropriate technique of Bayesian Smoothing to smudge the data out so that nothing can be seen. Take away the Bayesian smudging and the truth speaks clear - radioactive mud blows onshore and kills people. This observation cannot be accounted for using the radiation protection standards advised by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).

We have consistently looked at the dose/response relationship on the basis of low dose radiation effects (e.g. infant leukaemia post-Chernobyl) and found it to be in error by two orders of magnitude. Consider one example; on the basis of what COMARE and NRPB say, doses at Seascale are 300 times too small to have caused the leukaemia cluster, but nobody denies that the cluster is real. What caused it? Was it the radiation? We think so and we think ICRP's model is wrong in the very low dose end and for radioactivity when it gets into the body - this part of ICRP's modelling is, after all just guess work. Now, thanks to HTV, we have even more evidence that we are right. There are massive implications for all aspects of nuclear policy everywhere. One of those implications is that SAHSU and COMARE must go - they have stood out against scientific advance and the interests of the public for far too long. We will produce further briefings soon.

Richard Bramhall
Low Level Radiation Campaign
bramhall@llrc.org
The Knoll
Montpellier Park
Llandrindod
Powys LD1 5LW U.K.
+44 (0)1597 824771

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *

russ_watters

Feb13-04, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by hitssquad
--
Coal contains 10 ppm uranium, 25 ppm thorium, and also has much
larger quantities of aluminum, iron, sulfur, magnesium, titanium,
arsenic, mercury, & cadmium, all of which are quite poisonous, and
have half-lives of FOREVER. The burning of coal produces free
sulfur, dioxin, sulfur dioxide, CO2, and traces of many other
carcinogenic and mutagenic compounds. Burning coal produces acid
rain directly. Since current coal consumption is 5000 million tons
annually, simply using the 10 ppm and 25 ppm figures above,
therefore the burning of coal atomizes, releases and efficiently
disperses 50,000 tons of Uranium into the environment, and 75,000
tons of Thorium into the environment, annually. Do the math, and
have a good day.

Regards,

Paul
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/4961
As I've said before, coal is the real enemy here. In the US, 50% of our electricity comes from coal. In the seaside town of Caernarfon leukaemia in the 0 - 14 year old age group is 28 times the UK national average (compared with Seascale's 12-fold excess). The excess risk is not confined to the town of Caernarfon. In the 34 wards surrounding the Menai Strait there were 6 cases of leukaemia 0-4 from 2000-2003, a Relative Risk (RR) of 7.8; between 1996 and 2003 there were 9 cases of brain and spinal cancer; RR = 5.4. Theroyprocess, thats a classic case of abuse of statistics. When the number of occurrences of something (anything) is so low, such statistical analysis is either a meaningless misunderstanding or intentionally misleading. In the case of a special interest group with a clear adjenda, these studies are more often than not intentionally misleading. HERE (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table5.htm) is a similar example easily created on demand using statistics available on the web. Many many ominous sounding things can be said about these statistics. For example:

-From 1998 to 2001, the number of fatal airline accidents per year in the US increased sixfold.

-Your odds of dying any time you flew in 2001 were 531 times higher than in 1998.

While factually accurate, that analysis is utterly meaningless because plane crashes are so rare in the US, one or two happening in the same year will throw off the statistics. In 2001 for example, 4 of the 6 crashes were part of the same event - 9/11. The 2001 numbers are given an asteresk in the table because a hijacking isn't really an "accident."

Applied to the cancer rates, with random distributions, lots of different types of cancer to look at, and lots of cities to choose from to look at, its a statistical certainty that you will find clusters (if single digit quantities can be considered a "cluster") of certain types of cancer. What studies like this don't tell you is that with similar analysis you can show lower incidences of certain types of cancer clustered around nuclear plants if you want to.