Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Radiation Health Effects URLS

  1. Oct 19, 2003 #1
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 12, 2003 #2
    FDA Approved Potassium Iodide

    FDA approved potassium iodide....get ready!

    http://www.nukepills.com/contentbuilder/layout.php3?contentPath=content/00/01/08/65/98/userdirectory6.content [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  4. Nov 18, 2003 #3
    Depleted Uranium Coverup

    [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 [Broken]]

    This point is being ignored by the press, the activists and even the high
    profile anti-DU scientists. It is odd that our activist leaders and
    scientists have not made political hay with this conclusive and definitive
    finding of artificial uranium. As far as I know, no one is dropping this
    point on the Senate, Congress or Parliament members' laps in any any

    UMRC measured uranium isotopic ratios resembling "natural uranium". The
    relative trace of U236 would be undetectable for most labs, especially those
    subcontracted" or "licensed" by the complex. Despite up to 200 higher than
    normal concentration of uranium in urine, the labs would thus declare "no
    problem". UMRC observed a drastic incidence of low-level radiation symptoms
    among Afghanis near the bomb sites.

    It is time that anti-uranium anti-nuclear weapons groups, veterans, and
    concerned health professionals took a political action about it, before more
    people are exposed in military in civilian applications of uranium waste
    [see "DU = dirty uranium" in Part 3 of

    Piotr Bein
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  5. Nov 18, 2003 #4
    Lead vs DU

    They put lead compounds is gasoline and we inhaled god knows
    how much. Did ANY scientist or doctor object and start a campaign to
    stop leaded gasoline?

    DU is a multi-generational killer....beyond genocide...Dr. Bertell
    suggests a new catagory of homicide...she calls it omicide I believe.

    You will be hearing much more about DU, veterans with so-called
    'gulf war syndromes' have filed law suits already.

    If we must kill each other....lets do it with bad jokes!
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2003
  6. Nov 18, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    [q]Did ANY scientist or doctor object and start a campaign to
    stop leaded gasoline?

    Yes, many did. It worked. It worked because it was based on sound science, and because scientists and doctors have the public interest at heart. Sure, some interests fought it, but they lost.

    You are not espousing sound science. You become irrational and emotional when you encounter "radiation", "radioactive" or "uranium". Because you advocate irrational ideas from an emotional stance, you essentially advocate for greater suffering and death in the world.

  7. Nov 19, 2003 #6
    Sound Science

    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:



    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,

    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


    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.


    New Book by Dr. Rosalie Bertell:

    http://www.iicph.org/planet_earth.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  8. Nov 19, 2003 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Depleted Uranium Coverup

    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?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  9. Nov 19, 2003 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  10. Nov 21, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Re: Depleted Uranium Coverup

    Good catch. Doesn't make any sense. But hey, who says rantings have to make sense?
    Just out of curiosity, have you ever been exposed to direct sunlight? Does it terrify you?
  11. Nov 21, 2003 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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?
  12. Nov 21, 2003 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  13. Nov 22, 2003 #12
    Buclear Waste Issue In Russian Elections

    Activists Make Nuclear Waste a Russian Election Issue

    MOSCOW, Russia, November 18, 2003 (ENS)


    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!

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  14. Nov 22, 2003 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  15. Dec 3, 2003 #14
    What Choice?


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

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

    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


    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. Dec 3, 2003 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Still waiting, and waiting, ...

    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??
  17. Dec 3, 2003 #16
    Nuremberg Codes

    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.

  18. Dec 3, 2003 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How to evaluate cost-benefit?

    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?
  19. Dec 4, 2003 #18

    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

    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!
  20. Dec 4, 2003 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.

    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?
  21. Dec 6, 2003 #20
    The Sun

    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook