FDA Approved Potassium Iodide
FDA approved potassium iodide....get ready!
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
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!
[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.
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
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,
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.
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:
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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!
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.
What 'choice' did these babies have? Your Titanic is sinking.
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
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??
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 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.
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?
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!
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?
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.
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).
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?
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".
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!
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.
Re: The Sun
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?
Separate names with a comma.