- #1
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
Last edited by a moderator:
What is the Impact of Radiation on Children Living Near Chernobyl?
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights concerns about the health impacts of depleted uranium (DU) and its presence in Afghan civilians' urine, indicating potential exposure to U236 isotopes near bomb sites. Activists and scientists are criticized for not adequately addressing this issue in political forums. The conversation also touches on the historical context of leaded gasoline and the need for sound scientific advocacy against harmful substances. Experts emphasize that there is no safe dose of radiation, reinforcing the argument against increasing exposure to radioactive materials. The urgency for political action and public awareness regarding the dangers of DU and nuclear waste is underscored.
- #2
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
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
FDA approved potassium iodide...get ready!
http://www.nukepills.com/contentbuilder/layout.php3?contentPath=content/00/01/08/65/98/userdirectory6.content
Last edited by a moderator:
- #3
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
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 ]
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
country.
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
www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/bein/hamburg.htm].
Piotr Bein
[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 ]
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
country.
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
www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/bein/hamburg.htm].
Piotr Bein
Last edited by a moderator:
- #4
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
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 category 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!
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 category 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:
- #5
Njorl
Science Advisor
- 284
- 21
[q]Did ANY scientist or doctor object and start a campaign to
stop leaded gasoline?
[/q]
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.
Njorl
stop leaded gasoline?
[/q]
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.
Njorl
- #6
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
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:
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
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
Last edited by a moderator:
- #7
LURCH
Science Advisor
- 2,549
- 119
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:
- #8
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
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.
- #9
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,691
- 11,130
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?
- #10
LURCH
Science Advisor
- 2,549
- 119
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?
- #11
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
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.
- #12
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
Buclear Waste Issue In Russian Elections
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
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
Last edited by a moderator:
- #13
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
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.
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.
- #14
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
What Choice?
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,
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
Last edited by a moderator:
- #15
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
Still waiting, and waiting, ...
[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??
[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??
- #16
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
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.
www.thinktwice.com
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
- #17
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
How to evaluate cost-benefit?
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?
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?
- #18
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
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!
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!
- #19
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,691
- 11,130
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?
- #20
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
The Sun
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.
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.
- #21
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
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?
Last edited:
- #22
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
Science
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".
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".
- #23
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
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!
- #24
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
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.
- #25
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,691
- 11,130
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?
- #26
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
One More Time
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
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
Last edited by a moderator:
- #27
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,266
- 45
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
- Warren
- #28
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
Frivolous Questions
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.
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.
- #29
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,266
- 45
A... confabulation? I'm not sure this is the word you intended to use.
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.
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.
Why do you think I intend to fool anyone? I am not part of any conspiracy, despite your apparent paranoia.
- Warren
- #30
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
Denial
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.
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.
- #31
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,691
- 11,130
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:
The only response I got suggests, h/she doesn't understand the question.
- #32
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
On Topic
Radiation and Depleted Uranium Weapons:
WARNING: Graphic pictures of deformed babies.
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html
Radiation and Depleted Uranium Weapons:
WARNING: Graphic pictures of deformed babies.
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html
Last edited by a moderator:
- #33
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,266
- 45
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
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
- #34
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
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.
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.
- #35
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,691
- 11,130
How much worse do you consider it than lead?
- #36
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,266
- 45
Not a whole lot worse. I wouldn't want to have vaporized lead all over my house either.
- Warren
- #37
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,691
- 11,130
I guess the main difference then is its easier to vaporize uranium?
- #38
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,266
- 45
Well, yeah -- uranium is pyrophoric. Lead is not.
- Warren
- #39
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,266
- 45
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
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
Last edited by a moderator:
- #40
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
Ubiquitous Disclaimers
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) *
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) *
Last edited by a moderator:
- #41
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
EDITED by enigma
*flooding deleted*
I wasn't kidding. No more links, no more articles. Not until you answer this:
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?[/color]
This was posted by enigma, a PF Mentor, in the following Nuclear Engineering thread (The Nuclear Power Thread):
https://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?[/color]
*flooding deleted*
I wasn't kidding. No more links, no more articles. Not until you answer this:
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?[/color]
This was posted by enigma, a PF Mentor, in the following Nuclear Engineering thread (The Nuclear Power Thread):
https://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?[/color]
- #42
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
Multi-generational health effects
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!
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!
- #43
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
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 occurring radioactivity?
- #44
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
Man made radiation
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!
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!
- #45
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,266
- 45
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
- Warren
- #46
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
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?
- #47
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
It's MURDER
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!
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!
- #48
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,266
- 45
I don't know 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
- Warren
- #49
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,392
- 3
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?
- #50
theroyprocess
- 141
- 1
Nuremberg Codes
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 into 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.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 into 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.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar threads
Chernobyl
Chernobyl NPP visit radiation question
Hot Threads
-
I Explain Bernoulli at the molecular level?
- Started by user079622
- Replies: 251
- Classical Physics
-
B Simple mass/scale puzzle
- Started by DaveC426913
- Replies: 206
- Classical Physics
-
I How deep does it need to go for a physics theory to be consistent?
- Started by Aleberto69
- Replies: 50
- Classical Physics
-
I Solving a momentum problem where masses change after the collision
- Started by rdemyan
- Replies: 35
- Classical Physics
-
B Torque Calculation - Not a basic application
- Started by TeeBeeCee
- Replies: 37
- Classical Physics
Recent Insights
-
Insights Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 7
- Quantum Physics
-
Insights What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 0
- General Math
-
Insights Relativator (Circular Slide-Rule): Simulated with Desmos - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 0
- Special and General Relativity
-
Insights Fixing Things Which Can Go Wrong With Complex Numbers
- Started by PAllen
- Replies: 7
- General Math
-
Insights Fermat's Last Theorem
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 78
- General Math
-
Insights Why Vector Spaces Explain The World: A Historical Perspective
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 0
- General Math