3-Headed Frog Found - Frog Also Has Six Legs (Near leaky Nuke plant)

[seventhson]

http://www.local6.com/news/2900371/detail.html

Excerpt:

Wildlife experts in Britain are stunned by the apparent discovery of a frog with three croaking heads and six legs, Local 6 News will report Friday night.

The frog was reportedly found at a children's day nursery in the English village of Weston Super-Mare in Somerset, according to the report.

The staff at the Green Umbrella nursery first thought it was three frogs huddled together but after closer inspection they realized the frogs were joined together.

A wildlife biologist said a reason for the three-headed frog’s development could have been damage to the embryo, according to a report.



and


http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/nwa/70/1971.html

(scroll down - it's the same county. Remember the half life of Strontium 90 is about 30 years)

Excerpt:

Hinkley Point, Somerset, England
A former welder, who later became a local councilor in the Safety Liaison Committee of Hinkley Point Nuclear Power station in Somerset, England, alleged that some of the pipe repairs were not properly made on the instruction of his superiors trying to cave work. He also claimed that X-Rays of good welds were used to cover the deception. The events happened in 1971 and are under "very thorough and urgent investigation" by the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) after instruction from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NIII). (The Guardian, 25/2/87, WISE NC 269 27/2/87 p.10)

See also this brief report by Greenpeace: "1985 Accidental radioactive release into the sea from Hinkley Point nuclear power plant (at Somerset, UK) at:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/nuclear/reactor/calendar/standard/cal_oct.html

[thebigidea]

1. insert Burns/Smithers routine

[KDLarsen]

2. Aww...

... I wanted to be the first with the SNPP reference :D

[Ediacara]

8. I am not sure if I should link this

I might get a three page letter from Fox....

[RFKHumphreyObama]

45. First thing that came to my mind as well

That "Burns For Governor" episode

[catzies]

54. Blinky, the Superfish!

Marge cooked and fed him to Mr. Burns...classic.

[buycitgo]

3. I saw that poor thing on TV.....changed channels as fast as I could

but not before the idiot THs laughed it up, as if it were some sort of adorable little puppy

made me sick to my stomach

[TheBlob]

4. Looks more like three frogs connected together.

[Ediacara]

6. I don't buy that

it looks like three frogs sitting on eachother, rather than a three-headed frog. And besides.... it's extremely unlikely that conjoined twins could survive through the tadpole stage, as three partially formed tails would have made it very slow and easy to catch for a passing fish.

[TeeYiYi]

13. So what do you propose happened? . . .

. . . somebody grafted them together as a hoax? Pretty sick joke to play on a nursery.

TYY

Disclaimer: I have no doubt that this is real and not a hoax. *Sadly.*

[Ediacara]

16. well

Do you really think that a small television station in Florida scooped the BBC about a major British news item?

There's no word about this frog on any reputable news website I've been able to find.

Additionally, the photos show three frogs sitting on top of eachother on mud. A far more convincing photo would be oh, you know, a close up image of where the bodies are actually connected.....

The photos and source are completely unbelievible as of this moment. Add in the fact that a three tailed tadpole would not be able to swim, and would be eaten by predatory fish.

And also, by nursery, they mean the place you buy plants, not the place you drop of small children.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

22. The little bugger was hopping around on the Beeb earlier

as their "and in other news" (big grin) story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3534361.stm

[Ediacara]

24. ok well then

I stand corrected, definately weird, but as NickB77 has stated, it's necisary to blame a nuclear plant, or else every pair of human conjoined twins should be suing the heck out of stuff.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

26. Yeah - I don't think this has anything to do with radiation

or at least it's ridiculously premature to start saying that.

[seventhson]

28. Chemical or radiation pollution caused this

That is what the British scientists said: A Pollutant mutated their genetic materials and caused this. Radiation is very good at that.. It has been doing it for millions of years on Earth. But usually the natural radiation idoes NOT cause such severe mutations as these.

The fact that this was found near a nuke plant that has been leaking mutagenic radionucleides is a clue.

Radiation.org can educate you.

Especially if you live near a nuke plant and/or are of child bearing age you WANT to know this stuff.

I urge you not to hide your head in the (radioactive) sand. Especially women who want to have children ever.

[Ediacara]

30. really?

I thought the frog hopped away and wasn't captured? How can the "British scientist" know the exact cause of this just by looking at it? You might want to educate yourself on the mechanisms of evolution before you make such a difinative statement....

[mobuto]

76. I blame Skull and Bones for this

They probably held an initiation ceremony near the frog and deliberately manipulated its embryo.

They do the same to all those human conjoined twins, the bastards.

[AlienGirl]

36. I doubt the role of radiation in this

Conjoined twins--or in this case triplets--aren't caused by changes in the DNA; they're the result of an incomplete splitting of an embryo. I'm not sure radioactivity could affect an embryo in this way.

Tucker

[seventhson]

96. and I am quite sure it is a good liklihood

SOMETHING caused the cells not to divide properly. Maybe it was NOT the dna but cellular injury (damaged cells not unlike burned and blistered skin from the sun) unable to reproduce properly).

The proximity to the leaky nuke plant is what makes this suspicious.

[Ediacara]

102. you are insane!

Conjoined twins aren't caused by ANYTHING related to radiation!!!!

[seventhson]

114. Okay - Here is one pretty reliable set of studies to back me up

with respect to the thesis that I support:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb2001/981348253.Dv.r.html

Read those studies and then get back to me.

[Ediacara]

116. LOL

How does an email between two people support your case? Did you bother to actually read the references therein?

[Squeegee]

144. Not really...

That memo states hypotheses and postulates, basically educated guesses, if that. Interestingly enough, they didn't mention heredity. It seems like if 80% of conjoined twins are female, it would stand to reason that some forms of conjoined twins could simply be the result of a rare hereditary X-linked syndrome.

[The Stranger]

121. I'm sure it will be "ridiculously premature" until we all start growing

additional heads, arms and legs. Just like there is no such thing as global warming.

[Ediacara]

122. there is a difference between conjoined twins and growing extra arms and

legs....

The title of the article is extremely misleading. The frog doesn't have three heads, it is three identical triplets conjoined. There is no know link between nuclear radiation and conjoined twins. Additionally, the editorial comment is euqlly misleading, as the nuclear power plant is not leaky.

[seventhson]

27. Fish do not live in all ponds and swamps where frogs live

so that argument does not wash

[Ediacara]

29. well, if they ever hope to live long enough to grow legs

they're in a body of water large enough to house fish, so you're 1/100% exception is meaningless.

[NickB79]

34. You think fish are the only predators of tadpoles?

Ever encountered a big, mean water beetle, the 3" ones with huge friggin jaws that draw blood if they latch onto your toe? Or a dragonfly larvae, also capable of drawing blood when it bites? Both of these are found in almost any body of water large enough to allow tadpoles to survive, and are a key wetland predator of small vertebrates.

[renegade000]

47. well...some of the other shots are more convincing

*shrug*

[seventhson]

49. I think they are

and they seem to have been seen and verfied by plenty of folks.

But the critic has backed off the argument that this is a fake story.

The real question now is what caused this aberration?

I have spent years studying the radiation issues (I did so on Capitol Hill for a Democratic Congressman on an environmental subcommittee with oversight of nuclear matters) and also worked for a subcontractor for a nuclear company assessing worker injuries.

I think the issue is sufficiently grounded in solid science to be extremely concerned about it.

As some of you know I lived for years in the shadow of a nuke plant and my kids were, according to our doctor, negatively impacted by radiation pollution. So were my wife and I. My doctor told us this - so it is NOT just a knee jerk response on my part.

There are three-headed frogs not far from a leaky nuke plant.

It pisses me off that people are not up in arms about it (figuratively speaking of course)

[Ediacara]

53. Like I've asked before

Do you really think that all conjoined twins, or in this case, triplets, are caused by nuclear power plants? I really doubt you have a solid understanding of either evolutionary biology or nuclear chemistry, as has been demonstrated many times within this thread. You should back off of your claims that this MUST have been caused by radiation, since all data suggests that these are conjoined triplets, and nothing more.

[jenk]

62. has there ever been a case

of conjoined triplets?

[Hekate]

79. Possible but vanishingly small probability...

...Conjoined twins are extremely rare as it is, and most don't live very long. "Nature's mistakes" as my mother used to say: that profound an anomaly (conjoined triplets) in a mammal would either be miscarried early or kill the mother as she tried to deliver it because the birth canal is made for a single infant head down, not something that goes off in all directions. Of course a C-section in a modern hospital would save the mother. With frogs and other critters gestated outside a womb, the shape of a birth canal wouldn't matter.

Hekate

[treepig]

66. i know we've been through this before,

but if you really have "years studying the radiation issues" - along with information pointed out on previous threads, then how can you keep making statements like those in post #28 implying that "natural" and "man-made" radiation causes different mutations? there is absolutely no scientific basis for such a claim.

[alittlelark]

146. Why 'figuratively speaking'

there are many of us waiting in the wings with pitchforks. They will only be used in the event of ??????

[Ediacara]

52. the photos are ALL really crappy

but if the film has been shown in UK TV, then I trust it's not fake.

[seventhson]

7. Thanks. No , really, thanks. For posting a picture of the little monsters

It made me think of the little girl with a head growing out of the top of her head a month or so ago.

I saw a play by the Pravda scientist/journalist (Science Editor) who inspected Chernobyl. Called "Brides of Chernobyl) These types of things were common.

Where the hell does Kerry stand on Nuclear Power?

Pilgrim Nuclear is near him and there have been correlations shown to prostate cancer. I hope he opposes these nasty things.

[seventhson]

9. Maybe they were sniffing super glue together

or radioactive toadstools.

[BrotherBuzz]

25. Menage a trois?

Looks like three frogs doing the 'Big Nasty'.

[rman]

64. so how did they end up connected together?

In a way they are 3 frogs connected together, apparently due to some freak mutation. Freak mutations do have a higher rate of occurence when there is nuclear polution. Do you have a better explanation?

[Ediacara]

75. they aren't a freak mutation

They are conjoined triplets. Look, do you know the mechanism that creates identical twins in vertebrates? Splitting of the embryo at an early stage. Do you know the mechanism that creates conjoined twins in vertebrates? Incomplete splitting of the embryo, creating a situation where there are shared organ systems or tissue.

See, conjoined twins:


This is a natural occurance, albeit rare. None of this is caused by radiation AT ALL.

[seventhson]

93. Yup - and damaged genes is what causes it. What causes damaged genes?

Radiation.

A+

SOMETHING is causing the cells not to divide naturally.

But there is no way you can prove that THIS mutation was NOT caused by man-made radiation leaked from the power plant nearby where the frog(s) were found.

Only a geneticist studying the frogs and testing for exposure could tell definitively.

My post was intended to point out that there is a leaky reactor nearby which MAY have caused this freak of nature just as Chernobyl (and other leaky nukes) have caused the deformities of babies born to exposed mothers.

[Ediacara]

103. RADIATION DOES NOT CAUSE CONJOINED TWINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Show me a study, ANY STUDY, that demonstrates even a spurious causal link between radiation and conjoined twins and I'll send you a check for $100.

[seventhson]

117. Here are some studies that show this is one theory for causality

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb2001/981348253.Dv.r.html

Excerpt:

There are some ideas regarding what may cause monozygotic twins to develop abnormally and remain attached, mainly from studies in experimental animals. Exposure to pesticides containing the element selenium, manganese defieciences, exposure to butyric acid or acetone, infections, and radiation have been postulated to induce conjoined twins in laboratory animals, and may be significant in human embryology. Other theories that have been proposed include the presence of thyroid disease in the mother, as well as certain treatments for infertility. A few drugs have been indicated for their possible role in conjoined twinning including griseofulvin, an antifungal agent, and prochlorperazine, used often to reduce nausea and vomiting.

[Ediacara]

119. As I asked in 116

did you bother to read those? or are you just hoping I'll back down?

[Squeegee]

145. Why are you so quick to blame radiation

And not something else, like let's say PCBs which are a far more immediate and worse problem world wide? BTW, conjoined twins aren't the result of damaged genes (unless the mother has damaged genes that causes her eggs to be stickier than normal or something). If it were damaged genes, the conjoined twin's children and their offspring would also inherit the condition, which has not been shown to be true in the real world. Conjoined twins are more likely the result of pre-natal conditions within the mother's body, affected by such things as chemical exposure, hormone imbalance, temperature regulation, etc. or simply bad luck.

[nolabels]

152. Lots of people on this thread said it was a trick

I have checked it out, but still am not sure. I did find this though
<title>A Guide to Safety in Wartime


If terrorists try to attract you into a trap with fireworks, pull over! Don't fall for the dazzling effects!

http://object.qpalzm.com/fun/safety/

[seventhson]

188. Radiation pollution causes hormonal imbalances and poor

temperature regulation.

Radio Iodine damages the thyroid which regulates temperature and hormonal balances.

This is one of the big reasons for concern.

The mothers were exposed - probably.

[NickB79]

199. Odd that hospitals routinely use radioiodine

To treat various thyroid disorders, and to also visualize the body when scanned. They also give it to patients at doses THOUSANDS of times higher than recieved through common life.

[Squeegee]

213. Unlikely in this instance

Yes, the mothers were exposed to radio-iodine because it occurs naturally in the environment. Human produced radio-iodine in the environment is practically indistinguishable from natural background sources (except for localized areas, like around Chernobyl). If the women were exposed to levels of radio-iodine that was in high enough concentrations to cause problems with temperature regulation or cause hormonal imbalances, it would also cause chronic problems that and would adversely affect their health. This doesn't appear to be the case in the cases reported. Anyway, it is not known if hormone levels or temperature fluctuations could cause conjoined twins, so this is sort of a red herring argument.

On the other hand, PCBs, which are known to cause birth defects, are found in alarming concentrations in the environment world-wide. The concentrations are high enough that the WHO and FDA periodically issue heath warnings and advisories telling people to avoid eating particular kinds of foods.

Between PCBs and radio active material, Occam's Razor would point to PCBs as being the most likely culprit of birth defects or deformities.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. Hm....that's where John Cleese was born...

"And now for something completely different...a frog with three heads!"

[boobooday]

10. Oh my god

That's freakin creepy. Mosquitoes, beware!

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[seventhson]

11. It pisses me off

if nukes deformed this thing by mutating its embryo and it was found in a Children's day NURSERY?

Thanks.

Reminds me of the fact that a leaky plant used radioactive landfill to build a little league field near the Millstone Plkant in Connecticut.

We all need fucking dosimeters and training in how to use them.

I drove past a huge truck with shipping containers labelled "radiactive" (and funny the labels, like bumperstickers, were peeling off in the elements) on the highway and was thinking --- damn THAT is soime shit vulnerable to angry anti-Americans.

Anyway...

I ALWAYS urge people to go to radiation.org and learn what thwe scientists and activists are doing about this leaking of radiation into our children's and our bodies and genes.

A close frind had two children with severe life threatening birth defects - clean living people (no booze hardly ever or drugs)but the mom grew up less than a mile from the nuclear waste storage pools and effluent pipes and they bopught a home there too before the kids were born. Now they cannot afford services for their handicapped daughter who is quadriplegic and wheelchair bound since infancy and cannot speak.

[Ediacara]

12. or possibly, just possibly

it's a photo of three frogs sitting on top of eachother from a no-name internet "news" site trying to drum up hits. Conjoined triplet frogs would probably not survive as tadpoles, this photo is probably a fake.

[seventhson]

15. I don't know. This looks pretty legit. Here's more from the story:

Mike Dilger, a wildlife biologist from the BBC Natural History Unit in Bristol, said: "I have never seen anything like this before and as far as I am aware it is unprecedented.



"Frogs have a very primitive embryology - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is something different."



He added that the reason for the three-headed frog’s development could have been damage to the embryo, a spontaneous mutation such as that of conjoined human twins or factors in the environment, including pollution and changing climate.

[Ediacara]

17. funny

That's not actually on the site....

Anyway, the photos are completely unconvincing and I am not going to believe the story until there is something more clear and convincing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. Try searching Google News.

Story's been picked up by the Times and the Independent.

[Ediacara]

21. any convincing pictures?

or more pictures of three frogs sitting on top of eachother?

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

23. It's been on UK news all day (obviously with moving pics) nt

[seventhson]

31. Damn - didn't yoy even read the link.?There are Eight photos

shame on you.

[Ediacara]

32. 8 shitty blurry photos

that look like three frogs sitting on top of eachother. Shame on you for thiking they're useful!

Although since there is aparently film of it that was on British TV, I no longer doubt the authenticity.

[NickB79]

20. I've found deformed frogs on our farm

And the nearest nuclear reactor is a good 100-150 miles away. One frog, a large leopard frog, had an extra leg growing out of one kneecap, while a common toad I found actually had what appeared to be a third eye on its tongue! To be fair though, I'm located in MN where deformed frog cases have become something of an epidemic in some areas, making national news. To jump to the conclusion that this is because of radiation leakage is still a jump, though. The deformed frogs found in large numbers here in MN are suspected of being caused by exposure to herbicides and pesticides, or exposure to a parasite, not radiation. Recall also that freak shows of the 1800's and early 1900's relied on deformed animals and people as their bread and butter for decades (if not a full century) before the first functional reactor came online. You can hardly say that the thousands of multi-headed, multi-legged and conjoined pigs, sheep, cows, chickens and even human babies found in bottles of preservative across the country were caused by nuclear radiation when a large number of them were born before 1940.

Unless a study finds that a disproportionate number of frogs living around the reactor are deformed, a single deformed frog has no statistical significance.

[seventhson]

37. 100-150 miles is not too far to get exposure from a leaky nuke plant

Remember that Chernobyl blew its radiation globally and it hit the jet stream travelling globally across Russia, China and ultimately Canada and the United States. Radiation was measured in New England and New York about a week after the accident.

It is true that there are freaks of nature predating the advent of the nuclear age, But I defy you to read and study the facts of the Radiation and Public Health Project at radiation.org and still downplay the possible significance of radioactive pollution (globally and locally) on our health, There are STILL restrictions near Chernobyl due to radiation in the ground and trees absorbed via radioactive rain - where the radiation is released AGAIN into the atmosphere when the wood is burned or milled.

The studies in my opinion are quite definitive.

EVERY single baby tooth tested had man-made radiation (Strontium-90) in it - and the correlation with infant mortality, cancer, and birth defects is FRIGHTENING, the higher the levels - especially downwind of commercial plants on Florida, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut - the higher the incidence of infant deaths, miscarriages and cancer deaths.

It is also mutating viruses and bacteria. Diseases such as SARS, bird flue, mad cow, Lyme disease, and the Norwalk (Ohio) cruise-ship virus ALL started near leaky and dangerous nuke plants.

And that is not all.

Sakharov predicted such pandemics almost 50 years ago.

You can rest sleepily in your denial or you can educate yourself,

Unless one does a radiation analysis and genetic study it is difficult to prove exactly WHAT happened. In this case pollution is described by a scientist as the likely cause. I believe that.
And I believe the likely pollutant was radiation. The fact that this aberration and mutation occurred in close proximity to a commercial nuclear facility with a history of leaks into the environment and internal fraud problems related to safety provides a pretty scary and solid foundation for a concern that this is one possible or even a probable cause.



Here is the funny thing - whenever I hear of one of these types of events I know intuitively that there is probably a nuke plant nearby.

Nobody else is making this connection to Sars, Norwalk, Lyme, Bird Flu, mad cow, etc. and such freaks of nature as this.

I do a little googling and voila! I find that there is a leaky reactor near where the frog was found. Just as we find with the Norwalk virus (Ohio nuke plant), Sars (Guangdong Province leaky nuke plant) Lyme (Millstone Power Plant in Connecticut) Bird flu (also Guangdong province near Hong Kong). It is the mutagenic quality of radiation that causes viruses and cells (especially reproductive cells) to mutate.

Is this definitive 100% iron-clad proof? No - like with smoking thwe Nuclear industry defends by saying over and over again -- "neener, neener - you can't prove We did it." And unless you were studying the frogs when this occurred and checked for radiation during their stages og growth, all you have is the circumstantial data.

Of course it isn't 100% iron-clad proof that it is radiation causing this. There might be another explanation.

But if there were a tub of leaky pesticides in the swamp where this or these frogs was found - then we would be reasonable to SUSPECT that and stupid not to investigate it.

I have worked on this issue for years and the research is absolutely horrifying. The researchers have no profit motive or conflicts of interest and they rely on their research (published in peer-reviewed scientific journals) for their conclusions (unlike most nuclear apologists).

Poopoo this scary perspective at your own risk - or that of your children or potential children.

Radiation.org is really very solid on this subject. I prefer their analysis to the guesswork of amateurs or the biased viewpoint of the true believers in Nuclear and Radioactive Energy Production.

[NickB79]

40. How many times have you posted this recycled speech?

And how can you keep posting it after being debunked so many times?

The reason the Chernobyl radiation was spread so widely was because a nuclear plant virtually EXPLODED. Last I checked, no reactors have gone into meltdown yet in MN or the Midwest.

"Diseases such as SARS, bird flue, mad cow, Lyme disease, and the Norwalk (Ohio) cruise-ship virus ALL started near leaky and dangerous nuke plants."

From birdflu.org: "Avian influenza is an infectious disease of birds caused by type A strains of the influenza virus. The disease, which was first identified in Italy more than 100 years ago, occurs worldwide." That's a full 40+ years before any nuclear testing occurred. This also totally ignores the rapid natural mutation rate of influenza virus; it doesn't need radiation to mutate quickly.

Mad cow is very similar to scrapie, a prion-based disease that has been recognized in sheep for at least 300 years. More than likely, the recycling of sheep remains into cattle feed transferred scrapie to cattle, not radiation mutation. The first human prion disease, kuru, was diagnosed in natives of Papau New Guinea in the 1960's, and had been known to their culture for generations (ie, before 1940). Again, long before nuclear testing was in practice.

Lyme disease was recognized in the 1980's, but testing has found it in tick populations in virtually every state of the US. You would expect someone to believe that Lyme disease evolved as a response to radiation in the past 60 years, and was able to spread across the continent in that time? Do you realize how slowly invertebrates like ticks spread, even with the assistance of migrating birds? It would take centuries to see that kind of coast-to-coast distribution, especially crossing the Rocky Mountain range from the East coast.

If this is the type of information Radiation.org disseminates, they don't sound very solid IMO. Like I said, if there is a disproportionate number of frogs found deformed around the reactor, then there is credence to your hypothesis. One deformed frog is statistically insignificant though.

[seventhson]

48. Never debunked, never surrender. Recyvled? Like recycled Nuke waste?

I think that the evidence speaks for itself. Nuke waste in the environment will, in some cases, last longer than all recorded time/history.

All of these strains are new mutations of old strains. The spirochetes in the Lyme ticks, for example, have been around forever, but they just mutated to where they were making us sick AFTER the nuke plant opened in the town next to Lyme.

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about nuclear power knows that they produce radionucleide emissions from ALL the plants. In accidental releases the doage tro the local populations are HIGHER than usual. But the "usual" is still too much radiation in our environment.

Andrei Skharov predicted these pandemics almost 50 years ago in the journal for Soviet Atomic Scientists. Dr. Sternglass who is featured at Radiation.org (he is well credentialled if you read his information at the radiation.org site and worked for Westinghouse until he became a "whistleblower" and headed and founded the University of Pittsburgh's School of Medicine department of radiological physics) = he gave me Sakharov's report after I interviewed him several years back for a live radio interview.

It is WHY Sakharov, the father of the Soviet H-Bomb - was attacked by his own government for opposing atmospheric nuclear bomb tests (he does, however, I believe, support UNDERGROUND nuclear power plants to prevent the emissions problems - and I think even this is too risky).

A little research instead of a closed mind of the true nuclear believers will convince most folks that the risks way outweigh the theoretical benefits (which are a total fallacy).

All I said was these frogs were found not far from a leaky nuke plant.

This should merit concern and further inquiry by ALL of us and not blind faith in corporations like Halliburton which produce and promote Nuclear death and energy.

[TrogL]

50. Lemme get this straight

Nuclear waste retroactively caused diseases over a hundred years ago?

[Ediacara]

51. Do you know anything

about nuclear chemistry and/or evolution and development?

Taken any classes? Been tested on your retention of knowlege?

Know the difference between Uranium and Thorium?

Know why Radon is more dangerous than Technitium?

Know what the causes of mutations are?

Know what Hardy-Weinberg equlibrium is?

Know what conjoined twins are?

Are we to blame Eng and Chang, born in 1811, on nuclear power plants first made 80 years after their death in 1874!!??

Eng and Chang Bunker 1811-1874


Nuclear power plants 1954-present


Obviously, the nuclear booogy-man caused Eng and Chang's condition 143 years before nuclear power was even invented, so it must have cuased these conjoined triplet frogs....

[NickB79]

57. Damn, how did we ever evolve this far without reactors?

"All of these strains are new mutations of old strains. The spirochetes in the Lyme ticks, for example, have been around forever, but they just mutated to where they were making us sick AFTER the nuke plant opened in the town next to Lyme."

Yeah, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that organisms on this planet have been naturally mutating and evolving into new species for the past 3.5 BILLION years, would it?

Oh my God, a new species evolved! Despite the fact that literally BILLIONS of different species have evolved through mutations since the dawn of life on Earth before humans started playing with nukes, THESE mutations are obviously caused by man-made radiation! <sarcasm>

And you never answered my question as to how the spirochetes that cause Lyme disease became so widespread in only 40 years from the first nuclear testing to their discovery in the mid-80's. Like I said, invertebrates like ticks are not known for their rapid migratory rates.

"Anyone who knows ANYTHING about nuclear power knows that they produce radionucleide emissions from ALL the plants. In accidental releases the doage tro the local populations are HIGHER than usual. But the "usual" is still too much radiation in our environment."

And if you know anything about radioactivity in general, you'd know that coal-burning plants release more radiation EVERY YEAR than nuclear power has over the past few DECADES. This is because uranium and thorium are usually found mixed in with coal, and are released when the coal is burned. If you feel nuclear power plants are a danger, then coal-burning plants are several orders of magnitude worse. Where is the outcry against them?

[seventhson]

59. This is Not about the conflict

between fossile fuels and nukes.

But you MUST know that the naturally occurring radiation in coal is entirely different than the enriched uranium and other radionucleides produced by nuke processes.

The fact is that man-made nukes have often doubles or, as with 3 mile isalnd and other American nuke plants, multiplied the amount of radiation in the environment by many many factors.

If natural background is 100 mrems per year what do you think the eeffect of doubling it or quadrupling it or increasing it by a facto of 10 or a 100?

Natural evolution has depended on the STEADY and consistent exposure of natural background radiation. But mulitplying this with new man-made radiation is in fact causing new and faster mutations of cells, bacteria and viruses.

I urge you to google Sakharov and mutation and a view other terms such as bacteria and radiation. Or I will do it for you.

brb

[Ediacara]

61. oh MUST we?

what is the nature of coal-radiation that is essentially different from fision reactor radiation? And again, do you REALLY know what causes most mutation? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't start with an R.

[treepig]

67. it appears that when one gets their information from a site such as

radiation.org - which is a political advocacy site, not a scientific site - one can pick up all sorts of strange ideas.

anyhow, i spent alot of time before trying to patiently explain the step by step process by which mutations occur, but apparently to no avail.

here's a link describing the massive release of radioistopes from the combustion of coal:

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

[seventhson]

135. VERY interesting propaganda from Oak Ridge

I agree that the release of natural radiation via burning coal is a serious problem.

I am not a supporter of coal burning that releases such radiation into the environment.

But it is still NOT the same as man-made radionucleides leaking into our water, air and contaminating our dairy products and vegetables.

The folks at radiation.org ARE scientists.

Some. like Dr. Sternglass, worked for the industry. Some are dctors who have studied breats cancer and other clusters near nuke plants.

Maybe there is such a connection to the coal releases - so I am glad you pointed this out and educated me on it.

But this is basically government bullshit promoting a nuclear agenda and I do not buy it.

The baby teeth studies (and I have seen the actual specific data which is NOT all public) - demonstrate that the man made radiation in the environment from accidnts, leaks, and testing is being found in ALL BABY TEETH tested (see radiation.org if you care at all about your children). WE have nuke popison insde us from nukes and nuke testing. So doi our children. ALL of them in the US so far tested have absorbed man-made radionucleides which have been absorbed into the teeth and bones and reproductive organs and are causing cellular and genetic damage.

I know this is hard for people to deal with.

But it is required for the survival of humanity that VOTERS understand what is at stake.

The oak ridge labs report says the exposure is almost negligible (except from accidents --- Huh!). The studies I have seen say this is patent BS.

The results of the baby teeth analysis ARE being made public -

[Ediacara]

138. LOL

But it is still NOT the same as man-made radionucleides leaking into our water, air and contaminating our dairy products and vegetables.

HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT!!!??? Fuel in nuclear power plants breaks down into atoms of different elements. Nuclear fuels do this in nature too. That's how you can date rocks. To insist that having uranium billowing out of the stacks of a coal plant is less dangerous than living near a contained first world nuclear power plant is absurd. As has been demonstrated time and again, television gives you more radiation.

[treepig]

141. doesn't it kinda suck

how a fellow du'er holds information of nobel prize winning caliber (i.e., the information that establishes that "man-made" radiation differs from natural radiation) and coyly refuses to share it with everyone?

oh well, maybe he's working on a Nature manuscript right now.

[treepig]

140. the baby teeth show tiny amounts of radiation - so what?

i looked up the peer-reviewed papers by the radiation.org "scientists" and that's basically what they say - as compared to the hysterics on the actual radiation.org site.

you can keep saying a million times that there is a difference between natural and man-made radiation but that doesn't make it so. if there were i'd be very interested in learning what that difference was - so if you could provide actual information in this area i'd be most interested in in it.

until then, let's rehash one more time what the scientific community accepts:

Source Average annual effective dose equivalent (µSv) (mrem)
Inhaled (Radon and Decay Products) 2000 200
Other Internally Deposited Radionuclides 390 39
Terrestrial Radiation 280 28
Cosmic Radiation 270 27
Cosmogenic Radioactivity 10 1
Rounded total from natural source 3000 300
Rounded total from artificial Sources 600 60
Total 3600 360

Shown in the table above, 82% of the total average annual effective dose is from natural sources of radiation, and of that, most is from radon. Of the other 18%, the majority is from medical diagnosis and treatments, with <1% from nuclear power and fallout .

This can perhaps be more easily seen with a graph (6K):

[seventhson]

166. It causes cancer and other mutations of the genes and cells

If it is in the baby teeth (formed in utero) then it is in the mother's body and in the child's as well - spreading throughout the soft and other tissues.

It is carcinogenic and mutgenic.

So What?

That may sound like nothing to you.

But I would wager most people will be pretty pissed off to discover that we all have it in our systems causing damage as the radiation decays in our bodies and continues to cause damage throughout our lives - and will cause death in many embryos, infants, mothers and grandmothers, as well as the rest of us.

[Ediacara]

168. the strontium is all from bombs

And is in every tooth (adult and baby smarty-pants) and bone produced since the 1950s. Do you know how teeth and bones are formed? Didn't think so....

[treepig]

175. that's a lie

you cannot say that the radioisotopes in children's teeth (or elsewhere in their body) cause cancer.

for several reasons:

1) the linear no-threshold (LNT) model upon which this hypothesis is based has been largely, if not entirely, discredited in the past few years.

2) long-term epidemiological studies of hiroshima and nagasaki survivors show that massive radiation exposure was needed to increase long-term cancer rates (and almost everyone who received "massive" levels of exposure died of short-term radiation sickness - as an different poster has pointed out, it is actually very difficult to get cancer from ionizing radiation - there is a very exposure narrow window between where the body can repair all the damage (so there are no - or actually beneficial - health effects) and where the body is overwhelmed (and you die immediately) - it is only in this window that cancer increases.

3) the last time we went through this, i had a careful look at all the data these authors present, and the occurrence of childhood cancer and increased infant mortality appeared to be correlated with a factor they "overlooked" - i.e., poverty. for example, both rates were much higher for D.C. than neighboring, and quite wealthy, counties in MD and VA - it is difficult for me to believe that wind patterns from test sites in nevada could preferentially deposit high levels of radioisotopes in D.C. but mysteriously spare montgomery county, MD.

4) if you do a PUBMED search of the radiation.org "scientists" - you'll find that they're the only ones publishing in this area. a basic tenet of science, before any finding becomes generally accepted, is independent verification (and "independent verification" doesn't mean setting up multiple web sites all parroting the same bogus information).

5) besides, all scientific results must be evaluated based on the results themselves, not the identity/reputation/etc of the people doing the study. a good example is the wacko ideas about vitamin C championed by two-time nobel prize winner linus pauling. clearly, this guy was a genius, and also dead wrong about the massive doses of vitamin C he advocated (and by dead wrong i mean that literally, the doses he proposed were deadly).

[seventhson]

228. Read the studies by the Radiation and Public Health Project

at radiation.org.

YOU can discredit these people all you want.

I trust them and their results.

I think you are an apologist for the nuclear powers that want this - like Cheney and Bush et alk.

And I do not trust them whatsoever

[Ediacara]

230. have you read them?

I mean the peer reviewed articles they published, not the biased synopses on radiation.org. Why should he read them if you haven't yet?

[treepig]

232. the people aren't the issue

i assume the people you refer to are those at:

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


these people do have a smattering of peer-reviewed papers, such as this one (which is their most recent):

Sci Total Environ. 2003 Dec 30;317(1-3):37-51.

An unexpected rise in strontium-90 in US deciduous teeth in the 1990s.

Mangano JJ, Gould JM, Sternglass EJ, Sherman JD, McDonnell W.

Radiation and Public Health Project, 786 Carroll Street, #9, Brooklyn, NY 11215, USA. [e-mail]

For several decades, the United States has been without an ongoing program measuring levels of fission products in the body. Strontium-90 (Sr-90) concentrations in 2089 deciduous (baby) teeth, mostly from persons living near nuclear power reactors, reveal that average levels rose 48.5% for persons born in the late 1990s compared to those born in the late 1980s. This trend represents the first sustained increase since the early 1960s, before atmospheric weapons tests were banned. The trend was consistent for each of the five states for which at least 130 teeth are available. The highest averages were found in southeastern Pennsylvania, and the lowest in California (San Francisco and Sacramento), neither of which is near an operating nuclear reactor. In each state studied, the average Sr-90 concentration is highest in counties situated closest to nuclear reactors. It is likely that, 40 years after large-scale atmospheric atomic bomb tests ended, much of the current in-body radioactivity represents nuclear reactor emissions.

aside from the issue of independent verification - which is hardly possible when every member of the foundation, except for "Dr. Brown who is co-author of Profiles in Power: The Antinuclear Movement and the Dawn of the Solar Age and a Fellow of the World Business Academy" - is a co-author on the same paper, the authors themselves liste several limitation of their work.

instead of screaming "cancer, death, the end of civilization" here is what they say in the paper:

This report represents the first large-scale study of US in vivo levels of radioactivity in several decades. Although the initial findings presented here are important ones, they raise various questions that should be addressed in future research.

Other unexplored factors may help explain the temporal trends affected here. For example, the current study collected auxiliary data on mother's age at delivery and source of drinking water. Analyzing results by basic characteristics such as gender and race can be performed in future studies. Some factors that affect in vivo levels are already known. For example, children who are breast-fed accumulate lower Sr-90 concentrations than do bottle-fed infants (). Other dietary differences and their effects on Sr-90 levels can be further explored in future research.

Despite the consistency of results across geographic areas, substantial numbers of teeth were tested from only 5 of 50 US states. More teeth from other states would enhance knowledge about recent patterns of in vivo radioactivity. For example, 19 of the 50 US states (many in the western US) have no operating nuclear reactors, and may display patterns of Sr-90 different than the five already analyzed. The comparison could be extended to nations with no operating nuclear reactors (such as the Philippino teeth mentioned in this report). Testing the hypothesis that these states have lower levels of Sr-90 would be appropriate and necessary in future reporting of results.

The study did not collect sufficient teeth to compare local Sr-90 levels before and after a nuclear reactor opens. The hypothesis that opening a reactor will raise average in vivo concentrations and closing a reactor will reduce them should be tested.


The data presented herein describe past and current patterns of radioactivity in children's teeth. The three in vivo programs of measuring Sr-90 in US teeth and bones were never accompanied by any reports assessing potential health risks from this radioactivity. . . . Thus, comparing radioactivity and health patterns should be central to any follow-up of this analysis.

NOTE THAT THE AUTHORS THEMSELVES EXPLICITLY SAY THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO CORRELATION MADE BETWEEN RADIOACTIVITY IN CHILDREN'S TEETH AND HEALTH RISKS!!!!!!

yeah, maybe if you went and read the studies you'd quit making such an ass of yourself

[MikeG]

14. You really shouldn't talk about the French like that.

[scottxyz]

19. Frogs are very vulnerable

I remember reading something about how frogs and other amphibians are very vulnerable and susceptible to enviromental degradation.

Something about their skin which is so porous I think.

When I'm in a town where you can hear lots of frogs, I figure I'm very safe. They're like the canary in the coal mine.

[demgrrrll]

33. Frogs with Ray Milland, Sam Elliot, Joan Van Ark. In the Florida

bayou murderous frogs are closing in............

[everythingsxen]

35. Whoa

Spoooky!

[seventhson]

38. And worse yet it was found at a nursery school

meaning that if it were environmentally caused - these children may be endangered.

Frogs are the canaries in our environmental coalmines above ground.

[FormerOstrich]

56. Thank you

That was my thought about this. What are the kids doing by this site???? Does not make any sense!

[Hekate]

63. When they call a kid "Four-Eyes" it'll be literal

My brother (a geologist) was called in to do a haz-mat/toxic waste assessment in So Cal at a location that included (ahem) a day-care center. He says the owners of the land wanted the whole thing kept reeeeall quiet, but when his crew showed up at the crack of dawn residents came out on their front porches in their jammies to see what was going on. It didn't help that one of his crew took a whiff of what they were digging up and testing and said, "Ewwwwww!" rather loudly (can't remember what it was), which left a rather negative impression with the residents.

Today's newspaper carried an article about a toxic plume moving through the groundwater toward the Los Angeles water supply. First the frogs, then the people.

Hekate

[seventhson]

70. Remember the girl with a head growing out of her head a month or so ago?

I would not dismiss my hypothesis too easily.

[Ediacara]

72. CONJOINED TWINS!!!!

Do you even know what that means? Good Christ! They're not caused by radiation!

[Sinistrous]

39. The true story of Chernobyl has not yet been told.

But here is an interesting vignette:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1193292

Chernobyl has defied the gloomiest of prophesies by becoming one of Europe's richest wildlife habitats, teeming with endangered species. The evacuation of tens of the 30km exclusion zone has resulted in a flourishing community of plants and animals whose diversity has stunned biologists.

http://mailman.mcmaster.ca/mailman/private/cdn-nucl-l/0006.gz/msg00015...


The site of the world's worst nuclear accident has become one of Europe's prime wildlife habitats, according to a report in the London Independent. In 1986, the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl in the Ukraine exploded and burned, releasing clouds of radioactive gases and particles that spread across Europe, contaminating soil, water, and farms as far away as Norway. Contaminated livestock and crops had to be destroyed, and 135,000 people were evacuated from the most intensely contaminated areas near the plant. Now, just 14 years later, wildlife ecologists have found some of Europe's most endangered species living in the Chernobyl area, including cranes, eagles, wild boar, roe deer, wolves, badgers, otters, and lynx. The scientists have found little evidence of disease or reproductive failure in the animals observed.

[seventhson]

41. That is because there are no people there to destroy it.

Those animals who survived have adapted and prospered.

I went through this before - this is pretty much bullshit propaganda for the nuke industry.

Just like humans, those who survive adapt and are stronger. The fact that the animals may have defects and mutations and be carrying mutated diseases is left out of this story.

[NickB79]

43. But according to your hypothesis

The animals living there should be wildly deformed from the high radiation levels. If the radiation is continually mutating each generation of animals born there, they couldn't easily adapt because the mutating effects aren't diminishing significantly in only a few years.

Do you have proof the animals are mutated or carrying mutated diseases? I'd think that would be widely reported in scientific journals, seeing as how Chernobyl has been extensively studied by thousands upon thousands of scientists since the meltdown. So far I haven't read much about it in Science, Nature, or any other widely respected scientific journals. They are not known for any nuke propoganda or conspiracy theories you seem fond of.

[NickB79]

42. No way!

Are you sure that wasn't a typo? I'm sure they really meant to say "green-glowing lifeless wasteland" when they wrote "one of Europe's prime wildlife habitats", right? <sarcasm>

[treepig]

44. Hmmm, doesn't including an editorial comment, and a misleading one

to boot, in the Title of Thread, break LBN rules?

Oh, well - as long as it contributes to raising anti-nuclear hysteria I suppose it is OK since that seems to be a common theme here at DU.

[seventhson]

46. What is known and what is NOT known re: Chernobyl and wildlife

A very useful analysis is found at this scientific journal:

http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/wildlifepreserve.htm

The absence of humans and human activity has increased the proliferation of wildlife. But the genetic damage and impact on that surviving population has been documented to some extent and further study is required.


This excerpt sums up some of the issues:

"
There is a critical need for quality scientific information concerning the environmental and health risk decisions associated with nuclear accidents. We concur with Volodymer Kholosha, Deputy Minister of Emergencies and Protection of the Population from the Consequences of the Chornobyl Nuclear Accident, on the relationship between science and the political processes regulating management decisions in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone in his statement, "Science is the eyes of the people."

Clearly, our data document a vibrant ecosystem in the most radioactive areas at Chornobyl that in many ways is what we expect from a park dedicated to conservation. Less well documented are possible costs to the species living in this highly radioactive environment. Some of the small mammals living in this environment are experiencing doses from internally deposited 137cesium and 90strontium in excess of 10 rads/d and an external dose at least half that high <11>. Several publications imply significantly elevated detrimental effects from living in the environment. Some of these are anecdotal; however, some are based on modern molecular biology and accepted experimental design <12-14>. The most important question may be 'Is there a build up of genetic (mutational) load that is masked by outbreeding that is generally characteristic of mammalian species?" For humans, any increase in genetic load would be unacceptable. Detailed long-term studies on genetic load, population genetics, demography, mutation rate, life expectancy, fertility, fitness, radioresistence, etc., are needed to understand how the populations exposed to chronic radiation differ from unexposed populations. From a human and wildlife risk perspective, understanding the genetic and population dynamics of wildlife at Chernobyl is not trivial. Chornobyl is no nuclear desert, but the issues raised above concerning latent and long-term effects must be resolved before the total significance of this disaster to native wildlife and to humans can be understood."



It is hardly clear that the wildlife population is HEALTHY - what IS clear is that removal of humans from the environment has enables the surviving animals to procreate and their populations to grow.

But the ultimate IMPACT of genetic damage is far from clear. There IS damage. But further study is needed "critically".

[Beetwasher]

55. "Smithers, Am I Responsible For That Frog?"

"No doubt about it sir"

"Excellent!"

[seventhson]

58. LOL!!!

Thanks. I KNEW it was Cheney's doing (after all - he was head of the nuke company Halliburton, Brown and Root, and he looks like the mutated spawn of Mr. Burns)

[seventhson]

60. More evidence from a nuclear genius

Sakharov:

http://www2.math.uic.edu/~takata/test_ban/427_megatons_atmospheric.htm


excerpt:

Working on the article, ''Radioactive Carbon from Nuclear Explosions and Nonthreshold Biological Effects"" (written in 1957 and published the following year in the Soviet journal Atomic Energy), did much to develop my ideas on the moral issues involved in nuclear testing; I will try, therefore, to recall just how I came to write it...In my article, I dealt with the fact mentioned earlier in this chapter, that ``the number of victimes of additioanl radiation is determined by nonthreshold biological effects.'' Such effects, including carcinogenesis and genetic change, which in theory might occur at even the very lowest radiation levels, could lead to many deaths and cases of disease as huge poipulations--ver the course of many generations--are exposed to them. ``The simplest nonthreshold effect,'' I wrote,``is the influence on heredity...A single ionizationa event is sufficient to cause irreversible change--a mutation--in a gene...The probability of damage is in direct proportion to the radiation dose.'' I estimated that the probability of hereditary disease increases with radiation at the rate of 1/10000 per roentgen. I posited that cancer and damage to the body's immune system (resulting in premature death) may also be due to nonthreshold effects. An estimate for the combined impact of damage to the immune system and the cancer-promoting effect of radiation was calculated based on data reflecting an average life span reduction of five years for X-ray rechnicians and radiologists whose total lifetime exposure to radiation probably does not exceed 1,000 roentgens. I also suggested that a global increase in mutations of bacteria and viruses (irrespective of the cause of the mutations) might have an important factor in the spread of such diseases as diptheria in the ninteenth century, or the influenze epidemic, and that low-level radiation might further increase the rate of mutations

[treepig]

68. the idea that there is a linear relationship between mutations and dose

has been thoroughly debunked in recent years - for example, comprehensive studies of hiroshima and nagasaki survivors show that there is an increased incidence of cancer above a dose above 1 gray, but below this level there was no increase (indeed, certain forms of cancer were reduced - but no one attributes strong statistical significance to these reduction - essentially there were no long term health effects one way or another) - see Nature, Vol 329, p589 (1987).

it should be noted that very few (probably less than 5,000) persons from Chernobyl were dosed with radiation above 0.4 gray (this number doesn't include the ~1,800 children who have been established to have gotten thyroid cancer from radioactive iodine release), well below the threshold for long-term health effects. all told, if ALL of these people die from cancer, that's still a drop in the bucket compared to the 20-30,000 people who die from coal-produced pollution each year in the usa.

information about chernobyl-radiation exposure is provided in the following UNITED NATIONS study (caution - it's a pdf):

http://www.unscear.org/pdffiles/annexj.pdf

[seventhson]

69. There IS no safe threshold for radiation exposure

I think the UN is compromised in this instance.

Study was probably funded by Halliburton

[Ediacara]

73. No safe threshold you say?

Where's your research!?

[treepig]

74. if what you say is true, then we'd all be dead

for two reasons

1) normal cellular metabolism produces millions of reactive oxygen species each day in every cell of your body. these reactive oxygen species (ROS), which can damage DNA (or other cellular components) are exactly the same as those caused by radiation - depending on the source and intensity of radiation it is possible to calculate exactly how much ROS is produced by radiation - typically it is orders of magnitude lower than that produced due to normal metabolism. the reason cells don't die is that they "know" they will be insulted by this damage, and have suites of protective (such as superoxide dismutase) and DNA repair enzymes to take care of this damage. as long as the repair capability of these enzymes is not exceeded, no acute or long-term effects are seen.

2) the considerations listed above are well-borne out from experience. for example, you can calculate how much radiation you receive at the following site:

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html

the average person receives about 360 mrem/year exposure - if you fly then you add a mrem per mile - i.e, a coast to coast round-trip increases radiation exposure 10-fold, yet people survive many such trips each year.

interestingly, you receive an additional exposure of 0.009 mrem if you live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant (compared to 0.03 mrem within 50 miles of a coal-powered plant). basically, you'd have to live within 50 miles of 555,555 nuclear power plants to receive the radiation of one coast to coast airliner flight.

more information on natural sources of radiation, and how these levels compare with "man-made" radiation, is here: http://sandy-travels.com/hp.shtml and http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

your hysterical posts are basically just very silly.

edited to include more accurate information:

CANCER, CARCINOGENS, AND RADIATION

Regulatory agencies in the U.S. have adopted the position that it is theoretically possible that a single molecule of a carcinogen or radioactive particle can irreversibly damage DNA in an organism. This damage, says the theory, can be sufficient to initiate the sequence of events that leads to cancer and tumors. If this theory is accepted, then there cannot be a safe dose of a carcinogen or radioactive particle as any dose can result in cancer. There is an opposing theory that says that humans and animals can repair DNA damaged by carcinogens and radiation as well as it can repair DNA damaged by "natural" and endogenous toxicants, reactive chemicals, and radiation. This alternative theory states that carcinogens and radiation produce cancer only when they are given at a dose that overwhelms the cell's DNA repair mechanisms. This theory advocates that there is in fact a safe dose for both carcinogenic substances and radioactive particles.

We all live in a sea of natural radioactivity —cosmic radiation pouring in from outer space and naturally radioactive materials in our soil, building materials, food and water. The body cannot distinguish "manmade" radiation from "natural" radiation; in both cases the nuclear particles arise from the same processes and have the same characteristics. And our bodies are impacted by some 15,000 nuclear rays or particles every second — over a billion such events every day of our lives from these natural sources.But our bodies face even greater challenges: For example, a million DNA nucleotides in each cell are damaged each day by free radicals created in the normal process of metabolism resulting from routine eating and breathing. Radiation causes more double breaks per event in the DNA than metabolism does, and these are harder to repair than single breaks; but even after making generous allowance for this difference, the mutations (unrepaired or misrepaired damage) from metabolism outnumber those caused by natural radiation by ten-million-fold.

The work in progress by Myron Pollycove and Ludwig Feinendegen et al., summarizes these numbers for each of the body’s 100 million million cells. Some ten billion free radicals are created each day in each cell, and about 1% if these are within striking distance of the DNA. About 99% of these are gobbled up before they can cause any harm, and the remaining free radicals damage the DNA. The corresponding number of DNA alterations caused by background gamma radiation is only 0.005 per day, or one DNA alteration every 200 days. About 99.99% of these alterations are repaired in the metabolic case, and about 1 in 500 in the radiation case (because of the greater difficulty in repairing the double breaks). Finally, about 99% of the damaged cells are removed, leaving 1% of the damaged cells to persist as mutations.These facts raise two questions: first, how can any living organism withstand such an onslaught? How do any of us survive? The answer is that the body has a large variety of anti-oxidants that prevent damage, enzymes that continually scan the DNA to repair damaged nucleotides, and processes that remove those it cannot repair. The second question is: How does chronic exposure to high-level radiation harm an organism? Clearly, adding a few more mutations to the millions already occurring from metabolism is not significant. But high radiation levels can overwhelm the organism’s normal biological functions and repair processes, and leave the organism damaged and vulnerable to the mechanisms that initiate and progress to cancer and other adverse consequences.This raises another question: What is the effect of low-level radiation that is not strong enough to degrade the body’s tissue repair capacity? The answer is suggested by how the body reacts to low levels of other potential toxins: when we inject small quantities of disease bacteria or toxic metals into the body, the result is to stimulate the immune system, so that subsequent attacks by this toxin, in larger amounts, are effectively countered. Some research indicates that radiation may work just the same way. Numerous studies have shown that cellular and DNA repair mechanisms are stimulated by low- to moderate-levels of radiation. There are also reports that organisms kept in a below-normal radiation background are affected adversely, and recover when returned to normal. To summarize: our body temperature and normal eating and breathing cause millions of times more mutations in our bodies than the natural level of ionizing radiation. And the low-level radiation being regulated under current policy is as low as 1% of the natural radiation background we all live in. Scientific theory and data, as well as our actual experience, show that low-level radiation does not harm us.

http://www.lfr.com/news/EBulletins/e-bulletin016.htm

[seventhson]

77. No, Just some of us. According to this study : millions of deaths

have been caused by the nuclear industry globally (military and civilian)

You can quote the industry and goovernment all day long - but those who have no vested interest in nukes see it quite diofferently.

Do you really trust Dick Cheney? You KNOW that Halliburton is a nuke company right?

Defend this all you want, Treepig.

I cannot.

I find it indefensible. And as long as people promote this poison that mutates our children and our environment, I will speak out against it.

Radiation.org

for people who want the truth.

The nuclear corporations are lying to us. They KNOW it is killing us.

And here is one study which backs me up:

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2002/DU-Weapons-Pollution31jan03.htm

Excerpt:

The study by ECRR, which was formed in Brussels in 1998, is based on a risk assessment model developed over the last five years, and uses evidence from recent discoveries in radiation biology and from human epidemiology. It found that radioactive releases up to 1989 have caused, or will eventually cause, the death of 65 million people worldwide.

It concludes that the cancer epidemic is a result of pollution from nuclear energy and of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout, which peaked in the period 1959-63. The research cites evidence such as the levels of breast cancer in women who were adolescent between 1957 and 1963, when nuclear weapons testing was at its peak.

Dr Lucas said: "The fact that existing analysis could not account for the abnormally high local levels of illnesses like childhood leukaemia was more a reflection on the research methodology than the acclaimed safety of the nuclear project."

[treepig]

82. the "millions of deaths" study is laughably inane

it is based on the premise that mortality rates after 1950 should have continued to decline at the same rate as before 1950:



The first chart (shown here) indicates that the annual rate of improvement in total mortality rates prior to 1950 averaged about 2 percent each year but was cut in half after heavy nuclear fallout from bomb tests and nuclear reactors began in 1950.


If the average annual rate of improvement had remained at 2 percent throughout the 20th century, the US total mortality rate in 1999 would be about 6 deaths per 1000. Instead, the observed rate is 9 deaths per 1000. There would have been nearly 20 million fewer premature deaths after 1950.


from http://www.radiation.org/premature.html

mortality rapidly declined before 1950 because of rapid advances in sanitation, nutrition, and vaccinations. these factors made a big difference in mortality. at some point it just becomes common sense that any further drop in mortality rates would become much more difficult because all the "easy" steps have been taken.

in any event, watching television provides the same dose of radiation as experienced from nuclear fallout (about 0.3% of background levels each - which is about 100 times the level from commercial power) - therefore the argument can be made with equal conviction that television has killed millions of people. also, one cross country airline flight exposes one to 555,555 times more radiation than living next to a commercial nuclear power plant. if anything, if the so-called increase in deaths after 1950 really is radiation-related, a simple look at the exposure numbers would implicate increased airline travel over the past half century as the only source of increased radiation sufficiently high to have any health effects. your apparent inability to grasp the relative levels of risk posed by different sources of radiation, while comical, is nevertheless troublesome because it is the flipside of the fear-mongering techniques employed by the rascals currently in power in this country

[seventhson]

90. This study has NOTHING to do with the study I cited

WHY are you citing an entirely different analysis than the one I used?

Are you expecting people to believe that their tv's give off depleted uranium? Strontium 90? Radioactive Cesium? Radioiodine?

The damage caused by these radionucleides is INTERNAL caused by breathing, eating, or drinking in the irradiated fallout and emissions which are carcinogenic and mutagenic. It does NOT come from watching television (although I suspect that these rays have some degree of harm as well - it is nothing like drinking milk from cows who have eaten radiaoctive grass).

I think this kind of bad information is WHY people need to read and study these things for themselves.

You mount a good PR offensive for nukes, Treepig, but it is pretzel logic.

Halliburton builds nuclear power plants that are poisoning our children and our whole generation.

Does anyone here trust a WORD that Halliburton says?

If they were killing us do you think they would TELL us? Do you think they would spend millions or even billions to twist the data and keep us misinformed so they could continue to make, ultimately what will be tillions in profits?


I personally believe they are using this industry to keep the population sick, tired. demoralized and more manageable.

Just like their forerunners the Nazis did in Poland.

[treepig]

109. the study i cited comes from your favorite site, radiation.org

the other one you now mention is equally silly - basically its premise is that the increase in the incidence of cancers in the past 50 years is entirely due to radioisotopes released by the nuclear power industry and weapons testing. the real reasons for the increase in cancer remain elusive but likely involve many factors including diet, the ageing of the population, and environmental exposure to chemicals (to list but a few factors of way more impact than radiation of any type).

regarding internal radiation, for persons who don't fly the largest source of exposure usually is radon - at 200 mrem/year - radon exposure is internal considering that it is a gas and easily breathed into one's body. by comparison, the "man-made" internalized isotopes from weapons testing and comercial power are 1 and 0.009 mrem/year

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html

the hysteria about the man-made sources of radiation is just not supported by even a cursory look at the numbers. another argument, that has some validity, is that man-made isotopes, such as I-129 or I-131, have different chemical properties than natural isotopes allowing them to be localized in certain compartments of the body. however, radioactive iodine is deliberately given to people - at huge doses (1,000,000 nrad/exp, see http://sandy-travels.com/hp.shtml ). this level so much incredibly higher than any amount available from environmental sources that anyone with basic literacy in mathematics and risk analysis can easily draw their own conclusions on the danger of nuclear power plants.

[treepig]

110. oh yeah, about halliburton

perhaps they are poisoning an entire generation - but that would be due to their activities in the realm of fossil fuels, which kill some 40,000 people each year in the usa - with 2/3 of those due to coal.

in any event - i suppose it's trendy to invoke halliburton as the source of any or all evils, but when it comes right down to they're just a bunch of petty thugs - they don't control nature!

[seventhson]

136. They also build nukes and Cheney says he wants MORE NUKES!!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0502-01.htm

I suppose you would agree

[NickB79]

85. Hope you don't need an X-ray anytime soon

After all, since you say there is no safe radiation threshhold, by your logic even a few X-rays must be dangerous.

[mobuto]

86. They are

A few x-rays are indeed dangerous. But you have to weigh risks. And in many cases x-rays are worth the risk. In many cases they're not. In the 1950s, shoestores used to have x-rays in them so you could see if your shoes were fitting properly. That was most definitely NOT worth the risk.

Seventhson is, for once, partly correct. There is no safe threshold for radiation. But there is such a thing as minimal risk. And the radiation released from properly maintained nuclear power plants is indeed virtually non-existant.

[treepig]

87. can you provide a scientific basis for your outlandish claim

that there is no safe threshold for radiation?

this issue was covered in post #74 above, if you have any scientifically valid information to the contrary, i'd be most interested in hearing it.

otherwise, get yourself out of the '50's and learn some recent biology.

[mobuto]

88. No, the point wasn't addressed

I'm well aware that we receive plenty of radiation in our daily lives. My point is that nobody has established a minimum threshhold. The risks of radiation increase proportionately with strength - obviously our daily dose of radiation doesn't present a grave risk or else we'd all be dead. But that doesn't mean there's a point at which radiation becomes safe, just that the risks fall to negligeable levels.

[treepig]

89. where do come up with this stuff?

you pose an expert - which you might be, but the nature of an anonomous online forum makes that difficult to assess your qualifications (which don't seem to be that impressive based on what you're saying). similarly, there's no reason why anyone should believe a word i say, hence i at least provide some back-up for what i present:

for example, here are some peer-reviewed studies (which, incidently don't just show that there is a threshold below which radiation is harmless, but actually beneficial - as evidenced by hormetic effects):

________________________________________________________________

Biogerontology. 2003;4(4):227-31.

Energy, stress and the invalid linear no-threshold premise: a generalization illustrated by ionizing radiation.

Parsons PA.

La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic.3083, Australia.

The linear no-threshold (LNT) premise for environmental agents is assessed in the context of the habitats of organisms where exposure to a multiplicity of environmental agents occurs. Adaptation towards high energy efficiency or fitness to counter the metabolic consequences of the stresses from environmental agents is expected over time. This evolutionary process leads to non-linear continua for energy efficiency across environments whereby maximum efficiency should occur at around background exposures; this therefore is a description of hormesis in energy terms. Consequently the LNT premise is invalid for all environmental agents including ionizing radiation. However, published longevity and survival data, being measures of fitness or energy efficiency, indicate that non-linearity and hence radiation hormesis extends to exposures substantially in excess of background radiation. An interpretation is suggested based upon the metabolic and energy reserves required for the simultaneous adaptation to the metabolic consequences of the various environmental agents to which organisms are exposed in their habitats, especially from stresses of climatic origin.

__________________________________________________________________

Crit Rev Toxicol. 2003;33(3-4):431-41.

On radiation hormesis expressed in the immune system.

Liu SZ.

Department of Radiation Biology, Jilin University Norman Bethune Medical Center, 8 Xinmin Street, Changchun 130021, China.

Radiation hormesis is reviewed with emphasis on its expression in the immune system. The shape of the dose-response relationship of the immune functions depends on a number of factors, chiefly the target cell under study, experimental design with emphasis on the dose range, dose spacing, dose rate and temporal changes, as well as the animal strain. For mouse and human T lymphocyte functions in the dose range of 0.01 to 10 Gy a J or inverted J-shaped curve is usually observed. For the more radioresistant macrophages, stimulation of many of their functions is often observed in the dose range up to a few grays. The cellular and molecular mechanisms of the enhancement of immunity induced by low-dose radiation were analyzed on the basis of literature published in the last decade of the past century. Intercellular reactions among the APCs and lymphocytes via distinct changes in expression of relevant surface molecules and secretion of regulatory cytokines in response to different doses of radiation were described. The major signal transduction pathways activated in response to these intercellular reactions were illustrated. The suppressive effect of low-dose radiation on cancer induction, growth, and metastasis and its immunologic mechanisms were analyzed. The present status of research in this field gives strong support to radiation hormesis in immunity with low-dose radiation as one of the mechanisms of cancer surveillance. Further research with new techniques using microarray with biochips to fully elucidate the molecular mechanisms is suggested.

__________________________________________________________________

Nucl Med Technol. 2003 Mar;31(1):11-7.

Radiation hormesis, or, could all that radiation be good for us?

Prekeges JL.

Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington 98111-0900, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Nuclear medicine technologists work under significant radiation protection constraints. These constraints are based on the linear no-threshold (LNT) radiation paradigm, which was developed in the 1960s and was based largely on the deleterious effects of radiation as they were understood at the time. More recently, the theory of radiation hormesis, or a beneficial effect of low-level exposure to radiation, has gained recognition.

____________________________________________________________________


Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003 Jun;30(6):921-33.

Hormesis, an update of the present position.

Johansson L.

Radiation Physics, Radiation Sciences, Umea University Hospital,

The ongoing debate over the possible beneficial effects of ionising radiation on health, hormesis, is reviewed from different perspectives. Radiation hormesis has not been strictly defined in the scientific literature. It can be understood as a decrease in the risk of cancer due to low-dose irradiation, but other positive health effects may also be encompassed by the concept. The overwhelming majority of the currently available epidemiological data on populations exposed to ionising radiation support the assumption that there is a linear non-threshold dose-response relationship. However, epidemiological data fail to demonstrate detrimental effects of ionising radiation at absorbed doses smaller than 100-200 mSv. editorial comment - and you say that nobody has established a minimum threshold - you're welcome to keep living the the 50's, but making factually incorrect statements is a bit beyond what's acceptable . Risk estimates for these levels are therefore based on extrapolations from higher doses. Arguments for hormesis are derived only from a number of epidemiological studies, but also from studies in radiation biology. Radiobiological evidence for hormesis is based on radio-adaptive response; this has been convincingly demonstrated in vitro, but some questions remain as to how it affects humans. Furthermore, there is an ecologically based argument for hormesis in that, given the evolutionary prerequisite of best fitness, it follows that humans are best adapted to background levels of ionising radiation and other carcinogenic agents in our environment. A few animal studies have also addressed the hormesis theory, some of which have supported it while others have not. To complete the picture, the results of new radiobiological research indicate the need for a paradigm shift concerning the mechanisms of cancer induction. Such research is a step towards a better understanding of how ionising radiation affects the living cell and the organism, and thus towards a more reliable judgement on how to interpret the present radiobiological evidence for hormesis.

[seventhson]

94. These studies were probably funded by the nuke industry

but nevertheless - I stand by my statement which is not contradicted necessarily by these studies.

This does get technical (and I am NOT a technician) - but it seems that very minor doses of radiation may have beneficial effects on some biosystems. The basis for this is that we EVOLVED to adapt to rdiation and that in extremely low doses we are already adapted in such a way that there COULD be a theoretical benefit (by , for example, the radiation which does not CAUSE cancer MIGHT kill some cancer cells and PREVENT cancer. I buy that.

But it does not contradict what I said. The fact that there may be some beneficial effects does NOT mean that there are not also deletrious effects. OBVIOUSLY we have evolved to adapt to natural radiation in the environment.

Like with viruses and bacterial mutations, radiation MIGHT cause a mutation which enhances the species (like having three heads and six legs, for example). Those who survive by adapting to the change may be happy and painfree. But I would prefer NOT to have a baby with four eyes (even if she DOES have eyes in the "back" of her head - a useful tool for detecting predators).

Anyway -

There is more to it than these studies suggest.

I have seen studies (radiation.org has some, I believe) which indicate the low doses can be MORE harmful than larger doses because of the way free radicals are produced. Kind of like second hand smoke - smaller particle doses may pierce the cells more readily than larger doses).

In any event here is a more or less official government perspective on the issue (which I believe is WAY to favorable to the nuke industry, but it supports my position):

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1152.html

Home • Latest News • Ask the Experts • Experts' Answers • Radiation Facts • HPS Papers • Meetings • Membership • Affiliates

Answer to Question #1152 Submitted to "Ask the Experts"
Category: Regulations, Guidelines & Standards — Dosimetry & Exposure Limits

The following question was answered by an expert in the appropriate field:

Q: What are considered "safe" exposure levels to gamma radiation, including guidelines recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, etc.?

A: The term "safe" is a value judgement and is difficult to define. Some people consider safe to mean no risk, while others consider safe to carry risks that they consider negligible, but that others would consider unacceptable. In connection with radiation exposure, there is no safe radiation dose if by safe is meant no risk. This is a consequence of the linear, no-threshold (LN-T) model of radiation carcinogenesis that is currently the basis of radiological protection practices in all countries. As you may be aware, the LN-T model assumes that the risk of radiogenic cancer increases in direct proportion to the dose, with no threshold below which there is no effect. Thus, even very low levels of radiation are assumed to carry some low risk of cancer. Because of this, regulatory agencies and standard-setting organizations do not speak of safe levels of radiation, but rather of acceptable levels. The dose limits are set at levels that are considered to be roughly at the dividing line between what would be considered an acceptable level of risk and an unacceptable level, assuming continuous exposure at these dose levels. However, because there are no "safe" levels of radiation, meaning there are no levels that carry no risk, licensees are expected, in addition to operating at all times below the dose limits, to also maintain exposures as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The application of ALARA has led to occupational and public doses that are far below the limits and that now currently stand at levels considered by most people to carry quite acceptable, or even negligible, levels of risk, or, as some may say loosely, safe levels.

Sami Sherbini
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[treepig]

108. the government continues to adhere to the LNT model

which made sense in the 1950's when there was no information available for or against it. it clearly made sense to be as cautious as possible in the absence of complete information.

now (i.e., in the past few years, see the studies in peer-reviewed journals i cited above - plus there are many more if one cares to look fot them) there is overwhelming evidence that the LNT model is incorrect - instead there is a threshold below which radiation is not harmful. this premise is supported by diverse lines of evidence including the constant non-harmful exposure to background radiation thousands of times higher than that released by nuclear power or weapons, biochemical data on the changes thar occur within a cell upon exposure to radiation, as well as epidemiological studies of people exposed to massive doses of radiation. together, these studies provide a consistent and convincing picture of the biological response to radiation that is mightily different than your cartoonish view.

regarding mutations, there are two relavent points to consider regarding DNA damage caused by radiation:

1. the level of DNA damage is much lower (i.e., 1%) of that caused by normal metabolism.

2. the chemical nature of the damage is identical whether caused by radiation or natural metabolism.

because of these factors, DNA damage caused by radiation is efficiently repaired by a cell and rarely causes mutations. by constrast, DNA damage caused by chemicals - such as vinyl chloride or compounds found in cigarette smoke - is fundamentally different than the damage normally found in a cell. as a consequence such damage can be very difficult fot a cell to repair - and if left unrepaired leads to mutations.

[symbolman]

65. French Chefs

and Cajun Cooks are delighted!

[Yavin4]

71. When "The Simpsons" Episodes Become Real

you know the world is in trouble.

[Beaker]

78. Agricultural run-off or ozone depletion is a MUCH more likely cause-

of these types of deformation in amphibians.

if you think it's the fault of the nuke plant, you've been watching too much Simpsons...

[Ediacara]

80. or maybe just a lucky break

As has been explained numerous times in this thread, conjoined twins, although rare, are a natural occurance that have been around long before nuclear power or agricultural runoff or ozone depletion, and are caused by incomplete formation of identical twins.

[mobuto]

81. You're forgetting Skull and Bones

which profits from conjoined twins. Its in their charter. Just read the book by Alexandra Robbins.

John Kerry and George Bush are conspiring, even as we type, to give frogs three heads.

[seventhson]

91. Its Malthus

and Necrophilic Psychosis

so, yeah,

I guess it IS Skull and Bones. Or the BFEE chapter of S&B.

Thanks. I had missed the connection:

People who are sick and tired and dying do not resist -

but they DO buy gas, pay taxes, and buy pharmaceuticals up to the day they die (and after).

and it is easier for the power elites to hold ther power and make their profits.

But leave Kerry the hell OUT of this one (at least until he is inaugurated).

[seventhson]

92. i.e. genetic mutation

genetic damage to the embryo.

Yes, these occur in nature.

But what causes such damage?

Natural radiation has caused mutations for millions of years.

Add a healthy sprinkle of NEW radiation to God's and look what you get!

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rman]

107. but strong radiation is likely to cause mutations

strong as in stronger then background radiation.

[Ediacara]

113. well, I suppose

if you had a plutonium rod as a kitchen center piece it would, but the level measured outside of a nuclear power plant is negligible, and is not likely to cause an increase in the rate of mutation. And again, the vast majority of mutations are NOT caused by mutations.

[Ediacara]

143. on second thought

If you had a Plutonium rod as a kitchen centerpiece you'd just die, skipping the mutation and/or cancer stage.

And obviously, this sentance:

And again, the vast majority of mutations are NOT caused by mutations.

Should read:

And again, the vast majority of mutations are NOT caused by radiation.

[Beaker]

101. it's not one or two mutations that are the concern...

and yes, we evolutionoidists definitely believe in the power of random mutation(sprinkled with a little survival of the fittest).

but when you get lots and lots of these deformed frog and other amphibian stories popping up at a must more prodigous rate than in past generations, you have to start telling yourself- there's gotta be a reason...that's all

[seventhson]

95. No, I worked for a nuke company

I actually worked for a subcontractor, but I got to see how the industry operates and the resulting deaths of workers.

I also worked for a Congressman on a nuclear power oversight committee. So I did my homework.

"More likely" does not mean I am wrong in my concern.

[Beaker]

100. and a three-headed frog does not make you correct, either.

unless of course a direct link can be found?

...didn't think so.

[seventhson]

112. You have to study it to prove it

one way or the other.

To dismiss it without more evidence is NOT scientific

[Ediacara]

118. for god sake the frog escaped!!

ALL available data suggests that the frog is a case of conjoined triplets, which is a natural, albeit EXTREMELY rare occurance in vertebrate embryos. Instead, you insist it's a three-headed monster caused by plutonium when you have NOTHING to back your claim up.

[Ediacara]

115. well I guess that makes you a phD or something?

[Barkley]

83. Has it stop growing?

What's is its sex?

Can it reproduce?

Motubo, Thanks for the "turtle" correction!

[mobuto]

84. Turtles are not Frogs

Turtles are reptiles, frogs are amphibians. But close. Freaks of nature just happen.

[seventhson]

97. Now Looky Here - 9 Legged Frog found near nuke facility

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/bertell.htm


Just a little supporting data to curl your ....ummmm....

hair?

Examples of radiation induced abnormalities in nature (according to this article)

[Ediacara]

105. and what reputable journal was this published in?

Oh, just online? Sorry, it isn't science.

[Dr Fate]

106. Peer reviewed journals are for capitalist LACKEYS!!!!

Creationists dont need them, and neither do the Skull & Bones/Area 51 enthusists.

I am open to the possibility that radiation can cause all kinds of unexplained problems and abnormalities- but good call- these sources are not that great...

Now if "they" (Skull & Bones, Shriners, Area 51 aliens, etc) dont allow scientists to study this little fella(s), then we have somthing to worry about...

[seventhson]

111. She is a reputable epidemiologist (Dr. Bertell - author of the story )

http://www.ccnr.org/bertell_bio.html

[Ediacara]

120. I don't care if it's written by God himself

If it's a webpage, it ISN'T science.

[seventhson]

123. That about says it all

nt

[Ediacara]

124. LOL

Yep, can't argue from scientific facts, so you argue from authority in a situation you've demonstrated time and again you don't come close to understanding.

Tell me again what causes most mutations?

Tell me again the difference between coal-based radiation and radiation caused by nuclear power plants?

Tell me again how nuclear power is to blame (or even causes for that matter) for ALL conjoined twins in the history of the Earth, most notably Eng and Cheng Bunker who died 80 yours before the first nuclear power plant was even built?

[seventhson]

125. LOLLOLLOL

Never said nuclear power caused all conjoined twins - I said there is data that it may cause some now. There are several studies cited in the link I posted from a Harvard grad student on this subject. I have not read these studies, but I think the citations back me up since the student cites them for that scientific authority.

UV radiation is clearly a factor according to most reports I read online.

I do not know precisely what natural background radiation elements are found in coal, but I do know that the scientists I have interviewed and discussed this with say that Strontium 90, Radioiodine and many of the radionucleides produced in the nuclear fuel cycle are extremely dangerous and NOT the same as that produced by burning coal.

I believe that the evidence that natural and man-made radiation produce many genetic mutations is solid science. Interesting that the UV studies on creatures with mutations (like frogs) indicate that it may be the mutations of parasitic creatures IN the frogs may be responsible.

It supports my position that the radiation causes the monsters of nature like these frogs.

[Ediacara]

126. well then I guess I have nothing

Go to a university.

Take classes called "Introduction to Biology," "Ecology," "Comparitive Vertebrate Anatomy," "Evolution," "Sedimentary Petrology," "Mineralogy," and "Physical Chemistry."

Then read those papers you cited.

Then get back to me.

Until you've done that, you're really talking out of your ass.

Yes, nuclear radiation is bad, but it doesn't cause most mutations, is very dangerous from coal exhaust, is not very dangerous from nuclear power plants, and doesn't cause conjoined twins.

You're out of your league concerning background and you're doing nothing more than posing an argument from authority, when you're not even clear that the authority is agreeing with you.

Educate yourself on the subjects I listed above, or shut up.

[seventhson]

129. You know, I have been reluctant to alert because your insults

and personal attacks are so transparent that I figured I would try reason.

I am not a scientist, I do know that the literature I have seen here and studied says that deformities such as these frog(s) MAY be caused by radiation.

You can be insulting and flip all day long, but the fact is that there are people with real scientific training whom I have worked with whom I trust.

I do not know you. I do not trust you. And I do not accept your analysis.

The fact is that irradiation IS one of the suspected causes of such deformities.

Another fact is that this frog was found near a leaky nuke plant.

Another fact is that nuclear corporations are the richest and most powerful corporations on the planet. They control energy, nuclear weapons, depleted uranium, and they use this power to control the media and to manipulate public opinion.

Amother fact is that neither you nor I can say with scientific certainty WHAT caused this monstrosity of nature.

I have posted my concern. I was aware enough about the connection to nuclear radionucleides polluting near plants and I found that this plant in particular near where the frog was found has been leaky and dangerous.

You have tried to demean me by insulting my intelligence and throwing insults at me.

My job for a nuke subcontractor was to determine legl causation for worker's injuries. The injuries ranged from asbestos to nuclear to chemical exposures. I was not the expert - but I relied on environmental doctors and professionals to advise me.

In the case at hand I the fact remains that Halliburton and Cheney make millions off of nuke plants.

They have vested interest in convincing people that, like depleted uranium, there is NO danger to all of us and to the global population.

My fears are shared here because I have more knowledge than the average joe (or josephine).

The fact is that there is a three headed frog near a leaky nuke plant.

You can spend all day saying that there is no causality.

I will not believe you and neither will people of average or better intelligence. They may want to ignore the friughtening reality and try to numb themselves to this danger. But they will remain more aware of the POSSIBILITIES and they will be more alert.

That is all I am trying to do here.

Get people to be alert about this problem and take it seriously.

The future of humanity and all of nature is in the balance.

[Ediacara]

133. Point by point

You know, I have been reluctant to alert because your insults

Point out an insult. If, by telling you that you are wrong, you think I am insulting you, you should grow a thicker skin.

and personal attacks are so transparent that I figured I would try reason.

Point out a personal attack. If, by pointing out that you are under-educated on the matter at hand you think I am attacking you personally, you should grow a thicker skin.

I am not a scientist, I do know that the literature I have seen here and studied says that deformities such as these frog(s) MAY be caused by radiation.

You are right, you're not a scientist. Scientists are skeptical, you are not. Again, how do you know that the literature you cited demonstrates a causal link between conjoined twins and radiation if you haven't even bothered to read it? You insist that because it's on an online bibliography it MUST say what you think it says, but you should really go to a library and find out for yourself.

Also, you're backing off on your initial claim that the frogs were absolutely the result of nuclear power plant radiation, which I think is somewhat cute. Did the 50+ posts telling you what conjoined twins are finally make your position less secure?

You can be insulting and flip all day long, but the fact is that there are people with real scientific training whom I have worked with whom I trust.

And they have given their opinion to you on these frogs? Look, I haven't been insulting, but I'll admit I've been flippant. You choose to display your ignorance time and again in this thread, and well, I'm getting fed up with it.

I do not know you. I do not trust you. And I do not accept your analysis.

Why not? I could display my credentials and then you'd HAVE to believe me because then it would become an argument from authority, and as we've seen before, you don't even bother to THINK about the statements of authority figures, you just insist they're all right in an attempt to win an argument you don't even understand.

The fact is that irradiation IS one of the suspected causes of such deformities.

Reference?

Another fact is that this frog was found near a leaky nuke plant.

Again, THESE FROGS are found near what? Do you have a reference stating that a nuclear plant nearby is leaking? You'd think that some of the news organizations that have picked up this story would have also included the fact that a nearby nuclear power plant was leaking because that would be sensationalism extraordniaire, yet NONE of them mention ANYTHING about the power plant. I wonder why....

Another fact is that nuclear corporations are the richest and most powerful corporations on the planet. They control energy, nuclear weapons, depleted uranium, and they use this power to control the media and to manipulate public opinion.

Um, ok, and this has to do with your ignorance of science, err excuse me, the issue of these frogs in what way?

Amother fact is that neither you nor I can say with scientific certainty WHAT caused this monstrosity of nature.

Conjoined twins or triplets in this case are not monstrosities of nature. For you to insist that they are shows a rather cruel disregard for people (and frogs) with disabilities.

What I do know however, is that all observable data from these frogs (that escaped before they could be further tested) insists that they are conjoined triplets. Sir William Occam, in the 1600s, created a concept you might have heard of: Occams Razor. Occam and his Razor insist that we consider the frogs as conjoined triplets in the absence of any data that suggest otherwise.

I have posted my concern. I was aware enough about the connection to nuclear radionucleides polluting near plants and I found that this plant in particular near where the frog was found has been leaky and dangerous.

As has been shown numerous times throughout this thread, nuclear power plants (in the first world anyway....) are awfully safe and they don't pollute. You get more radiation from watching TV, flying in a plane, or getting an X-Ray than you would living near a nuclear power plant.

Additionally, coal is full of radioactive elements like Strontium, Uranium, Potassium etc. When coal is burned, these radioactive elements go out the smokestack and into the atmosphere, and pollute more than nuclear power plants by an order of magnitude.

You have tried to demean me by insulting my intelligence and throwing insults at me.

I have simply pointed out that you don't know what you're talking about. If you find it insulting, grow a thicker skin. I actually find it insulting that YOU come here presuming to be some sort of expert on nuclear chemistry AND biology when there are numerous DUers who actually have carreers in those fields. If you wish to take a position of authority on this matter, you need to get the proper schooling required. Until then, you're really making a fool of yourself.

My job for a nuke subcontractor was to determine legl causation for worker's injuries. The injuries ranged from asbestos to nuclear to chemical exposures. I was not the expert - but I relied on environmental doctors and professionals to advise me.

OK. Did you learn anything on that job? Can you tell me what asbestos is?

In the case at hand I the fact remains that Halliburton and Cheney make millions off of nuke plants.

And this has WHAT to do with the subject at hand?

They have vested interest in convincing people that, like depleted uranium, there is NO danger to all of us and to the global population.

You know, you could always go and buy a Geiger Counter and see for yourself. Like has been pointed out time and again, nuclear power plants are safer than coal, and safer than TV. You'll be able to quantify that to your hearts content with your brand new Geiger Counter.

My fears are shared here because I have more knowledge than the average joe (or josephine).

I beg to differ.

The fact is that there is a three headed frog near a leaky nuke plant.

The fact is that it isn't a three headed frog, but that all data points to THEM being conjoined triplets. And I'd like a reference on the leaky nuclear plant you keep mentioning.

You can spend all day saying that there is no causality.

There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality. There is no causality.

OK, now that I've gotten that out of my system.... Show me where, in those papers you haven't read, there's a causality.

I will not believe you and neither will people of average or better intelligence. They may want to ignore the friughtening reality and try to numb themselves to this danger. But they will remain more aware of the POSSIBILITIES and they will be more alert.

Awww how closeminded of you! I fully admit that it's possible that these frogs were caused by radiation, but there is NO DATA WHATSOEVER even suggesting that it might be possible AT ALL.

Until the frog is captured and is tested and data is collected that suggests that their abnormality was caused by something other than incomplete splitting of the blastula, I have to relly on Sir William Occam and his Razor.

That is all I am trying to do here.

You are doing a poor job of it.

Get people to be alert about this problem and take it seriously.

People will be more likely to take it (and you) seriously if you present them with facts rather than speculative connections and screaming.

The future of humanity and all of nature is in the balance.

It sure is, but safe nuclear power plants are the least of Nature's worries.

[seventhson]

139. Damn - This really is your job, isn't it?

Unfortunately for me and for the rest of us here- most folks do not have the time or energy to read all of this bullshit.


You are a proponent of nuclear power and yet you readuly admit that the deformed frog may have been caused by nuclear pollution.


You say:

"I fully admit that it's possible that these frogs were caused by radiation"

Thank You.

I believe that those who promote something which is so damaging to humanity are either sick or evil or entirely blind.

Those who do not oppose it are doomed to suffer from the consequences.

And our children and future generations will pay dearly.

I think your arguments are the industry arguments.

They are well prepared and thorough.

But I do not believe one iota of it.

[Ediacara]

142. thanks for ignoring the rest of the sentance

1) I don't work for anything having to do with nuclear power.
2) I'm actually NOT a proponent of fission reactors, although I do see them as a safer alternative than most commercial reactors.
3) I responded to all of your sentence fragments, and you tell me you don't have the time to respond? LOL

But anyway, onto what you misquoted. I said:

Awww how closeminded of you! I fully admit that it's possible that these frogs were caused by radiation, but there is NO DATA WHATSOEVER even suggesting that it might be possible AT ALL.

Until the frog is captured and is tested and data is collected that suggests that their abnormality was caused by something other than incomplete splitting of the blastula, I have to relly on Sir William Occam and his Razor.

Your selective quotation of a portion of these paragraphs, which by itself implies the complete OPPOSITE of what I actually said, is without a doubt, a form of lying.

Don't lie, it makes you look even more foolish.

And speaking of foolishness, so does your insistant closeminded yammering:

I think your arguments are the industry arguments. They are well prepared and thorough. But I do not believe one iota of it.

Open your mind up, you might actually learn something.

[treepig]

127. scientific american reports three factors cause frog deformities

<a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D5DCC-CA4A-1E1C-8B3B809EC588EEDF&ref=sciam&chanID=sa006">Scientific American: Explaining Frog Deformities < ENVIRONMENT ></a><br>An eight-year investigation into the cause of a shocking increase in deformed amphibians has sorted out the roles of three prime suspects

i'm not sure if the link works, but the three main factors are:

1) parasites
2) chemicals (e.g., from pesticides)
3) uv irradiation

it should be noted that the cellular effects of uv radiation are quite different from the effects of reactive oxygen species (ROS)that come from metabolism or ionizing radiation (whether it is man-made or natural - once again your artificial distinction between the two types is completely incorrect). for example, uv radiation produces alot of thymine dimers, a particular type of DNA damage that does not distort the structure of the DNA helix to any great degree - therefore they are less likely to be detected by DNA repair mechanisms. thus, uv radiation-produced DNA damage is more likely to persist long enough to give rise to mutations compared to most types of DNA damage (in particular, the types caused by ROS).

interestingly uv radiation comes from the sun - the source of "safe" solar power. perhaps when solar power becomes a bit more accepted, i'll spend my days posting hysterical rants about the danger of living on a planet bathed in deadly sun-produced uv radiation.

[seventhson]

131. Yup - see - radiation! I told you so.

100 bucks

send it to skinner

[treepig]

132. i can only conclude that you are being intentionally obtuse now

i thought it was quite clearly explained that the ultraviolet (UV) radiation that is harming the frogs has absolutely nothing to do with the sources of ionizing radiation from nuclear power plants. it is from the sun, and some postulate that the thinning ozone layer allows more of it to reach the earth, thereby harming the frogs (this correlation has been suggested by observations that abnormalities are especially frequent at high altitudes).

in fact, uv radiation is not even included in the "radiation" calculation charts i supplied in previous links. btw, neither is infrared radiation, or electromagnetic "radiation" such as that which allows your radio, and no doubt the tin plate in your head as well, to pick up strange voices from far away.

i am sure that you already know all of this from your years of study of radiation issues - so i guess i should be posting something like ROTFLMAO in recognition of your attempted joke instead of typing even more absolutely futile words.

[NickB79]

134. Wow, the cluelessness of that statement astounds me

You do realize UV radiation is a naturally occurring component of SUNLIGHT, right? The same stuff that gives you a sunburn, and NOT something that comes out of a reactor.

Plus, the ONLY reason they list UV radiation is because of the thinning of the ozone layer due to released chemicals into the atmosphere.

[seventhson]

148. They also assert that the increased radiation

may be mutating parasites in frogs which add to the problem of damaged cells disturbing the embryos and causing the mutations.

[Ediacara]

159. UV radiation, NOT Gama radiation

You ARE being intentionally obtuse...

[Ediacara]

137. well not to sound patronizing

But radiation is a term describing things that radiate. UV-radiation, as well as gamma radiation, and X-ray radiation are forms of light. So are radio waves. The atmosphere (mostly) protects us from this sort of radiation coming at us from the sun. This sort of radiation causes free-radicals to form, and is, amnog other things, why CFCs are REALLY bad chemicals.

Nuclear radiation on the other hand descibes things flying out of an atom (electrons or helium atoms). That process also creates gamma radiation (which is a very high frequency form of light). All the nuclear radiation processes are bad when you are close to them. When you have a contained nuclear reactor in a first world country it will not raise the background radiation levels.

Ultraviolet radiation is like a high frequency version of purple light. It causes cancer. Gamma radiation, which is the light portion of what comes out of, say, plutonium, would skip cancer altogether and kill you.

Speaking of, if the nuclear power plant were really "leaky" everyone who worked there would either be on their deathbed with cancer, or just plain dead.

[seventhson]

147. So you agree that radiation may be the cause of the defects

I think this site also has a useful analysis:

http://perc.ca/PEN/1994-09/s-skeet.html

[Ediacara]

150. uh, no

Are you completely not paying attention? Do you even bother reading what people write? SO where is that ite you linked actually published?

[seventhson]

98. More evidence to support the 3 headed frog-nuke leaks links

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,754946,00.html

[seventhson]

99. Rense.com has it too. (Did he get it here?)

If he did - then good on him:


http://www.rense.com/general50/canc.htm

[NickB79]

128. I don't know about anyone else

But whenever I read Rense.com, I get this feeling like there are bits of the X-Files sprinkled into the stories. Some of that stuff is just out there.

Some of the more "interesting" ones appear to be about Bigfoot, how a UFO shot down the Space Shuttle, and chemtrails. Amazing.

[seventhson]

130. Yeah, I know. But just cause he is paranoid does not mean he's wrong

about this situation.

He reminds me of Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory"/ Funny thing is - he was right.

In real life it is not aliens and bigfoot that we have to worry about - but Nazis and stormtroopers and those whose solution to unemployment and unrest is death camps and population control by controlled pollution of our environment.

[seventhson]

149. One more study for the doubting Thomases to bookmark

for when people are rude and insulting to them because they oppose nuclear power:


http://radiation.org/florida.html

[Ediacara]

151. you know what's rude and insulting?

When you come on here and pose as some sort of an expert, when you really don't know anything, and then insist that those that DO know what they're taking about are rude liars.

[seventhson]

154. Yes - People like Bush not paying attention to the future of humanity and.

ignoring studies like these:



Childhood Cancer in South Florida
Study Finds Cause in Nuclear Plant Radiation Emissions -
Drinking Water Most Likely Source

(Press release - from the link in my previous post)

Miami, Florida - A South Florida Baby Teeth and Cancer Case Study, that was officially released today, finds that infants and children are especially vulnerable to cancer caused by federally-permitted radiation releases from nuclear reactors, such as the Turkey Point and St. Lucie nuclear power plants, located in southeast Florida.

The five-year baby teeth study, also known as the "Tooth Fairy Project," found a 37% rise in the average levels of radioactive Strontium-90 (Sr-90) in southeast Florida baby teeth from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. When compared with baby teeth collected from 18 Florida counties, the highest levels of Sr-90 were found in the six southeast Florida counties closest to the Turkey Point and St. Lucie nuclear reactors: Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River.

The current rise of radiation levels in baby teeth in Florida and in the U.S. as a whole reverses a long-term downward trend in Sr-90 levels since the 1960s, after President Kennedy banned aboveground testing of nuclear weapons 1963, due to concerns about increasing childhood cancer and leukemia rates from fallout.

Radioactive Sr-90 is a known carcinogen, which is only produced by fission reactions in nuclear weapons or reactors. It enters the body along with chemically similar calcium, and is stored in bone and teeth, where it can be measured years later using well-established laboratory techniques.

Significantly, the study documented that the average levels of Sr-90 found in the teeth of children diagnosed with cancer were nearly twice as high as those found in the teeth of children without cancer.

Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Professor Emeritus of Radiation Physics at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School and co-author of the study said that "although radioactive emissions can enter the air, soil and diet, the most significant source of Sr-90 in southeast Florida children's teeth is groundwater, the primary source of southeast Florida's public drinking supply. This is due to the area's high rainfall and shallow aquifer."


The study found the highest levels of radioactivity in samples of drinking water found within 20 miles of the Turkey Point (located south of Miami) and St. Lucie (located north of West Palm Beach) nuclear power plants, while levels of radioactivity were significantly lower in water samples further away from the reactors.

The rise in Sr-90 levels in both drinking water and baby teeth parallels a 32.5% rise in cancer rates in children under 10 in the southeast Florida counties, which are closest to the nuclear power plants. This compares with a average 10.8% rise in national childhood cancer rates from the early 1980s to the late 1990s.

The baby teeth study conclusions are consistent with the recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency admission that children age 2 and younger are 10 times more susceptible than adults to the cancer causing effects of toxic chemicals and radioactivity. According to the National Cancer Institute's SEER Cancer Statistics Review, from early 1970s to late 1990s, U.S. childhood cancer overall has increased by 26%, brain cancer by 50%, leukemia by 45% and bone cancer by 40%.

"There is now substantial evidence that exposure to federally-permitted radiation releases from nuclear reactors is a significant cause of increasing childhood cancer rates in southeast Florida, as well as a risk factor for cancer in Americans of all ages," said Dr. Jerry Brown, the study's co-author and Founding Professor, Florida International University in Miami.

Dr. Brown noted that, "the recent 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk found that the world-wide health effects of very low levels of radioactivity have been vastly underestimated."

In a Statement on Baby Teeth Study, Samuel Epstein, M.D., wrote, "Given prior evidence of the relationship between childhood cancer and radioactive emissions from 103 aging nuclear power plants in the U.S., and the well established biological risks of radioactive Strontium-90, it is now critical to recognize that radioactive emissions from commercial nuclear power plants pose a grave threat to public health in southeast Florida and throughout the nation." Dr. Epstein is Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public Health, and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition.

The study was conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) and funded by the Health Foundation of South Florida. The Radiation and Pubic Health Project is an independent not-for-profit research organization, established by scientists and physicians to investigate the links between environmental radiation, cancer and public health.

The Health Foundation of South Florida, a not-for-profit grantmaking foundation, is dedicated to expanding access to affordable, quality health care and providing funding that directly benefits the health and well being of underserved individuals in Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. Since its inception in 1993, the Foundation has awarded more than $42 million in grants and direct program support.

Available for Interview at Press Conference

- Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Chief Scientist, RPHP; Professor Emeritus, Radiation Physics, University of Pittsburgh Medical School; co-Principal Investigator of the Report.

- Dr. Jerry Brown, Research Associate, RPHP; Founding Professor, Florida International University; co-Principal Investigator of the Report. (English and Spanish)

- Lilyana and Bill Sager (Lilly), Miami, Florida, daughter diagnosed with cancer submitted tooth to study. Ms. Sanger will discuss why she supports the baby teeth study, her reactions to findings, and her concerns over increasing cancer in the Cutler Ridge area of South Miami-Dade County (English and Spanish)

- Lee Klein, CEO, Children's Cancer Caring Center, founder of organization that provides free medical care to needy families of children with cancer in South Florida and throughout Latin America.

- Steven Marcus, President and CEO, and Peter Wood, Chief Program Officer, Health Foundation of South Florida, an independent not for profit organization benefiting community healthcare and education. The Health Foundation funded the South Florida Baby Teeth and Cancer Case Study.

- Barbara Garrett, Senior Vice President, Applica Inc., a Miami Lakes-company that has supported the national baby teeth study.


Available for interviews by phone:

- Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public Health and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition. Dr. Epstein has reviewed the Research Report and provided a written Statement on Baby Teeth Study

- Dr. Hari Sharma, President, Radiological and Environmental Measurement Systems, Waterloo, Canada. Dr. Sharma is an international expert in radiological measurements and manages the independent lab that tests the baby teeth.

- Debi Santoro, mother who's infant has nerve cancer and who has submitted tooth to study and had her water tested.

- Audra Malone-Schmidt, mother of child with cancer who submitted tooth to study.

- Dava Michaelson, mother and breast cancer survivor, who has submitted daughter's tooth to the study.


Those wishing to donate baby teeth
to the Tooth Fairy Project may do so by calling
1-800-582-3716
or by visiting the RPHP website at http://www.radiation.org

[Ediacara]

156. comparing me to Bush eh?

how nice of you, how progressive.... what does this have to do with frogs?

[seventhson]

158. Nope,

But you are supporting the Bush/Cheney nuke corporation position.

If the cap fits...

[Ediacara]

161. what the fuck ever

You're making stuff up! I never said I supported fission reactors, and I absolutely don't support Bush and Cheney (shame on you for suggesting that I do!). What I am saying, and have been saying is that you're completely wrong about 1) the nature of the frogs 2) the cause of the condition of the frogs 3) biology 4) nuclear chemistry and 5) nucear power plant safety.

Enough of the ad hominem! If you haven't got anything constructive to add actually about these frogs, then I respectfully suggest you bow out.

[JusticeForAll]

153. This story does have legs!

LOL. I began reading this thread yesterday and expected it to be long gone by today!

[seventhson]

155. It also has TEETH. Please read my post #154 above and THIS

I have worked with some of the authors of this study and have examined the actual data they used,

The frightening thing is that EVERY baby tooth tested showed levels of Strontium-90 which is ONLY produced by man and does not occur in nature (it MUST be produced by the nuclear industry).

Strontium-90 mimics calcium and is absorbed into the bones and teeth just as calcium is. It also gradually works in to the reproductive and other organs. There it mutates cells and leads to cancer and damage to the endocrine and immune system. It causes damage to the heart. It messes with your concentration and it can lead to depression and even suicide (due to the damage to your hormones).

I HAVE to keep fighting to make people aware of this and I fully expect the blind true believers and promoters of nuclear energy to be relentless to try to discredit me and the people I trust.

I am glad at least a few people have read this thread and I hope they will particularly look at my last post #154 and TRY to understand why I am so adamant about this issue.

I trust these researchers. I know them. They are honest and motivated solely by concern for the well being of their global and national communities.

And they have no profit motive to promote for as the nuke promoters do.

Like Cheney.

[Ediacara]

157. Sr-90 is ONLY produced by nuclear bombs!!

How is Strontium 90 linked to nuclear power plants when it's only been produced by bombs!!!???

[seventhson]

162. FINALLY - I can prove that your position is totally wrong - EPA Site says

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/strontium.htm


Here is the government's own breakdown:

Strontium
The Basics


Where does strontium-90 come from?

Strontium-90 is a by-product of the fission of uranium and plutonium in nuclear reactors, and in nuclear weapons. Strontium-90 is found in waste from nuclear reactors. It can also contaminate reactor parts and fluids. Large amounts of Sr-90 were produced during atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s and dispersed worldwide.


Strontium-90 emits a beta particle with, no gamma radiation, as it decays to yttrium-90 (also radioactive). Strontium-90 has a half-life of 29.1 years. Strontium-90 behaves chemically much like calcium, and therefore tends to concentrate in the bones and teeth.



Exposure to Strontium-90
How does strontium-90 get into the environment?
Strontium-90 was widely dispersed in the 1950s and 1960s in fall out from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. It has been slowly decaying since then so that current levels from these tests are very low.

Strontium-90 is also found in waste from nuclear reactors. It is considered one of the more hazardous constituents of nuclear wastes.



How do people come in contact with strontium-90?
Everyone is exposed to small amounts of strontium-90, since it is widely dispersed in the environment and the food chain. Dietary intake of Sr-90, however, has steadily fallen over the last 30 years with the suspension of nuclear weapons testing. People who live near or work in nuclear facilities may have increased exposure to Sr-90.

How does strontium-90 get into the body?
People may inhale trace amounts of strontium-90 as a contaminant in dust. But, swallowing Sr-90 with food or water is the primary pathway of intake.

What does strontium-90 do once it gets into the body?
When people ingest Sr-90, about 70-80% of it passes through the body. Virtually all of the remaining 20-30% that is absorbed is deposited in the bone. About 1% is distributed among the blood volume, extracellular fluid, soft tissue, and surface of the bone, where it may stay and decay or be excreted.



And then you die (but it might take ten or twenty or thirty years),

[Ediacara]

163. Funny

It's great you're ignoring everythin else I've been saying and focus on this. The EPA actually says that the vast majority of Sr90 was produced in bomb tests in the 50s and 60s and all Sr90 produced in reactors is in waste (which is stored).

Do you understand that the vapors coming out the cooling towers of nuclear power plants is steam? Strontium (or anything else) can't get out. Gamma radiation MIGHT get out of there if there is a severe problem with its construction, but it's not getting out.

Like I've said befoe, you can buy a Geiger Counter, and you can take a tour of a nuclear power plant and see for yourself.

[seventhson]

169. Not really

The EPA also says people who live near nuke plants get dosed by Strontium -90. THAT is what the baby tooth study demonstrates.

Read the study, folks, and ignore the rhetoric.

[Ediacara]

171. really?

not on that site....

ON EDIT: to add that it says that people may get higher exposure living near nuclear power plants (may, not will or do). Also says that all environmental Sr90 exposure came from nuclear bomb tests and accidents like Chernobyl.

Do you even read the shit you post?

[seventhson]

176. Not accurate. Here is axactly what the ERA says:

How do people come in contact with strontium-90?
Everyone is exposed to small amounts of strontium-90, since it is widely dispersed in the environment and the food chain. Dietary intake of Sr-90, however, has steadily fallen over the last 30 years with the suspension of nuclear weapons testing. People who live near or work in nuclear facilities may have increased exposure to Sr-90. The greatest concern would be the exposures from an accident at a nuclear reactor, or an accident involving high-level wastes.


This does not say ALL comes from nuke tests and accidents. Some expoosure comes from nuke plants.

This is precisely what the baby tooth study establishes: that people who live near nuke plants show higher exposure levels than others.

Of course I read what I posted and it says nothing of the sort with respect to you claim that exposure comes ONLY from tests and accidents.

Operating commercial reactors relese strontium 90 legally into their local environs. People are, in fact, exposed if they live near operating nuke plants.

As the half life of stontium 90 is 28 years - it remains in the environment and can travel in water and air and soil and gets into the food chain and wildlife.

If that is okay with you then there is very little to debate.

I, on the other hand, consider it an extreme danger.

I think if people actually read any of this information they can maje an informed decision for themselves instead of buying into the propaganda from the nuke corporations and the hysteria from the "true believers" of the nuclear right wing suppoorters of nuclear power. (I say right wing supporters because the nuke industry covers weapons as well as commercial activities, and includes the proponents of the idea that depleted uranium is safe to expose our troops and civilian populations to in war and training for war.

[seventhson]

177. I need to clarify something here

The EPA site documents that we are ALL exposed to radioisotopes from nuke tests and nuke plants.

I do not agree with their cnclsuion that globally levels of strntium-90 are falling due to the cessation of atmospheric testing.

The scientists conducting the studies for the Radiation and Public Health Project have concluded that levels are INCREASING near nuke plants.

THAT is what their studies are investigating and proving.

Please read the studies at radiation.org and inform yourself.

There are steps you can take to protect yourselves and yuur children from the harm caused by this exposure, but you must be well-informed and motivated to take such steps.

YOU have been exposed/ So have your children. Like with DDT in our systems and environment, we have ALL absorbed some of this into our bodies where it is affecting your metabolism and your health.

It is up to you to understand what is happening if you care about the health of our planet and its people.

[treepig]

179. so we're accepting what the ERA says now?

i assume you mean EPA, anyhow

You say

As the half life of stontium 90 is 28 years - it remains in the environment and can travel in water and air and soil and gets into the food chain and wildlife.

If that is okay with you then there is very little to debate.

I, on the other hand, consider it an extreme danger.


ok, fair enough, the EPA lists as the radiation dose for all isotopes, including strontium-90, released from commercial power plants as 0.009 mrem/year.

you consider that to be an extreme danger.

so what do you consider exposure to naturally-occuring radon (which is also readily internalized into one's body), to which the average exposure is 200 mrem/year or 22,222 times higher than nuclear power plant-released radiation, to be?

i am interested in what adjective you will chose to use in describing something 22,222 time worse than "extreme" - perhaps hyper-wacky-mega-extreme? no, not even that's good enough, - i'll leave this one to the wordsmiths among us.

anyhow, i'm still waiting for the molecular explanation of how man-made radiation is more dangerous than naturally-occurring radiation. here's a hint - a detailed explanation of how ionizing-type radiation interacts with biological molecules is given at (and succeeding pages linked thereat):

http://www.photobiology.com/educational/len/index.htm

please describe what aspects of this discussion are incorrect, which they would need to be to support your oft-repeated, but never supported premise that there is something especially dangerous about man-made radiation.

[seventhson]

189. It depends on the isotope. for example, radioiodine gets absorbed by

the thyroid and hence damages it causing major problems for people and even death.

Strontium 90 is absorbed into the bones and teeth and gets into the bone marrow and spreads.

The effect of radiation may be the same in terms of the type of damage it does irrespective of the source{ but certain man-made radioisotopes are absorbed by specific types of body tissue - such as the reproductive organs and other soft tissue organs -- hence the increased numbers of breast cancer, for example and prostate cancer and infant mortality in neighborhoods which have nukes in close proximity.

[treepig]

196. the downfall of your contention

lies in the huge doses of radioisotopes, including radiolabel iodine, given to people for medical purposes.

more from http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/13/2.html

One major use of radioisotopes is in nuclear medicine. Of the 30 million people who are hospitalized each year in the United States, 1/3 are treated with nuclear medicine. More than 10 million nuclear-medicine procedures are performed on patients and more than 100 million nuclear-medicine tests are performed each year in the United States alone. A comparable number of such procedures are performed in the rest of the world.

but same article, further along, perhaps provides a clue to some of your animosity towards all things nuclear:

Seaborg’s mother was one of the first to benefit from the use of this radioisotope that her son had discovered. Fatally ill from hyperthyroidism, (a related condition from which her sister died), diagnosis and treatment with 131I led to her complete recovery and a long life. Former President George Bush and First Lady Barbara Bush are some notable people who were successfully treated for Graves' disease, a thyroid disease, with 131I. Radioactive iodine treatment is so successful that it has virtually replaced thyroid surgery.

oh well, without nuclear power plants, the first mr. bush and his lovely wife would be dead now - them's the breaks i guess.


more information on the use of radioisotopes in medicine:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip26.htm

and other things as well:

http://www.ohiou.edu/ehs/radioisotope_uses.htm

[tobius]

173. or ninety. nt

[Catherine Vincent]

160. Any word on how many penises?

[seventhson]

164. Two or three?

Now there's a mutation that some folks might consider an improvement in males!

[Ediacara]

165. well if it's two or three...

I guess that's only 2/3 of a penis or 1 penis per individual, not uch of an imrovement.

Are you still not understanding that this is THREE frogs, and not one frog? Do you think Eng and Cheng are a two headed person?

[seventhson]

167. That was a joke, Damn. Don't change the subject!

Strontium 90 IS caused by nuclear power plant operations and is leaked into our water and air.

It makes us sick.

[Ediacara]

170. you have proof?

Do you have proof that it leaks into the water? The EPA site you linked says most Sr90 on Earth was produced in bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s.

And speaking of changing the subject, why don't you answer the questions that have been asked? Where's the proof that the nuclear plant is leaky? Where's the proof that coal based nucear polution is different and special? And on and on....

[tobius]

174. dear god , my friend. You should have done a quick search of 7th's

posts regarding the Illuminati and George Washington's special Mason apron. Reading them is hilarious, actually woke up my wife with some of the uncontrollable laughing.
It is quite disconcerting to engage with someone who can seemingly speed read, discover scientific theorems on the fly, testified b4 Congress, sued the nuclear industry for the millions of dead and mutated, has access to the lower underground tunnels inhabited by 13-14ft aliens, has copyrighted the definition of "enlightened" to include a short bio of him and his family tree, and is willing to expose himself to slow torture and certain death to warn us all of the imminent threat of destruction of the entire human race.
Whether he is sincere or not, the entertainment provided is worth it.

[seventhson]

183. I posted answers for both of those above

yet you seem to just deride and not read the evidence.

The radiation.org site has the info on water and strontium 90

tha radiation from coal is NATURALLY occurring radiation and the nuke plant emissions are man made (and only produced by nuke plants and weapons tests) You posted that yourself.

Jeez.

Just by SAYING i haven't answered does not make it true.

[Ediacara]

185. No you didn't

You avoided them as usual. Have some real data?

[The Almighty Clenis]

178. Damn. You found the secret of my SuperPenile Powers! (nt)

[WillyBrandt]

172. Are you against all nuclear power, or

would you consider things such as fusion--or Cold Fusion--acceptable alternatives to standard fission plants?

and do you believe that those alternatives would prevent cases like this deformed frog?

and if you might support these alternative forms of nuclear power, why aren't you advocating for them, or why aren't they already out?

[seventhson]

182. Good questions

But I am not familiar enough to have good answers on fusion.

Any technology that does not have environmental emissions of radioactivity would be okay with me and probably the frogs too.

[treepig]

184. scary . . .

so, as long as there's no radiation - you're ok with the fact that air-borne particulate matter from the combustion of fossil fuels is killing 40,000 americans each year?

rather bizarre, but not surprising . . .

[seventhson]

191. No that is NOT my position

Renewables. Not fossil fuels. Not nukes.

They are BOTH anachronisms which are too dangerous for global energy reliance.

[treepig]

194. sure, renewables would be nice

but they're not here now in sufficient scale to replace conventional sources of energy, that's the reality.

so would an ideal world consist of hydrogen produced from solar radiation? probably not, since we all learned in this thread of the dangers of radiation. but maybe wind power would be ok. of course a bunch of birds are going to die, but that's probably acceptable.

oh, oh, but wait just one minute . . . . what's that that you're telling me mr. neads?


Dealing with the issue of dirty hydrogen

By Dave Neads

The Other Side of the Story

President George Bush has launched a hydrogen initiative as part of his administration’s Clean Air policy. Touted as the new fuel of the future because it is abundant and clean burning, hydrogen technology could be the way to solve the problems created by traditional fuels. The device that will be used for the conversion of hydrogen to energy will most likely be the fuel cell which could -- and should -- be produced in an environmentally sensitive manner. A look at the other side of the story shows how political machinations are subverting the process of fuel cell production and ultimately,the hydrogen dream.
One of the essential elements in the construction of hydrogen fuel cells is a group of palladium isotopes called palladium group metals or PGMs for short. These metals speed up the hydrogen oxygen reaction inside fuel cells while decreasing the amount of corrosion that occurs.

In a deal recently brokered by presidents Bush and Putin, Norelisk Nickel, a major Russian producer of nickel, took over Stillwater Mining Co. which has major palladium mines in Nye, Montana. Immediately we’re off to a bad start -- Norelisk Nickel is known to be a notorious polluter in its home operations. Satellite imagery shows 100 mile long plumes spreading from Norelisk’s smelting operations in northern Siberia. Estimates are that two million acres of forest are affected or killed annually by the two million tons of sulphur dioxide the smelter releases into the atmosphere each year.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., Norelisk Nickel hired a law firm run by former Secretary of State and Bush family friend, James Baker, to obtain regulatory approval for the deal. With that in the bag, Norelisk named five new directors to Stillwater’s previous board. These new appointments are American and are pro-Bush friends and supporters.

Now that they control the primary production of palladium, Norelisk will be able to significantly influence the price of these precious metals. The potential for increased profits is huge. The brokering of this inside deal driven by political expediency is potentially the first of many such ‘arrangements’ to emerge under the Clean Air Policy based on the hydrogen dream.

U.S. domestic coal fields are expected to be part of the energy sources used to produce hydrogen. Big coal is expecting windfall profits from these deals. The nuclear industry has also been lining up to be involved in the hydrogen process. Coal and nuclear, both proven in the past to be very dirty and very harmful, have been the target of huge campaigns in the past decades. But now under the guise of being part of the clean, non-polluting hydrogen initiative they are receiving new life and opportunity. For example, the U.S. Senate recently passed a bill that will give an $8 billion subsidy to fossil fuel production, especially coal bed methane. This is twice the amount set aside for renewable energy sources such as wind, tidal and solar.

Forward thinking that cared about the health of the nation would use non-polluting energy sources to produce hydrogen. Instead, the push is to go back to yesterday’s fuels that have already created a plethora of unhealthy conditions from asthma to global warming. The promise of hydrogen-based energy is that these problems would be reduced; yet the reliance on traditional polluters in the implementation of these new technologies could destroy the hydrogen dream. The Clean Air Initiative may simply become another profit-making scam for the same old group of fossils.

[seventhson]

180. For those who want more info: Nuclear Policy Research Institute

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/

Pediatrician Dr. Helen Caldicott from the organization Physicians for Social Responsibility started this organization.

I recommend you bookmark it and stay up to date on these issues.

Folks here (including me) could rant all day long on these subjects.

But when you need sober and intelligent information which is NOT from the nuclear industry *Cheney et al) or government (Bush et al) go to this site.

and please support it.

[seventhson]

181. More info from the NPRI site

Issue:
Power and Waste


The 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. generate 20% of the nation's electricity. However, no new plants have been ordered since the 1979 near nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. The incident at Three Mile Island was a wake up call to citizens that nuclear power was too dangerous and the potential for catastrophe too great. In addition, the fatal Chernobyl disaster in 1986 led to radiation illnesses and cancers killing thousands and still affecting the current population. The Energy Policy Act of 2003 contains legislation that gives the nuclear power industry the ability to develop new dangerous nuclear power projects which would create a deadly risk to the surrounding population, and put an enormous burden on the environment and the taxpayers.

In a recent study published in the journal Archives of Environmental Health, researchers found that children living near 14 eastern U.S. nuclear power plants are 12.4% more likely to develop cancer than the U.S. average, and in some counties as much as 26% more.

Assertions that nuclear energy is clean are untrue. There are obvious environmental hazards that radioactive materials pose as the highly radioactive nuclear waste must be isolated from the environment for thousands of years with the ever-present possibility of contamination and fatalities. Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been designated as the long-term U.S. nuclear waste repository by both houses of congress and the president, but that decision is still being fought by the State of Nevada.

There are clean and renewable sources of energy available such as wind and solar that produce no waste products, and could be extremely successful pending more investment in research and development.



You can also see how close you live to a nuke plant at this site:


http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/Issues.cfm?NewsTopicID=22

[nolabels]

186. Religious, Science Groups Urge End to Nukes

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.cfm?NewsID=1401
Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service News Agency
03/09/2004

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=22745


WASHINGTON, Mar 8 (IPS) - An international group of religious and scientific leaders Monday appealed to the United States and all other nuclear states to pledge never to use nuclear weapons and to re-affirm their commitments to achieving total nuclear disarmament.

The appeal, which was signed by the head of the U.S. National Council of Churches (NCC) and the president of the international Catholic peace group Pax Christi, and 74 others -- including four Nobel laureates -- declared the weapons to be ''inherently immoral'', and expressed particular concern over U.S. plans to develop a new generation of nuclear bombs.

''Even so-called 'mini-nukes' and 'bunker-busters' would have disastrous effects'', the statement declared. ''Threatened use of nuclear weapons in the name of deterrence is morally wrong because it holds innocent people hostage for political and military purposes''.

''Why do we continue to construct weapons that have the power to destroy us'', asked Reverend Robert Edgar, general secretary of the NCC, which represents some 140,000 Protestant congregations in the United States, ''rather than build systems and structures that will save lives and help all persons reach the potential for which God created them''?
(snip)

But separating where the nexus and word "MORAL" in the basis of reality where it comes from, a couple clicks and you can come up this.

http://www.radioliberty.com/kjos2.htm

SAVING THE EARTH
Excerpts from Brave New Schools by Berit Kjos

* * * * * *
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.1 Club of Rome (an influential group of globalist leaders)

* * * * * *
In the weeks surrounding Earth Day (April 22, Lenin's birthday), students from coast to coast celebrate their spiritual connection to Mother Earth, chant prayers to the Great Spirit, and imagine politically correct answers to the unequal distribution of the world's resources. Using computers that "simulate the real world," they recreate environmental disasters and "solve" global problems.

These dubious lessons share a common aim-. to persuade students to reject Western culture and become advocates for new global beliefs and values While this agenda makes little sense to those who view America from a traditional perspective, it makes perfect sense to leaders seeking global laws that would govern land, people, education, and consumption.

A lesson in Clean Sweep, an environmental curriculum published by the Iowa Department of Education, illustrates the bias behind environmental education. The class divides into two groups: first, the world's current population seated in a circle representing the earth; second, the "unborn" people of the world. Played like musical chairs, the game instructs the first group to gather natural resources whenever the music stops.

Meanwhile, new children are "born", adding to the fast-growing "population" consuming the dwindling resources. Guess what happens. The world runs out of resources.

Like most environmental classroom exercises, the game sounds logical but distorts reality. Designed to change attitudes, it ignores scientific facts, social statistics, and renewable resources.2 Yet, what it does is far more dangerous than what it omits: it gives children an alarming view of an imagined reality. They feel the exaggerated dangers. They agree to solve the problem.
(snip)

Throwing out the meaning of words or making them mean what hypocrites would like them to mean is all a part of their public service. I don't claim to be a Moralist, but still don't think it is a good idea to be selling nuclear weapons under the cover or in the name of GOD.

The Wing-nuts, corporatist and the criminal interlopers have started quite a few of the last major military conflicts. I am quite sure the next few will not be any different

[NickB79]

192. That is a call to destroy nuclear weapons

We've been talking mainly about nuclear power plants, though.

[nolabels]

195. This is just one more bullcrap excuse

They all seem to have he mentality of children. Its dangerous, we don't really fully understand it, but lets go play with to see what we can make it do.

I makes no sense to me to start a nuclear reaction (controlled nuclear explosion) to boil water so some damn fool across town can have a cup of hot water for his tea.

The logic they give for these things don't match the intentions. It's way too late, we are stuck with a lot of this stuff for the next ten thousand plus years so people like Secret Dick can make his effing buddies lots of money. What a beautiful trade off



http://www.chernobyl.com/chernobylphotos.htm



http://www.brama.com/ukraine/cbyl.html

[treepig]

197. maybe you should say "i don't really understand it"

"i fear what i'm ignorant of, so let's please ban it"

now that's the mentality of a child.

in reality, things nuclear are understood in excruciating detail.

btw, do you tolerate thousands of controlled explosions in the engine of your car every minute? or you just say, "wow, that's way too damn dangerous" and ride your bike everywhere?

[nolabels]

204. I understand it well enough to know that its in the minus column

when it comes to benefits / risk are weighed out.

By the time, if and when the get to that point, of managing the waste is done we will have much more time, energy and effort involved in just its care than we ever gained from its use.

[Ediacara]

207. we'll spend more energy managing it than we got from using it?

Are you kidding.

Hmmmm....

E=mc²

Ya, that and more is spent trucking it across the country and into a halite deposit....

[NickB79]

198. No excuse

"It makes no sense to me to start a nuclear reaction (controlled nuclear explosion) to boil water so some damn fool across town can have a cup of hot water for his tea."

Yeah, it also makes no sense to use it to power hospitals, schools, office buildings, heat people's homes, cook their food, run factories, etc. I mean, we really don't need all that either, do we? What other fuel source is there that could replace nuclear in the near future? We already rely on it for 20% of our electricity needs, with coal used for another 70% or so. How many thousands more coal-fired plants, with their resultant toxic ash, smoke, and strip-mining operations would we have to build to replace all the reactors around today? How many more people would have to die because of the ash and smoke released? As has already been stated many times in this thread, tens of thousands of people die every year because of coal-fired plant emissions, FAR more than have ever been documented to have died from exposure to nuclear reactors. It's wonderful to work to reduce power consumption and use more solar, wind and biomass, but those can only put a small dent in our power requirements. As our energy needs grow, the only two options we currently have on this planet to supply our energy needs (especially after Peak Oil hits) are coal or nuclear. It is choosing the lesser of two evils, but I'd go with nuclear.

"It's way too late, we are stuck with a lot of this stuff for the next ten thousand plus years"

Read up on breeder reactor technology. The resultant nuclear waste is fed back into the reactors to be recycled and produce even more energy. With widespread usage, we could actually start REDUCING the amount of nuclear waste, burning up the waste we currently store and bury to produce energy instead. There will always be some nuclear waste left, but far less than the amount of toxic coal ash produced every year here in the US, and thus much more managable.

I'm curious, does anyone know what France's situation is with nuclear waste disposal? I recall reading they produce up to 90% of their power via nuclear reactors, and I think they use breeder reactors to minimize nuclear waste. Anyone know for sure about this?

[nolabels]

223. I confess, I am politicized

But haven't they been talking about breeder reactors for a couple decades now, so where are they?

My point is they now have ungodly tons of the waste that is contaminating all this other stuff, and no way to get rid of it.

Then they have this great idea to put it in some seeping salt basin cave just couple hundred miles from the 2nd largest metropolis in the US (and even closer to me, thank you very much)

If you ask me, none of them have the greatest track record for safety

If they would have put the same amount of money into solar technology it would have already been viable, but solar is not sexy and centrally controllable so they won't. Like I said I am politicized, but not in the helpless way

On Edit: how many have been killed by a solar panel, also?

Btw, if some people can post 300+ about the "we told you so draft" in one night, I feel a little extra frog couldn't hurt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

187. it's a well known in the science community that frogs are the barometric

indicators as to the health of our environment.

[seventhson]

190. Yes it is Elsewhere's Daughter!

and I love DK too!

He would listen.

[JusticeForAll]

193. God I wish these frogs would just die already

or at least this thread....

OK, seriously...I haven't been following the Dino/7th exchange, nor care to...when I originally read the thread it appeared that the frogs escaped somehow from supervision and were not found again. Are they still hoppin? Did we get more photos?

[Huxley]

200. This is not a three headed frog...

Hi, I lurk here occasionally but felt the need to register so I could comment on this so-called 3-headed frog. The images are of three normal frogs. The two large ones are grasping the smaller one in a mating hold called amplexus. Normally, amplexus just involves a male and female frog (male on top) but in their earnest to breed, multiple frogs may get into a tangled situation such as this. Amplecting frogs do not separate readily (even when handled), as the grasp is usually very tight. There are 9 legs visible among the photographs, and the other three would be visible too if there was a ventral (belly) shot.

Here are some images that I've labeled to make this clearer:
(The frogs are numbered 1, 2, & 3 and I've color-coded the limbs respectively. L=left R=right F=front R=rear)

http://home.columbus.rr.com/frogguy/images/amplexus%201.bmp
http://home.columbus.rr.com/frogguy/images/amplexus2.bmp
http://home.columbus.rr.com/frogguy/images/amplexus3.bmp
http://home.columbus.rr.com/frogguy/images/amplexus4.bmp

[treepig]

202. welcome, and a complaint right off the bat

why oh why didn't you register a couple of days ago, present the most reasonable post yet, and prevent this whole thread from the get-go?

:silly:

[Emperor_Norton_II]

203. Praise Zeus! Rationality at last!

You are a God among insects, O n00b, and we bid you welcome.

[Ediacara]

205. WELCOME

And thanks for the fantastic post. I am having trouble with the picture links though, am I the only one?

[Ediacara]

206. ok, fixed it

Mozilla didn't like the images so it came up as text, but when I copied and pasted the links into IE (BLECH!) they showed up.

And in the time it's taken me to write this mostl, three popups have popped up.

DAMN INTERNET EXPLORER!!!

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

209. THanks for a fascinating post

& I guess this would explain it why they haven't been able to find it since!

[seventhson]

211. According to whom?

This is YOUR analysis of the pictures but you have not examined the FROG?

YOU NEED A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT. I think, to nail this like that.

[salin]

212. It is pretty convincing

explanation and photos with diagrams.

[Ediacara]

218. You're completely wrong!

I admit it, I'm not an expert on amphibians.

Now there is an amphibian expert and you still insist that it's a horrible mutant caused by a leaking nuclear power plant? Why? You're clearly wrong! Where's the reference to the leaking btw?

Anyway, a number of other people have come to this same conclusion:

here and here and here and here and here and here.

You should let this thread die...

[Huxley]

220. according to me

I've seen enough frogs amplexed that I know what amplexus looks like. This is amplexus. I know a picture of frogs in amplexus as readily as I recognize John Wilkinson's name. Trust me on this.

Cheerio.

[seventhson]

214. THIS frog expert differs with you

The Independent UK March 5, 2004:


"At first we just thought it was three few frogs piled on top of each other but then it leapt up at us as one thing. The skin of the three heads all seemed to be one piece of skin,"

John Wilkinson, a frog ecologist at the Open University, said it appeared, from pictures taken before the escape, to be an extremely unusual find. "I have certainly never seen anything like it before. It seems to be an example of Siamese birth whereby three individual animals all have arisen from the same fertilised embryo but they haven't divided properly. We know this can happen because it happens
in other animals," he said. "I do retain some scepticism, however. If you look at the pictures, the lower frog does appear to have different characteristics to the two other frogs. It is not unusual to find more than one male frog clinging very tightly to a female. They get very randy, as we all do, and will not let go. We are in the breeding season."

Mike Dilger, a wildlife biologist, said: "As far as I am aware it is unprecedented. Frogs have a very primitive embryology - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is something different."

He said the reason for the three-headed frog's development could have been damage to the embryo, a spontaneous mutation such as that of conjoined human twins or factors in the environment, including pollution.


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=498416

I agree that skepticism is required - but without the frog there is no definitive proof - only the eyewitness statements. ONE piece of skin APPEARS in the pictures. Now I will do sopme research on this other issue.

But whether or not there was a 3 headed rrog or NOT the issue of exposure to nuke pollution is STILL a deadly serious one tht we should ALL be VERY concerned about. We know Bush/Cheney are nuke proponenbts and profiteers. Will Kerry be? I hope not.

Now - on to research the "sticky-together" thingy. I think that experts examining the picture think it MAY be a mutant or it MAY be stuck together frogs.

But, damn, without the frog there is no evidence left to argue about the frog.

Let us move on to Strontium-90, radioiodine and YOUR HORMONES that are all f*cked up.

[Ediacara]

219. The pictures actually are very blurry

And there is no definative photos that show the frogs being connected via skin. I had said this probably 200 posts ago. Also, if it hopped as one unit, it was most surely the female doing the hopping with the males still firmly attached.

In any case... that frog expert doesn't actually disagree, he says that it looks like amplexus, and it does not look like they were actually attached. You should read what you post, you'd look less silly.

[seventhson]

221. He says no such thing. Damn!

John Wilkinson, a frog ecologist at the Open University, said it appeared, from pictures taken before the escape, to be an extremely unusual find. "I have certainly never seen anything like it before. It seems to be an example of Siamese birth whereby three individual animals all have arisen from the same fertilised embryo but they haven't divided properly. We know this can happen because it happens
in other animals,"

Who do you think you are fooling?

[Ediacara]

224. awww more selective quotation

Try reading the rest of what hea says....

[DoveTurnedHawk]

217. THANK YOU

Hopefully, your post will kill this ridiculous thread.

DTH

[seventhson]

222. It is conjecture on his part

it resolves NOTHING!

The dangers of radiation from nuclear reactor emissions continues to endanger us all severely.

[Ediacara]

225. you're just wrong

Give it up.

[treepig]

226. basically, the only danger appears to be

that one would engage in a threesome in public near a day care center.

i submit that this is more of a behavioral problem than a result of a medical crisis

in any event, a google image search on amplexus reveals that pictures of frog sex on the internet are almost as common as those portraying human sex (of course, i'm only estimating the prevalence of the latter, not having encountered it myself, but i've heard rumors . . .)

[Demonaut]

201. ok, this thread has to DIE

it done.........................................I killed it

[Desertrose]

208. OK- haven't read all this- but after TMI, I had oak leaves

on my old oak trees that were 14"!

At the time, we were less than 40 miles from Three Mile Island and the prevailing winds were in our direction...that summer the leaves on my oak trees were all freaking huge!! Usually the leaves were maybe around 8-9"....

:shrug:

Lived close to a couple of nuke power plants and there were a fair number of oddities as I recall....

FWIW

Peace
DR

[seventhson]

210. I saw white buttercups near the effluent pipes at MY friendly

neighborhood mutant cancer generator

Never saw THAT ANYWHERE else.

[tobius]

215. Finally, some proof. nt

[DoveTurnedHawk]

216. How About Pink Elephants? (eom)

DTH

[seventhson]

227. To Those who Promote Nuclear Power, this is a GOOD lesson!

Whether the 3 headed frog was a mutation or something else, the dangers of nuclear power are not going to recede.

Nor are the excellent scientists and doctors who are demonstrating this danger daily.

Halliburton, Bush. Cheney et al. and the nuclear industry will do ANYTHING to convincee people that it is safe or even GOOD for you.

There is plenty of evidence of it on this thread.

I have sited an EPA report which documents that EVERY ONE OF US has been dosed with radionuclides produced by the nuclear industry - whether it is a commercial reactor down the road or upstream, whether it is a military or weapons facility hidden behind fences - or whether it is a nuclear bomb test done above or beneath the ground or ocean.

YOU have been dosed.

The studies prove that this radiation is damaging to you.

No matter what proponents say -- you must remember that the HUGE military corporations basically control the nuclear industry.

They do not want people to know about the dangers. They will try to discredit opponents at every turn, and they will deny deny deny and ridicule ANYONE who suggests that this stuff is not completely safe and worth whatever risk may exists.

It isn't.

It is killing people.

Many people. Infants. Old people.

It is criminal and a violation of our human rights.

When the government authorized that YOU be dosed with radiation did you consent?

Did you even KNOW?

Now that you know are you happy about it?

When your child is diganosed with ADHD or your sister with bipolar disorder do you ever wonder if there is an environmental factor causing the screwing up of their hormones?

When your thyroid was removed or your childhood friend died of leukemia or your cousin of brain or bone or breast cancer -- did the government say "we're sorry we dosed your friend or your cousin?"

No, they will not admit it - though they ackowledge that we were all dosed.

I believe that the government and the industry KNOWS completely what they are doing. They know millions are affected and dying from the cancer associated with radiation. They know it is damaging our hormonal systems and aging us and causing chronic fatigue and pain.

If proven in court it would shut down the industry with the TRILLIOMS in damages they would be liable for.

So they relenetlessly puch the disinformation.

I may not have been able to examine this frog to prove it was a product of the local leaky nuke plant.

But I am GLAD that this discussion was had whether or NOT the frog was a mutant.

The pictures sure LOOK like a mutant head to me.

I urge all to educate themselves and NOT put your heads in the sand.

Since you now know you have been dosed - it ia good idea to learn what it may do to you and how you can heal or protect yourself as much as possible.

I eat lots of blueberries and Yogurt, for example. It really does help. Even if just a little. Antioxidants. Omega oils. Flax.

[Ediacara]

231. Once again, it's not a three headed frog

It is three frogs in amplexus (probable) or conjoined triplets (possible but unlikely).

In any case, you're right, we've all been "dosed" by extra radiation but 99.999999999% of that is from bombs, from accidents, and from "experiments." That 0.000000001% of extra radiation could be from nuclear power plants, but it's so negligable that, as has been said time and time again, you'd recieve more radiation flying in an airplace cross-country.

You are welcome to try to prove me wrong: like I suggested before, you should buy your own Geiger Counter and take a tour of a nuclear power plant. Somehow I doubt you'll actually do this though.....

[treepig]

233. ok, if you keep spouting off nonsense, i'll take the bait . . .

your heroes at radiation.org are described here:

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


these people do have a smattering of peer-reviewed papers, such as this one (which is their most recent):

Sci Total Environ. 2003 Dec 30;317(1-3):37-51.

An unexpected rise in strontium-90 in US deciduous teeth in the 1990s.

Mangano JJ, Gould JM, Sternglass EJ, Sherman JD, McDonnell W.

Radiation and Public Health Project, 786 Carroll Street, #9, Brooklyn, NY 11215, USA.

For several decades, the United States has been without an ongoing program measuring levels of fission products in the body. Strontium-90 (Sr-90) concentrations in 2089 deciduous (baby) teeth, mostly from persons living near nuclear power reactors, reveal that average levels rose 48.5% for persons born in the late 1990s compared to those born in the late 1980s. This trend represents the first sustained increase since the early 1960s, before atmospheric weapons tests were banned. The trend was consistent for each of the five states for which at least 130 teeth are available. The highest averages were found in southeastern Pennsylvania, and the lowest in California (San Francisco and Sacramento), neither of which is near an operating nuclear reactor. In each state studied, the average Sr-90 concentration is highest in counties situated closest to nuclear reactors. It is likely that, 40 years after large-scale atmospheric atomic bomb tests ended, much of the current in-body radioactivity represents nuclear reactor emissions.

aside from the issue of independent verification - which is hardly possible when every member of the foundation, except for "Dr. Brown who is co-author of Profiles in Power: The Antinuclear Movement and the Dawn of the Solar Age and a Fellow of the World Business Academy" - is a co-author on the same paper, the authors themselves list several limitations of their work.

instead of screaming "cancer, death, the end of civilization" here is what they say in the paper:

This report represents the first large-scale study of US in vivo levels of radioactivity in several decades. Although the initial findings presented here are important ones, they raise various questions that should be addressed in future research.

Other unexplored factors may help explain the temporal trends affected here. For example, the current study collected auxiliary data on mother's age at delivery and source of drinking water. Analyzing results by basic characteristics such as gender and race can be performed in future studies. Some factors that affect in vivo levels are already known. For example, children who are breast-fed accumulate lower Sr-90 concentrations than do bottle-fed infants (). Other dietary differences and their effects on Sr-90 levels can be further explored in future research.

Despite the consistency of results across geographic areas, substantial numbers of teeth were tested from only 5 of 50 US states. More teeth from other states would enhance knowledge about recent patterns of in vivo radioactivity. For example, 19 of the 50 US states (many in the western US) have no operating nuclear reactors, and may display patterns of Sr-90 different than the five already analyzed. The comparison could be extended to nations with no operating nuclear reactors (such as the Philippino teeth mentioned in this report). Testing the hypothesis that these states have lower levels of Sr-90 would be appropriate and necessary in future reporting of results.

The study did not collect sufficient teeth to compare local Sr-90 levels before and after a nuclear reactor opens. The hypothesis that opening a reactor will raise average in vivo concentrations and closing a reactor will reduce them should be tested.

The data presented herein describe past and current patterns of radioactivity in children's teeth. The three in vivo programs of measuring Sr-90 in US teeth and bones were never accompanied by any reports assessing potential health risks from this radioactivity. . . . Thus, comparing radioactivity and health patterns should be central to any follow-up of this analysis.

NOTE THAT THE AUTHORS THEMSELVES EXPLICITLY SAY THAT NO CORRELATION HAS BEEN MADE BETWEEN RADIOACTIVITY IN CHILDREN'S TEETH AND HEALTH RISKS!!!!!!

NOTE THAT THE AUTHORS THEMSELVES EXPLICITLY SAY THAT NO CORRELATION HAS BEEN MADE BETWEEN RADIOACTIVITY IN CHILDREN'S TEETH AND HEALTH RISKS!!!!!!

NOTE THAT THE AUTHORS THEMSELVES EXPLICITLY SAY THAT NO CORRELATION HAS BEEN MADE BETWEEN RADIOACTIVITY IN CHILDREN'S TEETH AND HEALTH RISKS!!!!!!



yeah, maybe if you went and read the studies you'd quit making such an ass of yourself

[salin]

229. Is there anyway

that this discussion - which has gone on to where the thread is clearly not latest breaking news - be moved to another forum? To GD, environment, etc.?

It isn't a story that has new developments every couple of hours - that needs to be added to from that standpoint - but a discussion by a few of an item that is getting quite old in LBN terms. Not suggesting cutting off discussion - just moving it so it doesn't keep kicking other items off the front page... which these days happens very quickly.

[Moderator]

234. People come to LBN to read late breaking news

In the spirit of this, please feel free to re-initiate this discussion in another forum. I think being in LBN for five days has given everyone sufficient time to post their opinions on it in this forum. Thanks.