Radioactive Nests of Hanford Wasps are Science Fact

[DUreader]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0815-08.htm


Published on Friday, August 15, 2003 by the Tri-City Herald (Kennewick, Wash)
Radioactive Nests of Hanford Wasps are Science
Fact
by John Stang

Just think of what of the wasp larvae of H Reactor could grow up to be.

Maybe something out of a Japanese monster flick.

But Bechtel Hanford is tackling the radioactive mud dauber wasps nests of Hanford's H Reactor
complex, while trying to entice the insects to use nonradioactive mud for their homes.

Bechtel first discovered this menace June 26.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[goforit]

1. LOL!!!.......This is hilarious! Not only will coch roaches survuve an

apocolypse, but so will the wasps.

I do like wasps much better than roaches though.

I wonder why they are able to fend off radiation better
than humans?

Any DU Scientists out there?

[DUreader]

2. The scary part is they spread hot mud around, which dries to dust

dust becomes airborne, don't inhale

[seventhson]

7. speaking of apocalypse: FYI (not that I absolutely believe it or anything

In Revelations there are TWO references to named nuke facilities (if you are paying attention).

One is the "star" vial of poison called wormwood that poisons one third of the air, sky and water (pretty damn accurate actually -- the radiocative spew went gobal via the jetstream and we had exposure in New England). Chernobyl is Ukrainian for "wormwood"

Google Chernobyl, wormwood and revelations.

The other more cryptic reference is to "Millstone" which crashes into the sea around the time of the "great city's" destruction (which takes place in less than one hour with the people afar watching the flames of the great city as it burns)

Google "millstone" and revelations. (Millstone is the leakiest plant in America after # mile island and is 10 miles from New York and near NYC.

Scares the shit out of me.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

29. three mile island is not "10 miles from NY"..it is a couple hundred

you must mean indian point...and that is 25/30ish miles north of NYC

[seventhson]

40. Millstone is 10 miles from NY - Long Island

Hamptons. Montauk etc. and Fisher's Island NY

[The Zanti Regent]

3. Good Lord, Radioactive Wasps????

What's next?????

[catzies]

11. I, for one, welcome our new radioactive insect overlords

[Beetwasher]

13. Best...Episode...Ever!

Exellent!

[proud patriot]

37. ROFLMAO

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

[kysrsoze]

75. There are 4" long wasps in S.E. Asia - I think China

They are absolutely vicious and can kill a person. I saw a show on Discovery about them and it was the flippinest thing I've seen in a LONG time. You should see how the bees in the area actually thwart them.

[diamond14]

4. Radionuclides NEVER go away....these poisons will remain

with us forever...Uranium, Plutonium, Americium...our government denied for years that these were poisons, and NOW we know that they are very very toxic, creating cancers and disrupting cells, mutating the chemistry of the human body....

then, the government claimed that these are poisons, but they are limited to only the areas of manufacturing operations....and NOW we know that these toxins spread by soils, and water...move through soil tables, and groundwater, into drinking water and swimming areas...into plants and spread through soils...

and NOW, there is evidence that these toxins can be spread by insects, and flying insects too...which means more toxins off-site...more poisons...and these toxins can be carried for many miles to other communities, to maim and injure people genetically and kill them with cancers, birth defects and hormonal imbalances...

and bush* has already re-started the manufacture of Plutonium...wasting more of our tax money...leaving a legacy of poisons and non-degradable toxins for centuries to come....

[seventhson]

5. Insects do better due to many things --- BUT

we would hardly notice a die off of mudwasps if some of them are mutating and adapting. Many may die, like humans, -- and they may die in the egg - like humans -- but it woulddn't be on the news and Halliburton (a nuke builder) would cover it up anyway

Human beings, like all of nature, can adapt too. We get cancer and those who can better resist radiation adapt and have kids whereas millions have and will die from man-made radiation.


Andrei Sakharov predicted in the 1950's that bacteria, virsuses as well as human genes and animals -- would begin to mutate and it would be VERY BAD for humans. We cannot adapt as fast (intergenerationally) as wasps or viruses or bacteria or Lyme tick spirochetes, for example).

I had the good fortune to see a presentation on Chernobyl by the science editor of Pravda at the time (he wrote a few amazing plays about it -- One called the "Brides of Chernobyl" about birth defects and 15 month pregnacies ending in the stillbirth of monsters. I got to speak with him too. He was there when it was happening and got dosed. In his play he talks about the insects and, for example, the ants being so prolific that near Chernobyl (in the zone) fisherman would complain that the ants would march to the end of their polesa and start eating the fish before you could unhook them. Something about their exoskelton and Chitin protecting them.Really frightening. Not giants --- just EVERYWHERE chomping and radioactive and aggressive.

Hanford is like Chernobyl. It is killing us all. I happen to live in the Northeast near several leaky and deadly nuke plants and my family is sick -- I am almost died from an undiagnosable bacterial infection in my lungs - but I survived it (with herbs and meditation and antibiotics that gave me minor sezures) but I have been well ever since and my body can now beat that particular mutation.

Wasps are the same. Many may die in the nest. But those who survive will be both radioactive and , while mutated a little, stronger.

Gee !--- sounds great doesn't it?

This is the Bush Cheney population plan.

Better, fitter mutants.


See Radiation.org for more.

[AndyTiedye]

23. Nuclear Death

> I happen to live in the Northeast near several leaky and deadly nuke plants and my family is sick

GET OUT OF THERE!!

I lost both parents to brain cancer.
Lots of people in town died that way.
The "Connecticut Yankee" nuke was only a few miles away.

[seventhson]

25. That is so sad. It is leaking into Long Island Sound right now

I am sorry to hear about your parents. I too have lost friends who lived near or downwind of these plants.

The problem is that it is everwhere. The Haddam Neck (Conn. Yankee) plant is CLOSED and it is still leaking radiation from its spent fuel stored there getting into the groundwater.

I suspect that I and my family will die from complications of the exposure we suffered and continue to suffer.

However, this stuff is everywhere. We HAVE moved from the direct downwind path of the closest facility --- but there are others within a hundred miles that blow this way and that. It is in the jet stream and blowing globally. We are all exposed to deadly mutagenic and carcinogenic man-made radioistopes
on a daily basis.


I would move if I could ---- but I have insufficient $$$ to leave. And where would I go? No place is really that safe.


Farther away IS safer, though, I wish it wer3e possible and it makes me sad every day knowing my children have been damagaed beyond repair by the nuke pollution and may even die from it. They are okay today -- but tomorrow, who knows?

[havocmom]

26. And after this week's blackout

there will be a big push to sway public opinion that more toxic power plants need to be built. Sad part is, most of the public will buy it.

There seems to be serious problem in this country with connecting the dots. Maybe it is mass brain damage from radiation and toxin exposure. They will ignore all evidence of danger as long as they get their juice/gas.

The society brands the messangers as being insane while it goes down the path to destruction with eyes delibertly closed shut.

[xchrom]

6. waspzilla, waspthra, frankenwasp

i could go on...but i won't.

[seventhson]

8. Isn't George Bush a WASP?

consider the possibilities.

FrankenBush, The Wasp, Bushthra


(Sorry - couldn't resist. Bush as mutant wasp actually fits pretty well. Radiation from nuke tests in the 1950's and '60's DID irradiate Connecticut where he was born and causes add, adhd, dyslexia, and hormonal and psycvhological imbalances. See the following link:


http://rex.nci.nih.gov/INTRFCE_GIFS/radiation_fallout/radiation_131.html

Go to the individual dose calculator, enter Conn, then New Haven, then Dubya's b-day Jul;y 6, 1946).

The try anyone you know born from 1945-1963.


MUTATE DAMMIT!!!! OOOPS, I meant EVOLVE, Dammit!!!

[seventhson]

9. Dubya's dose calculation if he stayed where he was born

(you would need a calculation for wherever he was during the periods mentioned here - and this is just nuke bomb tests, it does not count exposure from leaky nuke facilities like in Texas or Hanford or Connecticut)

Here's what Bushy MAY have been exposed to according to the National Cnacer Institute website minked on my last post:

These data were produced as part of the National Cancer Institute study: Estimated Exposures and Thyroid Doses to the American People from Iodine-131 in Fallout from Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Tests.
Estimates of average (geometric means: GM) thyroid doses (rad) and associated uncertainties (geometric standard deviations: GSD) for all test series and for all tests for a person born 06-JUL-1946 in NEW HAVEN county, CT

The method used to sum the doses is described here.



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

Series: Ranger (28 Jan 1951 - 6 Feb 1951)
Series average diet milk drinker high milk consumption milk from backyard cow no milk consumption
GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD
ra 2.3E-03 11.8 3.1E-03 11.9 1.4E-03 7.2 6.1E-04 8.0


Series: Buster-Jangle (28 Oct 1951 - 29 Nov 1951)
Series average diet milk drinker high milk consumption milk from backyard cow no milk consumption
GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD
bj 1.0E-01 3.7 1.3E-01 3.7 5.9E-01 3.3 1.7E-02 2.3


Series: Tumbler-Snapper (1 Apr 1952 - 5 Jun 1952)
Series average diet milk drinker high milk consumption milk from backyard cow no milk consumption
GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD
ts 2.9E+00 3.3 3.6E+00 3.3 3.6E+00 2.9 1.9E-01 2.8


Series: Upshot-Knothole (15 Mar 1953 - 4 Jun 1953)
Series average diet milk drinker high milk consumption milk from backyard cow no milk consumption
GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD
uk 3.5E-01 3.7 1.1E+00 3.0 6.2E-01 2.8 4.0E-02 2.6


Series: Teapot (18 Feb 1955 - 15 May 1955)
Series average diet milk drinker high milk consumption milk from backyard cow no milk consumption
GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD
tp 2.4E-01 4.6 3.0E-01 4.6 5.8E-01 3.2 2.4E-02 3.4


Series: Plumbbob (28 May 1957 - 7 Oct 1957)
Series average diet milk drinker high milk consumption milk from backyard cow no milk consumption
GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD
pb 7.4E-01 4.3 1.0E+00 4.2 1.2E+00 4.1 5.7E-02 3.4


Series: Hardtack Phase II (19 Sep 1958 - 26 Oct 1958)
Series average diet milk drinker high milk consumption milk from backyard cow no milk consumption
GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD
ht 0.0E+00 0.0 0.0E+00 0.0 0.0E+00 0.0 0.0E+00 0.0


Series: Underground Era (15 Sep 1961 - 18 Dec 1970)
Series average diet milk drinker high milk consumption milk from backyard cow no milk consumption
GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD
ue 6.5E-04 13.2 8.8E-04 13.2 5.2E-03 11.3 1.8E-04 9.9


All Series:
Series average diet milk drinker high milk consumption milk from backyard cow no milk consumption
GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD GM GSD
Total 6.2E+00 2.7 8.8E+00 2.5 9.3E+00 2.3 4.4E-01 2.1

[diamond14]

10. our government studied Iodine-131, why NOT Plutonium, Uranium

and a bunch of other radionuclides...it seems really ODD that all these government agencies focussed SO MUCH EFFORT on I-131....yet totally ignore the other radionuclides, and worse, the synergistic effects of MANY radionuclides all at once on human beings and unborn children....could it be that might make people really understand THE TRUTH....

the TRUTH is:

America's HATE is so vicious, we are willing to spend TRILLIONS of dollars on nuclear weapons to vaporize innocent civilians world-wide...

....by creating and using nuclear bombs....WE POISONED OURSELVES....

[seventhson]

14. amen

I agree. It is all coverup and is getting worse daily.

See radiation.org y'all.

PLEASE

You need to know to protect yourself.

Radiation.org

[diamond14]

19. it's really a horror...much more than most people recognize...

our government (specifically our "department of defense", and "department of energy" which previously was called the Atomic Energy Commission...and actually is simply an extension of 'department of defense)...why not the 'department of war' and the 'department of atomic bombs' which is the reality of these departments...anyways, OUR government has been covering up the realities of NUCLEAR stuff ever since Plutonium was CREATED by our government in the mid-1940's....there has been little truth to any of it...and most Americans just do not even try to become educated in NUCLEAR dangers....yet their children become deformed, genetically damaged, hormonally damaged, ADD, and all that...yet most Americans are sheeple who accept this and fail to object in any way to the waste, and the health effects on their children, and the poisoning of America...



radiation.org (Radiation Public Health Project, Inc) is listed as a resource here too....

http://prop1.org/prop1/azantink.htm#r

these web pages come from the Protestors in front of the White House
(bush* hates them)
http://prop1.org/
(look under the Nuclear button at bottom)

[seventhson]

22. 30,000 plus DUers and

thia issue is almost unknown...


yet we are ALL being exposed...

and most of us have no clue either that it is happening, why it is happening or that the BFEE WANTS us weak and disabled by it.

REMEMBER that Cheney's Halliburtin is a nuke company. REMEMBER this.

They don't need Auschwitzes anymore...

This shit will kill us

[juajen]

194. Well, you sure scared the hell out of me

Now, what can we do about it?

[seventhson]

195. First, become educated

There are precautions you can take and even dietary ways to protect your thyroid and your bones, blood, and teeth.

Staying away from radioactive emission pipes in bodies of water is important (this is where we were damaged, we swam in contaminated water (at a public swimming area). Since radiation in the water cannot be detected without a dosimeter, (and the government does NOT generally monitor releases into the water or does not disclose the presence or test the water for radionucleides the way the RPHP does), it is best to avoid such bodies of water altogether.


Calcium protects against the absorption of strontim 90 -- so if you have a good diet of calcium then the strontium will not be as likely to be absorbed into the system and assimilated into the bones where it will remain for years continuing to damage cells and then be spread out through the blood.

Radioiodine also is absorbed by the thyroid if you are low on iodine. Iodine rich foods will protect you and potassium iodide taken orally to protect the thyoid is a good idea IMO all the time (since you never know when you are being dosed since the industry lies all the time)and a supply in the event of a known leak caused by accident or attack (both calcium and potssium iodide) should be with you at all times.

In terms of help after exposure: I suggest having your thyroid checked by an MD who has experience with sub-clinical and metabolic testing.

See the websiter belonging to the Broda Barnes Foundation for details or google hypothyroidism, metabolic test, and subclinical.

Problem is that most blood tests used do not always pick up damaged thyroids and metabolic (basal body temperatire tests) will.

So if you live near or downwind of a leaky reactor, and are feeling chronically fatigued, suffer bad PMS pain, fybromyalgia, and/or, for example, suffer chronic sore throats, rashes and even memory lapses -- these are ALL symptoms of hypothyroidism and damaged hormonal systems - and low immune system functioning. It can be subtle but too often is acute and no doctors usually "get" it so you have to go to someone who has experience in this type of diagnosis (The Broda Barnes Foundation has a state by state list of Doctors they refer folks to who are familiar and will treat this condition)

If you are feeling ill and you want more info DUMail me.

In the event of a release which is blowing over you

[OldCurmudgeon]

18. it's because

iodine is taken up by the body and concentrated in the thyroid. So radio-iodine will give you an extra high dose in one small part of your body and lead to thyroid cancer.

Other elements are spread out more when they get into the body, they aren't concentrated in a particular spot, and tend to be excreted after a while.

[diamond14]

20. 'tend to be excreted"...NO...inhaled Plutonium will stay in your

body for the rest of your short life....creating cancers....

the real reason they study Iodine is because it sound so nice....

like Morton's Iodized Salt....who can get upset at that????

[seventhson]

69. Not quite, Curmudgeon

Iodine 131 does concentrate in the thyroid.

But other radioisotpes DO get concentrated in other body parts and are NOT excreted. They are often absorbed and stay there. Plutonium gets absorbed in the lungs, Strontium 90 in the bones and teeth and later, as it breaks down, the soft tissues -- and radioactive cesium goes to the reproductive organs and is absorbed there causing mutations and damage (bad PMS and endometriosis or fibromyalgia being a result)

I needed to set that straight.

SOME do pass on through and get excreted -- but I imagine that stomach and colon cancer also may result as it passes.

[pfitz59]

12. Time for a '60's scarefest!

"Them!", "Attack of the Black Scorpion", "Godzilla", etc! Bring back giant mutant lizards and insects!

[seventhson]

15. http://radiation.org/

http://radiation.org/

Read the linked articles too!!!

If you don't know this stuff then you really do not understand the Bush depopulation program

[pfitz59]

64. I'm talking: Mutant Insect Horror Shows!

japanese mid-sixties monster flicks. "Atack of the Glowing Mud-dauber!"

[seventhson]

16. Revelations and the Prophet's Chernobyl prediction SCARY

http://www.richeast.org/htwm/CHERNOBYL/Chernobyl.html

[seventhson]

17. Millstone and Revelations

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Millstone+Revelations&btnG=Google+Search

and more:

http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/steinbergjulaug98.htm

[seventhson]

21. More links on mutations and disease

http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~ron-anne/bombtest.htm

PLEASE read and learn

[seventhson]

24. since there are allegations that nuke plant problem caused blackout

I thought I'd kick this.

Also I highly recommend the last link at my post 21 above: SARS, the rashes and weird pneumonias killing old folks and our troops --- ALL may be related to this.


You NEED this info for yourself and your families

[tom_paine]

111. Also acting on this is global warming

creating more heat and energy and warm, moist places and above all the spiralling population which currently acts as 6,000,000,000 living petrie dishes crowded together in a fashion not seen before on the Earth.

Bad juju.

[seventhson]

141. Good Point Tom Paine

All of the consitions are ripe for things like SARS which, for those who don't know, originated next to a leaky nuclear facility in Guangdong Province on Daya Bay, China. Google it for details.

Very few except those in the anitnuke scientific community are discussing these mutations. But I have lost several friends already to them --- we even lost Kermit the Frog awhile back (he lived near the leaky New Jersey reactors)- Jim Henson.

More will die.

There are preventive steps YOU can take.

But we all need to look at shutting down ALL the plants NOW!!!

[DinahMoeHum]

27. You mean if I get stung I could turn into SUPERWASP????

Shades of Spiderman!!!

Bwahahahahahahahahaaa!!!!

:evilgrin:

[treepig]

28. i realize people who post in threads such as this one

are more interested in fantasy then reality, so i won't say anything except to refer interested readers to threads where nuclear-related issues are being discussed in a slightly more sane manner:

burning coal introduces more radioactivity into the enviroment than nuclear power does:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=169

low levels of radiation (a slightly radioactive hornets nest perhaps?) can actually improve your health:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=370

[seventhson]

30. Halliburton disinfo BS

I suppose that you work for a nuke operator?

If folks haven't read the scientiic reports and articles linked at radiation.org, they might be fooled by the nuke comapny lies.

[treepig]

31. i see you choose not to intelligently rebut any of the information

provided at the links i provided. instead you continue to cite a pseudo-scientific organization like 'radiation.org.' this group is really a political advocacy organization that selectively culls the scientific literature to find studies that support their point of view, much like mr. bush selectively culled the intelligence data to support his attack against iraq. i suppose with freedom of speeach and all that, both have the perfect right to do so - and i suspect i have still have the right to point out the fallacies involved.

btw, be sure to update your conspiracy files to now include Scientific American in the nuke operator-halliburton-treepig axis of evil - here's a bit from their most recent article:

If dioxin and ionizing radiation cause cancer, then it stands to reason that less exposure to them should improve public health. If mercury, lead and PCBs impair intellectual development, then less should be more. But a growing body of data suggests that environmental contaminants may not always be poisonous--they may actually be good for you at low levels.

Called hormesis, this phenomenon appears to be primarily an adaptive response to stress, says toxicologist Edward J. Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The stress triggers cellular repair and maintenance systems. A modest amount of overcompensation then produces the low-dose effect, which is often beneficial....continued at Scientific American Digital

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00053833-173D-1F30-9AD380A84189F2D7&ref=sciam

[seventhson]

33. Yes, mutating us might improve us

cleft palates, dwarfism, gigantism, weeding out those prone to cancer, etc.

THAT would be an improvement, right? the article says (in what little I could get since I am not a subscriber) is that there MAY be a strengthening of the system due to stress. The article is titled or subtitled: what doesn't kill us makes it stronger.

So it is killing me and MY family and that's okay with you since it is culling the herd of weaklings?


The people at Radiation.org do their own epridemiological studies.They publish in peer review journals. They are trying to get us to know the truth about lies like the oine's the nuke indistry and Haloiburton spew.

You are spewing disinformation, pal. Not ewven the article really says what you imply: that rarediation is good for us.

Tell that toi my friends and relatives and loved ones who lived near these plants and died of brain and bone cancer.

That is a probable death for me as well and my wife and maybe even my children.


Speaking of Scientific American, financing for the media and nuke corporations often come from the same sources: multinational banking interests and interlocking directorates.

A quick search found these details on Scientific American.

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dwho%2bowns%2bScientific%2bAmerican%2bmagazine%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=who+owns+Scientific+American+magazine&u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d298a3fd6398a3fd63%26sid%3d398a3fd6398a3fd63%26qid%3d8048994F1341774A8CAF7A76B4372AF6%26io%3d6%26sv%3dza5cb0db2%26ask%3dwho%2bowns%2bScientific%2bAmerican%2bmagazine%26uip%3d98a3fd63%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dForbes.com%2b-%2bMagazine%2bArticle%26ac%3d4%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.forbes.com%2fglobal%2f1998%2f0601%2f0105023a_print.html&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.forbes.com%2fglobal%2f1998%2f0601%2f0105023a_print.html


Jeesh, who ya ttryin' to fool? Everybody knows the media is bought out by the energy companies.

[treepig]

34. what about the national institutes of health?

are they part of the conspiracy too?

if not, consult their search engine at

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

and you will get a more balanced perspective. of course, you can still selectively cull the studies you find to support your particular views - for example, radiation.org's very own jay m gould does indeed have peer-reviewed papers published. i haven't had time to review them myself, but i suspect they must rise to a higher standard that the garbage he presents at radiation.org, such as this graph:



"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."

if this guy tries to publish stuff like this, i can see why he needs a website to seek funding since no reputable funding agency would touch him with a ten foot pole.

first, why is mortality expected to continually decrease by 2% a year? the auther provides no justification for this assumption. the pre-1950's period was characterized by many advances where 'easy' increases in lifespan were achieved - such as the control of infectious disease through public works projects.

second, is the author unaware of the high levels of radiation people were exposed to pre-1950 when mortality was dropping rapidly?. people had uraniun-containing dentures, radium coated glow in the dark instrument panels, had x-rays for routine purposes such as checking the fit of a shoe, etc. etc. if anything, this trend actually supports the hormetic effects of low levels of radiation (once again, since you apparently haven't been able to find it, here's a relevent thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=370 )

third, deleterious effects are attributed to bomb testing not to nuclear power plants (as an aside, a coal burning plant is allowed to release 100 time more radioactive isotopes than a nuclear power plant, see this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=169 thread).

fourth, even with bomb testing, environmental levels of radioactive isotopes have risen by miniscule amounts compared to background levels. if you calculate man-made release of radioisotopes, they could not even increase the levels enough to move one step up the color range given here:



the above map just shows natural uranium (mostly U-238), after it sits around for a while (say a billion years), a whole range of decay products accumulate naturally, and are plentiful in your backyard (everything) and basement (mostly radon):



if your paranoia about radiation was correct, there should be at least ten times more cancer in the southwest than florida - why isn't there?

fifth, there are many reasonable explanations for the post-1950 'excess deaths' which include poor diet (the rise of the fast food chains), lack of excerise due to office vs factory work and sitting in front of a tv endlessly, swamping the enviroment with cancer-causing hormones from cattle feed (etc), over-use of pesticides . . .

[seventhson]

35. Very well organized Bullshit. Who DO you work for?

Actually -

a few points-

Gould is one of the most respected epidemiologists in the country. I trust his analysis. But there's more. The deaths as projected have been verified by pother studies. I will find one of the key ones recently released when I have a few nminbutes to search my files.

I have posted it here before.

You are obviously a shill for the industry.

I don't support coal as the best alternative. i support a dramatic shift of priorities to conservation and infrasctructure chanages in the US and globally. We are in crisis globally and if we ignore it we will be killing our children.


Now your quick shark attack on my friends at radiation.org may convince some here (without the ability to judge for themselves) that your expertise and fancy presentation are worthy of deference.

I have been involved in nuke litigation so I know how your PR mechanisms work.

The first and biggest lie is that radiation is good for you and that coal and even your own teddy bear is more dangerous.

Last time I checked, however, the most dangerous man-made radionucleides like Stontium 90 and iodine 191 do NOT come from coal or or teddy bears or even granite.

YES there is naturtal vbackground radiation: we have been mutating and evolving in response to it for billions of years.

But in one or two generations we are altering the genetics of humnity forever.

You use the oldest whoring tactic of calling me paranoid:

I have a doctor's diagnosis of BOTH my children and wife that they have radiation-related diseases that have caused damage to their nervous systems, metabolic systems, endocrine systems and their immune system (all interrelated and all damaged due to emissions from a commercial nuke plant where we used to reside).

I am a lawyer who has been involved in medical litigation regarding workers in nuke facilities as well as NRC liceensing hearings PLUS I worked on Capitol Hill for a Congressmen on and environmental subcommittee and participated in hearings on the safety of commercial plants. I know the doctors and engineers and scientists at the radiation and puiblic health project (which runs radiation.org) personally and have interviewed several of them as a journalist.

Imagine if your children had life threatening illnesses and friends and relations had died diagnosed with nuclear related cancer -- and your doctors are telling youy this is what the cause is.

Are YOU a doctor? An epidemiologist? Or are you and engineer? A PR guy for the nuke industry.


I will try to find more of the studdies whiuch support Gould. In the meantime I urge people to read the links at the site and especially the writings of Dr. Ernest Sternglass - a protege of Einstein, Director of the Apollo Lunar Scientific Station Project for Westinghouse, and the man who almost single handedly convinced JFK to stop nuke tersting (above ground) because it was causing many thoiusands of spontaneous abortions and miscarriages as American women were exposed to the clouds drifting across America full of poison.


Read this for youirself and do not trust ANY PR from the industry.

SHUT THEM ALL DOWN!!!!

[NickB79]

38. Treepig asked 5 reasonable questions

You answered zero. Enough said.

[seventhson]

39. Oh? Tag team , huh? 5 QUESTIONS?

Not really. He posited five positions which are not related to what I posted and which claim factsa wioth no evidence or links (othet than to other threads where he defends his position with no facts,

So, if you want to defend those who have sickened my family and those who defend them --- and I am obliged to fight back in the event I look like I am dodging -- then HERE:

First: In this instance the "auther" of the thread actually is arguing that the mortality rates should be decreasing MORE then 2% which would make the epidemiological analysis of radiation related deaths even HIGHER. I asked the "auther" if he was an epidemiologist so that his critique has some validity maybe --- but the analyses are explained in detail in the publications linked. The projected advances of 2% are projected expectations and averages based on trends he has documented. But you have to read his studies to understand these. The "auther" does not want you to read them so he tries to ridicule the author with a popint that actually strengthens my position. Weak.


second : Nothing supports the alleged hormetic effect of radiation spouted about in another thread by the same "auther". How many people do you say had radioactive dentures and radioactive lighted panels. Whaaaa???? (apologies to Jon Stewart). How many of these were related to the splitting of the atom for the first time in 1945??? NONE of them. I am not talking about radiation ALTREADY in the environment (Which WAS causing lots of damage as Dr. Alice Stewart documented in her studies of pregnant women and XRays) But these would be minimal compared to exposure of the whole population to radiation from nuke tests and plants and proecessing facilities, etc.. Again - I asked for links or studies documenting thisa use or exposure. He has posted none. It is another nonargument argument with no facts to backhim up. (which shows hoiw desperate the argument is. With 65 million deaths predicted by a scientific team for the European Union from man made radioactive enissions and effluents, this is a HUGE issue that they are trying to keep the lid on.



Third - no question here -- just false facts. The study I cited is from ALL exposures - inclusding commercial facilities. The chart HE cites is for nuke tests === but the studies point is that all sources of man-made radiation exposure is dangerous. And there are MORE chjarts at the site to back that up. He is simply lying, frankly, to get people not to pay attention. It is a complex subject and very painful. Especially if you have kids getting ona scvhoolbus downwind of a nuke facilit as millions in the NE do. He has no direct source regarding coal --- but again -- we are NOT talking about background or natural radiation in the environment -- we are talking about ADDING man-made radioisotopes that do not otherwise exist in nature - not in coal, not in granite , not in natural uranium even. This is TOTALLY NEW gene-mutating elements that did not exist in nature before 1945 when the atom was first split. He is obfuscating big time and full of shit nd he knows it.





Fourth: again - natural radiation is NOT the subject here. Yet he tries to make IT the subject of my alleged "paranoia" . And where in the cuuck did he get these charts if he is not an industry shill? They toitally don't relate at all. I suppose that if there was a study of the urnaium in Fl;orida (if his graphs are right) then maybe there WOULD be a raise there. But this has nothing to do with my argument and proves nothing. It is the Depleted Uranium (made from enriched Uranium) that is really fucking dangerous. This meager natural uranium has NOTHING to do with Strontium 90 or Iodine 191 or one of the 130 other toxic radionucleides leaked out of nuke plants daily into our rivers, streams and oceans and emitted into the air over our heads.

Fifth: The fifth one contradicts his first one. He says at first that there should be a LOWER mortality rate due to medical progress etc -- then says the excess deaths (which he basically denied as false data) arew real but are NOT caused by radiation in the environment but are caused by all the other bad things we do. Well how in the fuck does he know. It is pure conjecture on his part. The projected trends are for the improvements in lots of things - including medical care and education. But you must read the study to see how these issues are factored in. This is didinformation at its baldest:

DON'T READ THE STUDIES. THEY ARE BULLSHIT. AND IF THEY ARE TRUE IT IS YOUR FAULT BECAUSE YOU WATCHED TOO MUCH TV, DRANK TOO MUCH, SMOKED TOO MUCH, ATE SHIT AND DIED. DON;T B;LAME THE MEN BEHIND THE CURTAIN. DON'T BLAME CHENEY. DON'T BLAME BUSH. DON'T BLAME HALLIBURTON AND GE AND BECHTEL AND CARLYLE AND ROCKEFELLER OR WALL STREET OR ANYONE BUT YOURSELVES>

Because if your kid gets leukemia or brain canvcer or your mom gets breast cancer and your dad prostate cancer and DIES it is YOUR FAULT .

IT IS NOT THE RADIATION MUTATING YOUR CELLS WHEN WE EXPOSE YOU TO IT.

REPEAT THAT.

IT IS NOT THE RADIATION.

IT IS YOUR FAULT.

IT IS NOT THE BEES.

Pay no attention to them.

now move along

[treepig]

41. it would take a long time to debunk all of this,

and i don't have the time now, but the following sentence alone illustrates that you don't have a clue what you're talking about

It is the Depleted Uranium (made from enriched Uranium) that is really fucking dangerous. This meager natural uranium . . .

depleted uranium is not made from enriched uranium. instead it is the endproduct of the separation of the U-235 isotope (the 'enriched' form) from the predominant U-238 isotope (the 'depleted' form).

natural uranium is approximately 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235. after processing to remove about 0.4% of the valuable U-235 isotope from the natural uranium, you then have a small amount of ~100% U-235 and a large amount of 'depleted' uranium which, having had 0.4% of the U-235 isotope removed, is now approximately 99.7% U-238 and 0.3% U-235 (so in reality depleted uranium is almost identical to natural uranium, if you wished to characterize anything as really fucking dangerous, it may be more accurate to consider the enriched U-235 material for consideration).

so in reality, the depleted uranium is actually 'safer' than natural uranium just based on the considerations described in the previous paragraph. however another factor comes into play, - when undergoing processing, decay products are also removed from the depleted uranium, so if you consider the graph shown in post #34, newly processed depleted uranium has a radioactivity of 25 kBq/g at time = 0.001 years (i.e., immediately upon processing). by contrast, the meager natural uranium (which is also > 99% the U-238 isotope shown) has had time to accumulate all the decay products shown, and has a level of radioactivity 8 times higher (200 kBq/g).

furthermore, if you knew anything about cell biology, you would know that whether an isotope is natural or man-made has nothing to do with it's ability to damage a cell and cause disease. but since you cannot even grasp basic concepts about such a well known topic as depleted uranium, the intricacies of a cell are likely also lost on you. if your family really is ill, i would think that you'd want to find out what the real cause is, and consult real science (as compared to google-derived, lets-present-some-alarmist-information-so-we-can-raise-some-money science). clearly, that's not the case, but if any other readers of this thread are interested in the health effects of environmental radiation, please consult:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0265931X

at this link, click on volume 64, issue 2/3 and you can access a bunch of peer-reviewed articles for free - most written by european scientists who do not work the nuclear power industry.

on edit

Iodine 191 ?!?!?! Whaaaa?????? the hell is that? you just completely make things up, don't you?

[treepig]

43. here's some more 'lies' for you

Third - no question here -- just false facts. The study I cited is from ALL exposures - inclusding commercial facilities. The chart HE cites is for nuke tests === but the studies point is that all sources of man-made radiation exposure is dangerous. And there are MORE chjarts at the site to back that up. He is simply lying, frankly, to get people not to pay attention. It is a complex subject and very painful. Especially if you have kids getting ona scvhoolbus downwind of a nuke facilit as millions in the NE do. He has no direct source regarding coal --- but again -- we are NOT talking about background or natural radiation in the environment -- we are talking about ADDING man-made radioisotopes that do not otherwise exist in nature - not in coal, not in granite , not in natural uranium even. This is TOTALLY NEW gene-mutating elements that did not exist in nature before 1945 when the atom was first split. He is obfuscating big time and full of shit nd he knows it.

once again - information on coal can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=169

on the topic of the TOTALLY NEW gene-mutating elements that did not exist in nature before 1945 - please consider that cancer-causing cellular damage requires DNA to be chemically altered (the 'gene-mutating elements'). these alterations are rarely directly caused by the radiation a cell is exposed to. instead the ionisizing radiation fragments more common cellular molecules (such as water), which in turn damages the DNA. a recent paper on this topic can be found here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12645089&dopt=Abstract

a more detailed discussion of the theoretical aspects is given here:

http://www.photobiology.com/educational/len/part2.htm

the bottom line is that whether radiation is natural or man-made is completely irrelevant to the effects on a cell. interestingly, normal cellular metabolism produces an enormous amount of hydroxyl radicals (via hydrogen peroxide), one of the most dangerous chemical species produced by ionisizing radiation!

[seventhson]

44. Sorry, folks, that should have read iodine 131

Again -- treepig knows this and is simply prevaricating for the industry.

He has not answered the requerst for identifyiong whether he workd for the industry. Of course on an anonymous board he can deny it and I cannot prove him wrong.

As for depleted Uranium, that is what is killing our troops in the Middle East as well as other pople. Treepig says on the one hand it is almost as safe as regular uranium and then says it is safer than regular uranium. But - again - that is not the issue. I am not an expert on that by any means -- but again THAT is not the primary issue I am speaking about. There is a radioactice cocktail which includes many different types of man-made radiation leaking out of nuke plants with the permission of our government. They are lying to us when they say it is safe and they use charts like these and arguments like these to disinform.

If you have not read the epidemiological studies and ccounts by industry insiders and whistleblowers at radiation.org then you MIGHT be stupid enough to beleive these arguments. Most people prefer denial because the truth is so painful.

The BIG lie is in these charts (which basically do not identify out nuke tests or reactor leaks etc.)


The NRC is basically controlled by the nuke industry and this info is disinformation.


As for my family's diagnosis - it came from a regular MD who specializes in environmental medicine and radiation-related thyroid disorders.I have consulted with many specialists and experts in this field and worked with the them on publicizing this issue.

You sound dangerously to me like a planted industry type. But you may just be brainwashed by the industry.

In any case --- I urge people to educate themsleves on this issue.

Radioactive Iodine -131 (not 191, as I said in error) damages the thyoid, the immune system, the hormonal system and the metabolism.

Strontium -90 mimics calcium and is absorbed by the bones and teeth and is broken down in the boine marrow into radioactive \cesium and flows to the reproductive organs and soft tissues where it destroys them at the sellular level and mutates their dna, leading to cancer and other problems such as endometriosis and abnormal cell growth.

Chronic fatigue and Fibromyalgia are also likely outcomes of exposure.

This guy, treepig, wants you to believe that radiation is actually GOOD for you.

Sounds like Reagan's Killer trees. Lies are truth. Death is good. Mutation is improvement.


Halliburton makes nuke plants. Need I say more? They cannot be trusted to say anything true.

[diamond14]

74. it was simply a typo...certainly Iodine -131 is the correct isotope...but

but your attacks and use of foul language and name-calling truly indicates your own bad education....

here, read about the "EXPERTS" in radiation

here is a history put together by the DOE of the HUMAN experiments done by our government...without telling their human subjects of the dangers or asking their permissions, these U.S. government nuclear scientists injected humans with toxic Plutonium, used Pregnant women, prisoners, and children as their victims...and YOU expect our grovernment to tell us the TRUTH...just remember when you read this oral histories, that Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary was run right out the government for bringing this horror show to the attention of all Americans...and I have no doubts that there is much more where this came from...

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/histories/0475/0475toc.html

DOE/EH-0475

HUMAN RADIATION STUDIES:

United States Department of Energy
Office of Human Radiation Experiments
June 1995

[treepig]

88. any use of foul language on my part was only as

a result of directly quoting another poster in this thread. intestering how you choose to attack me instead of him :eyes:

[treepig]

42. enviromental exposure levels

second : Nothing supports the alleged hormetic effect of radiation spouted about in another thread by the same "auther". How many people do you say had radioactive dentures and radioactive lighted panels. Whaaaa???? (apologies to Jon Stewart). How many of these were related to the splitting of the atom for the first time in 1945??? NONE of them. I am not talking about radiation ALTREADY in the environment (Which WAS causing lots of damage as Dr. Alice Stewart documented in her studies of pregnant women and XRays) But these would be minimal compared to exposure of the whole population to radiation from nuke tests and plants and proecessing facilities, etc.. Again - I asked for links or studies documenting thisa use or exposure. He has posted none.

easy enough:

Ionizing Radiation Exposure to the Public
This chart (below) shows that of the total dose of about 360 millirems/year, natural sources of radiation account for about 81% of all public exposure, while man-made sources account for the remaining 19%. Natural and artificial radiations are not different in any kind or effect.



a good synopsis of man-made and natural radiation is at http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/sources.html

[seventhson]

45. Unless you break these down by the actual radioactive elements

then this chart is total hogwash.

ALL radiation is NOT alike.

Certain types of radiation do more xevere damage to ceretain parts of the body.

Strontium 90 , for example, mimics calcium and is absorbed and remains in the system, sometimes for the life of the person affecte, damaging cells for close to a hundred years.

Iodine 131 is absorbed by the thyroid. It damages the ability of the thyoid to produce hormones to regulate your entire metabolic system and the production of OTHER hormones, temperature regulation, heart rate, etc. - which leads to chronic fatigue, chronic infections, and a compromised immune system.

How many here have thyorid problems or family members with thyroid problems? It is pandemic.



Your analysis is bullshit, treepig.

[treepig]

46. the key issue is the level of exposure

i have never denied that significantly high levels can be dangerous. one point i've been trying to make is that environmental levels of radio-isotopes man-made isotopes from nuclear power in the usa (notice the exclusion of chernobyl and weapons testing in this analysis) are far from a proven health hazard.

first, as i tried to explain earlier, natural and man-made radiation have identical effects at a cellular level.

now, if strontium 90 was so incredibly dangerous, why is it used medically?

What are the uses of Strontium-90?

"Strontium-90 is used as a radioactive tracer in medical and agricultural studies. The heat generated by strontium-90's radioactive decay can be converted to electricity for long-lived, light-weight power supplies. These are often used in remote locations, such as in navigational beacons, weather stations, and space vehicles. Strontium-90 is also used in electron tubes, as a radiation source in industrial thickness gauges, and for the treatment of eye diseases. Controlled amounts of strontium-90 have been used as a treatment for bone cancer."

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

once again, the medical uses require carefully controlled administration, but if strontium-90 was as fucking dangerous as depleted uranium, let's say, would it be used at all? so when is it a danger?

"Strontium-90 dispersed in the environment, like that from atmospheric weapons testing, is almost impossible to avoid. You may also be exposed to tiny amounts from nuclear power reactors and certain government facilities. The more serious risk to you (though it is unlikely), is that you may unwittingly encounter an industrial instrument containing a Sr-90 radiation source. This is more likely if you work in specific industries:

scrap metal sorting, sales and brokerage
metal melting and casting
municipal landfill operations."

similarly, iodine-131 is deliberately introduced into the body for medical purposes:

from the above mentioned link:

Iodines are among the most widely used radionuclides, mostly in the medical field. Because of its short half-life and useful beta emission, iodine-131 is used extensively in nuclear medicine.

http://chorus.rad.mcw.edu/doc/00712.html

used for treatment
hyperthyroidism (2-30 mCi)
thyroid Ca (150-200 mCi initially, up to 1Ci total)
whole-body imaging to F/U thyroid Ca after surgery

once again, (and perhaps with all the repetition you'll catch on to this concept) doses must be carefully controlled, but if iodine-131 was as fucking dangerous as, let's say depleted uranium, would it be used at all for medical purposes?

[seventhson]

63. You make my point better than I COULD!!!

That is the WHOLE POINT!!! Radioactive Iodine and Strontium 90 is being leaked into the environment ALL THE TIME. If you live near a nuke plant the odds are that you have been exposed to BOTH.

Iodine 131 has a half life of some 8 days and is therefore usually only in the environment for several weeks before it decays (breaks down and emits all its particles). Strontium 90 remains in the environment for more than 100 years (Its half life is 28 years, I believe, so that every twenty-eight years it decays by 1/2 -- in 56 years 1/4 is left and in 84 years it will still have 1/8 of its original radiation). IF you absorb this into your bones it will remain in the body and decay, break down, and then spread to the soft tissue: bone and brain and blood cancers are hence popular with Strontium -90 - they love to make them happen.


Science LOVES radiation because they can experiment with it. YES I imagine that like botox there are some uses that people might find populart and even effective.

But your analogy is idiotic. Morphine is useful in medicine but you would not give your child a bottle of morphine.

Your efforts require a better spokesperson.

I am beginning to assume you are an amateur.

But I'd better not misunderestimate you and your motives.

As for your alarmingly stupid assertion that there is no proof that radiation emitted from nuke plants is dangerous -- I am just almost too flabbergasted to respond.

I will state the obvious: Ionizing Radiation is deadly. There is no safe level of exposure: THAT is the official government position.

NOW ALL of your obfuscation and ianity is designed to convince folks tht you know enough so that they will not investigate further and they certainly should NOT visit RADIATION.ORG where the exact evidence you claim does not exist is documented by world reknowned physicists and doctors and scientists.


I have cited the study above about what the European Union study group concluded: 66 Million deaths projected gl;obally from exposures through 1989. Those of us who do not die are weakened.

That would be you and me.

But IGNORE this information.

You are better off NOT knowing.

DON'T reasd ANYTHING at Radiation.org .

ESPECIALLY DR ERNEST STERNGLASS!!!!


DON'T....


Treepig says so.

[treepig]

90. excellent, you're now accepting government standards!

you say I will state the obvious: Ionizing Radiation is deadly. There is no safe level of exposure: THAT is the official government position.

if you read the oft-cited hormesis thread, you'll find there is alot of emerging scientific data that require re-consideration of this standard. btw, the government standard for bottled drinking water is to allow 30 mg of uranium per liter (and we all know how dangerous uranium is!) - how can you reconcile these apparently disparate government standards?

Anyhow, now that we're believing the government, the government tells us that "Radioactive fallout from Cold War nuclear weapons tests across the globe probably caused at least 15,000 cancer deaths in U.S. residents born after 1951, according to data from an unreleased federal study. The study, coupled with findings from previous government investigations, suggests that 20,000 non-fatal cancers"

from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/28/usat-nuke.htm

sure, 35,000 cases of cancer are way too many (but less than caused by cigarettes each year) - but are 2000-fold lower than your allegations of 66 million! (and you accuse me of spreading mis-information)

As for your alarmingly stupid assertion that there is no proof that radiation emitted from nuke plants is dangerous -- I am just almost too flabbergasted to respond.

you know, i really don't know! but, if the radiation was so dangerous, we'd all be dead long since from the atomic bomb tests which release much, much more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear power ever has in the usa.

[seventhson]

106. I am saying the government standrards support my position at a minimum

The government's position is that radiation emissions are dangerous.

As for the 65 million figure ythat is not MINE but it is a European Union study group which I have linked. I believe their assessment.

No we would not ALL be dead due to nukes or testing because some of us will mutate and adapt. But MILLIONS of people ARE DEAD AND DYING AND WILL DIE FROM SUCH EXPOSURES!!!

now IT DEPENDS on where you are or where you were in the 1940's, 50's and '60's whether you got dosed and where you have been lately whether you have been dosed from the nuke plants or TMI or Chernobyl (which dosed much of North America) and whether you were dosed severely.

MANY people, like me and my family and most of the community where I live and grew up, ARE in fact dying from these exposures or the side effects of such exposures (mutated viruses and bacteria causing SARS-type deaths from pheumonia, lupus, heart problems, even depression and suicide - since the radiation affects the hormones and the pineal and pituitary (ensocrine) system. Most communities downwind are severely dosed -- especially those on the water near effluent pipes.

And some reactors or plants are much worse than others. Same deal with military nuke facilities - but we barely ever even know when we are dosed by these.

The FACT that the U.S, GOVERMENT FINALLY admits that these tests killed more than 15,000 people should TELL us something. If they are lying to cover it up then this estimate may well be way low. After all, the US government is now admitting AMERICAN CIVILIAN deaths from nuclear bomb testing which is more than 1.5 Million % HIGHER than they have ever admitted before.

The truest thing you said is that you really don't know.

[MrMonk]

49. You're mixing two factors

The different effects of strontium-90 and iodine-131 are not caused by two different types of radiation, but rather by the different biochemistry of the two elements. Strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium and, as you've said, substitutes for calcium in bones. Iodine-131 is chemically identical to non-radioactive iodine, so it is absorbed in thyroid along with non-radioactive iodine. It can also be displaced by an excess of non-radioactive iodine.

Considering the amount of experience you cite in post 35, I'd have expected you to be clear on the difference between the radioactive properties of an isotope and its fate in the human body.

[seventhson]

60. I'm mixing two "FACTORS"?

WTF does THAT mean?

Strontium 90 and Iodine 131 are two different radioistopes.
Different radioactive forms. Is that simple enough for you? That is what I meant by different type of radiation.

We are talking about different ISOTOPES, NOT differing properties of ONE isotope, genius.

Obfuscation is the first refuge of scoundrels.


It is confusing when you try to insult me with fake "technical" arguments that have no relation to what we are discussing. But that does not mean we should misunderstand your motivation. That is clear: defend and promote the BFEE nukular policies of genocide and self-destruction and suicide.

[MrMonk]

105. You may not realize it

but you *are* talking about two different properties of each isotope.
You are talking about their chemical properties, which, in your examples, cause the respective isotopes to accumulate in different tissues, and you are talking about their radioactive properties, which result in certain kinds of tissue damage.

[seventhson]

108. They are different radioisotopes

different types of radiation, the way I look at it. Different isotopes - which is what I said. Of course I realize that. But it is not the chemical property of the radio-isotope that is doing the damage, necessarily -- it is the radiation emitted BY the different types of isotope (although I imagine there may be chemical damage with some radio-isotopes as well).

NOW, I do NOT know, at this moment, how to define the distinction, if any, between the radioactive particles decaying in, say, strontium 90 and iodine 131. Are they the same "types" of radiation? Are there subclasses or subtypes or radioactive "daughters" which make them different? I cannot say right now.

Okay? If they are EXACTLY the same atomic particles that are emitted during decay in both strontium 90 or Iodine 131, for example, I would be interesdted to know that.

But it hardly makes a lot of difference anyway.

They are different radioisotopes and, from my layman's perspective (with some fair background in the legal/medical end of these matters) that makes them (Stronium 90 and iodine 131, for example) different "types" of radiation. By definition a radioisotpoe is a different variety of radioactive element.

[treepig]

118. for somebody who purports to know so much about radiation

your basic lack of understanding of radioisotopes is a bit alarming. although there are hundreds of different isotopes, they emit only three types of ionizing radiation, alpha particles (essenitally helium nuclei), beta particles (electron), and gamma rays (high energy photons). depending on the isotope, these forms of radiation may be emitted with different energies, but the radiation and the damage to a cell is fundamentally the same.

but, i'm sure you're saying, wouldn't a high energy form of radiation be more harmful to a cell than a low energy form? well, only indirectly, this concept is explained in section 2.2. Energy Loss by Charged Particles of the following link:

http://www.photobiology.com/educational/len/part2.htm

the key point is that A heavy charged particle (e.g., proton, deuteron, alpha)loses kinetic energy via a sequence of small energy transfers to atomic electrons in the medium. in a cell most of these small energy transfer occur with water - knocking out an electron or producing hydroxyl radicals (either of which can go on to damage DNA). a highly energetic particle can effect more of these small energy transfers before it's energy is dissapated. therefore, a radioactive emmission with twice the energy has the potential to afflict twice as much damage as would be afflicted by a particle with half the energy. but the damage itself would be the same - it would be no more difficult for the cell to repair the damage from a high energy isotope compared to a low energy isotope.

once again the key factor here is exposure. exposure to four radioisotopes with an emission energy of 1X would cause twice as much damage as exposure to one high energy isotope with and emmision energy of 2X (and so one).


on a slightly different topic, you say:
Okay? If they are EXACTLY the same atomic particles that are emitted during decay in both strontium 90 or Iodine 131, for example, I would be interesdted to know that.

if it's true that you're interested, you'd already know this information because i posted a link to where it can be found earlier in this thread (and it's a bit shocking that an expert such as yourself doesn't already know this information!)

anyhow, here's step by step instructions to find information on the basic physical properties of any isotope:

go to:
http://www2.bnl.gov/ton/index.html

click on the colored area, somewhere in the middle if you're interested in strontium and iodine, and you'll get a higher resolution view of all the isotopes - you can then navigate up or down (based on atomic mass (i.e., 131 for I-131 - it's pretty self-explanatory) to find the exact isotopes you're interested in.

then, click on the small box containing the isotope of interest and you'll pull up the pertinent facts, in the case of I-131:

Iodine-131 is used to diagnose and treat thyroid disorders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atomic Mass: 130.9061242 +- 0.0000012 amu
Excess Mass: -87444.761 +- 1.145 keV
Binding Energy: 1103323.318 +- 1.159 keV
Beta Decay Energy: B- 970.848 +- 0.605 keV

Spin: 7/2+
Half life: 8.02070 d
Mode of decay: Beta to Xe-131
Decay energy: 0.971 MeV

Possible parent nuclides:
Beta from Te-131

you can do the same for strontium-90

Atomic Mass: 89.9077376 +- 0.0000029 amu
Excess Mass: -85941.863 +- 2.727 keV
Binding Energy: 782631.486 +- 2.730 keV
Beta Decay Energy: B- 545.998 +- 1.409 keV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spin: 0+
Half life: 28.79 years
Mode of decay: Beta to Y-90
Decay energy: 0.546 MeV

Possible parent nuclides:
Beta from Rb-90

they're both beta emitters(i.e., they release high energy electons). notice that the energy of a beta particle from I-131 is about twice as high as from strontium-90, therefore it could potentially inflict twice as much cellular damage. however, if you were exposed to two particles from strontium-90 for every one from iodine-131, the cellular effects would be pretty much identical. of course, as explained above by a reliable poster (i.e, not me), the chemical properties of these isotopes determine where they're localized in the body, so these isotopes would be expected to have different effects on human health, however that has nothing to do with they radiation they emit, or the fact that they're man-made.

on edit, the proces by which a radioisotope produces chemical species that can damage important cellular molecules (like DNA) is explained in this article:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/104066242/FILE?TPL=ftx_start

(if the link doesn't work and you want a copy, i can probably send you a pdf). this article states:

"High-energy radiation induces damage in liquids and solids via the production of intermediate species created within nanoscopic volumes along ionization tracks (ICRU, <1979>; LaVerne & Pimblott, <1995>; Cobut et al., <1998>). These species consist of excited atoms and molecules, radicals, ions, and secondary electrons. The latter species are created in large quantities (40,000 by a 1 MeV particle) and carry most of the energy of the initial fast particle"

what this means is that one beta emission from I-131 atom generate ~40,000 DNA-damaging agents (and S-90, with half the energy, could generate half as many). these numbers might seem high, but most of the dangerous particles are too short-lived to encounter (and damage) DNA, and even if they do, a cell is well equipped to repair ~250,000 sites of DNA damage a day (that are caused by natural radiation and metabolism). therefore a small amount of exposure is lost in the 'background' and indistinguishable from the assaults normally experienced by a cell.

[stickdog]

82. 1) Why nuke poison instead of wind power?

2) Why nuke poison instead of solar power?

3) Why nuke poison instead of sea power?

4) Why nuke poison instead of thermodifferential power?

5) Why nuke poison instead of conservation?

Five reasonable questions.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

83. 6) Why call it "nuke poison?"

Call it what it is. Nuclear power. Specifically, fission power.

You don't like it, fine. But don't make a pretense at being reasonable and use loaded terminology.

[stickdog]

86. Eat some and find out.

I call it nuke poison because it's incredibly poisonous, even at incredibly low dosages.

Why do we call anything poison?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

94. Chow down on a photovoltaic cell, then

Or eat a windmill, or enjoy a nice fresh lump of coal.

Get the point, or should I go on?

[stickdog]

95. Yeah. Nuke poison is poison.

And to suggest the same about clean, renewable energy makes one look absurd.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

96. Hey, you made the comparison, bright eyes

Eat a photovoltaic cell and then go off about poison this or that.

[stickdog]

112. So silicon is poisonous in your Bizarro world, huh?

I'll grind up a photovoltaic cell and put it in a milkshake if you'll do the same with your beloved plutonium.

[Chico Man]

113. Wow

Good one!!!!!

:bounce:

[treepig]

117. i'd be very interested in the outcome of the experiment!

to be fair, the amount of nuclear fuel ingested should hold the energy equivalent of the photovoltaic cell in question over it's projected lifetime of 20-odd years.

i'm betting that both of you'd be dead (photovoltaic cells contain some very toxic chemicals) - but just who'd die first is what's up in the air here.

[Spentastic]

120. Game on!

I'll wager $100 on the guy eating the Photovoltaic materials. But that's just my environmental bias talking.

And who is going to to pay for a vitrified coffin that needs to be buried under a mountain?

[treepig]

122. i'll go the other way . . .

over in another forum there's a thread on conversion to solar power:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=782

apparently, a 1.5 kW array of photovoltaic cells covers a house's roof and provides roughly the energy needed to run the house. so let's arbitrarly say that's the amount of photovoltaic cells that should be ingested. that's probably way too much for one milkshake, so lets further say the intake will be metered over their expected 20-year lifespan.

during this time, assuming 8 hours of sunlight a day, they'll provide 315,000,000,000 joules of energy. to get an equivalent amount of energy from nuclear power, you'd need 3.15 micrograms of enriched uranium (U-235). the key question is would ingestion of this 3.15 micrograms be dangerous?

information on the exposure to all forms of uranium, its natural decay products, and man-made products, can be found at:

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/utox.html

since i've been oft accused of spreading mis-information, i will leave it to the reader to come to his or her own conclusions of the danger of ingesting 3.15 micrograms of enriched uranium.

what about plutonium? (which isn't really relevant in comparisons of energy sources, but since trace amounts are generated, let's consider how toxic 3.15 micrograms of plutonium would be?)

you may think it's ludicrous that somebody would consider ingesting this amount, but do your own search on plutonium toxicity and see what you come up with (since i'm unreliable)!

http://russp.org/BLC-3.html

[stickdog]

125. Are you going to eat the fuel rods as well? The core? Homer Simpson?

Your comparison is idiotic.

Nuke fuel = radioactive uranium that has to be mined and enriched
Solar fuel = sunshine that would shine whether some of it was collected for energy or not

Nuke power by-products = some of the most poisonous substances known to man
Solar fuel by-products = none to speak of

Nuke waste is poison. Nuke power creates some of the most poisonous compounds known to man. Clean, renewable power does not.

[treepig]

126. Solar fuel by-products = none to speak of - - Huh???

intact solar panels are indeed rather benign, but blending them up would release a witches' brew of toxic chemicals (manufacturing entails the use of many more nasty compounds):

The manufacture of III-V photovoltaic cells involves hazards primarily associated with the raw materials used. The MOVPE process, particularly, utilizes metal-alkyl materials, such as trimethyl gallium trimethyl aluminum, and trimethyl indium, or their triethyl derivatives. These precursors are pyrophoric liquids at ambient temperature, and storing and handling them are significant issues. MOVPE also uses hydride gases to lay down major constituents of the layers (arsine, and phosphine), and for dopants (hydrogen selenide, hydrazine, ammonia, dimethylhydrazine, silane, or disilane). These gases are toxic, flammable, or both. During processing, these gases may be accidentally released directly from leaking gas lines or reactors, or as reaction by-products. Because of their extreme toxicity, even small releases may adversely affect a worker’s health. Details on the physical properties and regulatory exposure limits are summarized elsewhere <1>. These hydrides may be replaced in the future by the use of tertiary butyl arsine (TBAs) and tertiary butyl phosphine (TBP). We examined the advantages and difficulties of this substitution <1>. It appears that there are no intrinsic technical barriers to growing PV-quality GaAs with TBAs and GaAsP, or GaInP2 with TBP. In the short-term, toxic hydrides could be supplied at reduced or internally regulated pressures.
Materials used for MBE generally are elemental solids that are not especially reactive under ambient conditions. However, precautions are required for handling arsenic, beryllium, and phosphorus. Arsenic and beryllium present toxic exposure hazards if powders or particulates containing them become airborne, while phosphorus is a fire hazard. Of the various hazardous materials used in . . .

from (caution: PDF!!!)
www.pv.bnl.gov/art_168.pdf

you seriously think that eating this stuff would be safer than ingesting the energy equivalent of nuclear fuel?

[stickdog]

131. Are you the biggest shill on the planet?

The pdf is for "large scale manufacturing of high-performance photovoltaics."

The conclusion says "the main issues arise from using large quantities of arsine, phosphine and hydrogen."

It also mentions that the toxic arsine can and should be replaced by far less toxic TBA and the toxic phosphine by far less toxic TBP.

And you are comparing this negatively to Chernobyl.

[treepig]

132. you seem be an advocate of large scale adoption of solar power

which would be a very good thing.

but large scale adoption, would require "large scale manufacturing of high-performance photovoltaics"

my point was that such an endeavor would require the use of a huge amount of toxic chemicals and therefore not be entirely environmentally benign. is facing reality being a shill for somebody? well, if so, i'd rather be accused of that than go through life without being able to critically evaluate things.

now consider who would do this large scale manufacturing? well meaning, aging 60's activists in arts and crafts class? perhaps, but a more likely scenario would be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss. . . " already there are rumors that the former 'british petroleum' have renamed themselves 'beyond petroleum' in anticipation of making money off these technologies. heck, i bet halliburton is even interested if there's money to be made - are you a shill for halliburton? in any event, involvement of those evil, evil corporations is almost a certainty, and knowing what we know about corporations and their propensity to cut corners to make a buck, at some point the toxic chemicals involved in the manufacture of photovoltaic cells will escape into the enviroment and ensicken neighborhood children. perhaps maybe even somebody who posts on internet forums under the name of, let's say, eighthson's children are made ill by these chemicals and he or she becomes a completely committed (and equally uninformed) activist hellbent on banning solar power. ok, then where do we go, wind generated power? but what about all those birds that will get killed?

the point here is that in all cases there are tradeoffs involved - and i would just hope that they be evaluated intelligently instead of the analysis i see in this (and many similar) threads based entirely on innuendo and superstition. i admit that pdf link i posted on photovoltaic cell manufacturing is a bit biased because the problems involved in manufacturing are probably more than offset by benefits of clean power generation thereafter. but disposal of these electronic devices will also eventually become an issue, just like computer disposal is now becoming a environmental issue. in any case, your contention that solar power is entirely environmentally benign is just not accurate (call me what you may).

[seventhson]

134. Man, you ARE scarily propagandist, treepig

what utter tripe.

ARGUING/Debating with you is useless because you are so obviously intentionally out of touch with reality and so aimed at disinformation that it is kind of like trying to ride a greased pig or climb a greased pole to get you to understand anything.

Such disinformation needs intelligent analysis and, BOY, are you a pain as intelligenct analysis of tripe is messy and has diminishing returns.

In any event - to respond to your tripe:

1. You embrace being CALLED a shill for the NUKE companies.

That's good. We are clearer on your aims and motivations.

2. Your analysis of solar power is so tunnelvisioned that it it is remarkable. The entire infrastructure of housing, transportation, communities, architecture, education, recycilng, energy and agriculture COULD be addressed in a massive jobs and economic package to rebuild America with a natural and solar infratstructure. We are NOT just talking about phot9ovoltaic cells. There is wind - YES. There is the design of houses and communities to take advantage of solar and natural , even passive, power and energy conservation techniques. There is methane from trash and hybrid vehicles. There is home energy productyion from wind and other means (the best one I have heard of is exercise bikes hooked up to generators and batteries and water pumps. You can bike/pedal and pump your water up to a passive solar heater/collector and generate power to run a cd player for music or a tv.

Your analysis is inane. While their may be some dangerous chemicals in manufacturing soalr cells, etc. - there is no reason (unlike in the production of nuclear waste) that we have to generate MORE toxic materials that must be stored for 250,000 years by armed guards costing multi-trillions of dollars. The chemicals and processes used can, I am sure -- unlike nulear energy -- be handled safely (as long as they are not d0one by incompetent criminals like Halliburton et al.

The REASON big energy does not want to go this way is that it is not a monopolistic moneymaker and will cut out the HUGE profits and power they make from producing weapons (Depleted uranium, for one thing and nuclear fuel as well)in the nuke energy process.


YES when they can get a monoply they will try if there is any profit to be made. But this effort for solar is not about profit. It is about saving money and reducing the dependence on monoplistic capitalistic fascists like the energy companies who have blocked such efforts for 50 years.

Your bullshit about banning solar power is too ridiculous for words. If a technology that can be performed without danger or risk (or minimal environmental risk) then let it be done. Mutating humanity forever cannot be compared to solar power energy == which CAN be entirely passive and practically risk free (Hey - going up on the roof can be dangerous to install a soalr unit -- but it will not mutate your genes or cause cancer two thousand years from now as nuke waste will do).

Entirely specious arguments and tiresome treepig.

I see where you get your name.

[treepig]

137. here's the thread on nuclear waste management

so far, plenty of personal attacks - but nothing to debunk any of the basic technological facts presented:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=518

it's still not clear to me how corporations can be trusted to safely handle a witch's brew of toxic and mutagenic chemicals, but then suddenly become ravingly incompetent the moment the topic turns to anything 'nuclear'

and it's not clear to me how switching to solar panels will reduce dependence on corporations - i personally don't know how to make them myself (but maybe most readers of this forum do and won't need to be buying them from a corporation . . . ?) nevertheless, the net effects on the environment are beneficial and they should be adopted big-time

on a philosophical note - why do people persist in living in a black and white world where everything if pure good (solar power) or pure evil (nuclear power) - why do they refuse to rationally consider (or even acknowledge?) benefits and drawbacks of various technologies?

[seventhson]

136. He embraces being called a shill in post 132 or so.

I figured he had to be some hotshot assigned to DU by Halliburton or one of the other BFEE nuke companies to broadside any nuke issues or solar issues.

Energy companies would rather spend money on PR than improving Americ.

I say we hold the executives of Enron and now the blackout company (EnergyFirst or whatever) for TREASON and genocide (if they produce nukes while knowing that they are killing and polluting our air, water, and earth)).


Yes, Treepig does appear to be the biggest shill on ...

well at least right now DU on radioactive nuclear poison issues.

Probably a college summer intern at Halliburton assigned to the PR department.

[treepig]

138. do i embrace being a shill?

that's a(nother!) flat out lie/gross misinterpretation of what i wrote on your part. geez, nuance is completely beyond your comprehension.

you know, i've spent some amount of time presenting some factual information in this thread - if you want to battle the nuclear power plants (and get somewheres) it'd probably be wise to have a basic command of the underlying technical issues and be able to come across to your audience as a rational person.

if you wish to stand on a soapbox all day bizarrely misinterpreting both what i write as well as basic scientific facts, then i don't give a damn, go right on ahead in this futile endeavor and i'll say no more.

[seventhson]

142. Yes, I think you do. (see my post 140 below)

nt

[Emperor_Norton_II]

121. Well, I'm game.

Of course, according to amen1234 I'm already a hideous mutant (all that time living and working around Toxic And Radioactive Chemicals, don'tchaknow) so I'm betting my system can handle anything short of a critical mass.

Hulk love plutonium. It crunchy.

[MrMonk]

50. A good critique

but don't you get tired of trying to debate imbeciles?

[seventhson]

58. a bad critique

You demonstrate that your most effective debating technique is name calling.


I suppose that says something about you and what you have to offer.

Namer Calling to prove that you are right on the facts.

It demonstrates desperation.

[diamond14]

61. shame on people making their money from WMD....and trying

to justify the unjustifiable....

[treepig]

89. there's a serious issue at stake here

and that's informed policy making based on reliable information. you may notice how others posters continually direct readers of this thread to one particular source of information - i urge them to seek out their own unbiased information (by all means, do not take my word for anything, seek independent verification from multiple sources!).

anyway, back to public policy, consider:

tobacco use kills 400,000 americans each year - society does not ban it.
fossil fuels kill hundreds of thousands each year - society does not ban them.
alcohol kills 100,000+ americans each year - society does not ban it.
automobiles kill ~40,000 americans each year - they have not been banned.
guns kill ~30,000 americans each year - they have not been banned.
nuclear power kills tens of americans each year - and yet there are many stong proponents of banning it despite the fact that if its use were ramped up ten-fold to completely replace fossil fuels, energy-use-related deaths would decrease by at least 1000-fold.

ok, at this point i'm typically tired of trying to engage in rational debate, so i usually point out that fact the when something as benign as water is described in really scary, psuedo-scientific-sounding terms, 86% and 92% of americans signed petitions to ban it (see http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html for more details).

now water can truly be dangerous. if you drink it at an average rate of more than 1/2 ounce per minute over the course of a day or so, you'll die of water poisoning. sure, that's ludicrous you say, who'd do that? (actually, people have). but consider another danger of water - let's say a hydroelectric dam has burst and washed away my home and killed my children. furthermore, the hydroelectric dam was run by evil people at halliburton rendering me a very sympathetic figure when i post on internet sites in my crusade to ban that very, very dangerous substance, water. whenever anyone rationally tries to point out my stupidity, my best response is check out the facts at dhmo.org! check out the facts at dhmo.org!

i submit that a more sensible approach instead of trying to ban water (or more reasonably, hydroelectric power in general) would be for me to try to prove negligence on the part of halliburton in a court of law. similarly, i suggest that posters in this thread whose children are ill due to radiaoctive releases from a nuclear power plant take the matter up with the negligent operators of that particular plant, and if they win a multi-billion dollar settlement and shut it done - great - that will serve as an incentive for other operators to run their plants in a safe manner. a totally different issue is the enviromnental contamination that the general population is exposed to from nuclear power plants. from reading through this thread, the only egregious examples of environmental contamination (rocky mountain flats and hanford) are from the weapons program, not commercial nuclear power. it is these considerations that must be taken into account when generating public policy - and it is a fact that coal burning releases much more radioisotopes into the environment than nuclear power - come on people, where's the outrage?

[Chico Man]

124. Nuclear power is risky

If (god forbid) a nuclear disaster were to happen, the amount of people killed could far surpass the number of people killed by cigarrettes each year.

[diamond14]

51. here's how the data was manipulated at Rocky Flats nuclear

weapons plant, just outside Denver, Colorado....first, anyone who brings up the radiation effects loses their jobs, as this incident (link below) firing the Director of the Jefferson County Health Department (where Rocky Flats is located)...the second part is even easier...Colorado has never kept a 'DEATH REGISTER' to show radiation deaths until 1988, and even then, all Rocky Flats death reports are FUNDED by the DOE (who have a conflict of interest regarding reporting deaths caused by their WMD)...many people die from cancers, but nobody keeps statistics...and for others, they move somewhere else before their deaths, especially Federal and military....one of my good friends lived right down-wind from Rocky Flats for over 15 years and died of bone cancer at the age of 53 years old in Pueblo Colorado...did Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment want to statistically consider that...NO....two scientists, that I worked, with died from leukemia, both had lived for over 12 years down-wind from Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, but moved out of the area just a few years before their deaths, so CDPHE would not enter that into their data either...
afterall, it's all bad for property values if people realize the TRUTH....

-snips-

The stolid, conservative Dr. Johnson is former director of the Health Department of Jefferson County, which encompasses Rocky Flats. He is also an officer with the Army Reserve and maintains a top-secret "Q" clearance. As a public-health officer Johnson became disturbed by the constant malfunctioning of the nuclear industry and began his own studies to confirm or deny what the AEC and DOE were telling--and not telling--the public about Rocky Flats.

Dividing the downwind area into four zones and correcting for age, race, sex, and ethnicity, Johnson found male cancer rates in the zone closest to the plant to be 24 percent higher than in the zone farthest away. Intermediate zones showed excess rates of 15 percent and 8 percent. Female cancer rates were 10 percent higher in the near zone as opposed to the farthest one, with intermediate zones showing excesses of 5 percent and 4 percent. The excess cases for both sexes involved cancers of the lung and bronchus, upper respiratory tract, colon, rectum stomach, gonads, liver, thyroid, and brain as well as leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma.

There were other alarming statistics as well. Johnson's studies of people forty-five to sixty-four years of age in eight census tracts near the plant showed a doubled lung-cancer and leukemia death rate over subjects living in "relatively uncontaminated" zones. In essence Johnson found 491 excess cancer cases when the DOE said there would be less than one.

A separate study of a large suburban area near Rocky Flats found a congenital malformation rate of 14.5 per 1000 births as opposed to 10.4 per 1000 for the rest of the county, and 10.1 for the state overall.<31>

Johnson's findings raised public awareness of Rocky Flats and helped fuel a movement to close the plant. His findings also put him in a difficult political position. Local real-estate interests began applying pressure to have Johnson fired from his job as Jefferson County health director. In May of 1981 they succeeded.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO8.html


"Colorado Central Cancer Registry has had complete Cancer Reporting since 1988...."
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/pp/cccr/cancer2c.pdf

and just to make certain that Dr. Carl Johnson was run out of Colorado forever...in this study, funding by the very people who operate the toxic Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant (DOE)...the State of Colorado hired 'experts' who agreed totally with Dr. Johnson's cancer data, but statistically re-worked those cancer numbers and made up NEW conclusions from Dr. Johnson's data...the NEW conclusion: "nothing to look at here folks...move on...there's no problem at Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant"...then the State of Colorado and DOE changed to name to: Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site"....it's still toxic, but you might not realize it when you buy property there....

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/pp/cccr/ratio.pdf

[FlaGranny]

98. Don't really want to get into this argument, but Florida,

in case you don't know, is a state whose population (a large part of it), comes from elsewhere. It has a high proportion of elderly from the northeast and midwest. I would look to those areas for cancer rates in Florida, at least among the elderly. The cancer rates for children only would probably be more illustrative to compare to Florida.

[seventhson]

100. see the stories on radiation in baby teeth and exposure in Florida

at Radiation.org.

The studies are there

[treepig]

102. thanks to the friendly folks at radiation.org

infant data on a state by state basis is in hand. but strangely enough, unlike the projected national trends shown in my earlier post, this data is safetly hidden away in an appendix.

getting back to the topic at hand, based on the the horrendous dangers of environmental radiation, states like new mexico, nevada and utah must have experienced huge increases over projected rates in the 1950's, right?

here's a couple of figures showing data from southwest states:





and here's states in the vicinity of florida:



since i'm dangerously biased and not to be trusted, i leave it open to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions (from this highly reliable data supplied by the fine folks at radiation.org) on the comparative trends in high fall-out states like nevada and new mexico with low radioactivity states like florida.

[seventhson]

129. Your equation assumes facts not in evidence. Where are the radiation...

exposure charts?


You make the false assumption that the radioactive winds did not blow east or that there are no other radiation exposures from nuke facilities.

I would suggest that one way to test my (and radiation.org's) theories is to go to the following site and plug in dates and figures for Florida and the other "safer" states you list.

But these still only account for exposure from nuclear bomb testing. Other nuke exposures, like Hanford's emissions and leaks, do not appear on these figures linked if you try them below.

My point is that without figures related to population exposures to radiation then your premise is compl;etely flawed and you assume that Florida has low exposure.

We'll see about that:


Go here: http://rex.nci.nih.gov/INTRFCE_GIFS/radiation_fallout/radiation_131.html

BUT - when you get there go to the LAST link - individual dose calculator and click on it.

Next select FLORIDA and then pick a County - any county (I picked suwanee. Then enter a date for birth, say, Jan 1, 1950. Charts will come up showing the exposures of civilians to fallout from nuclear bomb testing in Nevada and elsewhere (I believe) which dosed Florida.

Try this for ANY state and county -date before 1963 and you will see what exposure persons at THAT location received.

FLORIDA WAS DOSED and this makes the charts of death rates in Florida consistent with other states which were dosed.

Point is that the nuke radiation/fallout from nuke bomb testing blew into the atmosphere and into the jet stream and covered parts of the whole country/ Some places were passed over, certainly (no rain dropped to bring the fallout down from the sky). But in general the whole country was dosed.


So there.

[treepig]

133. the government (and myself) have already freely admitted

that 15,000 - 35,000 cancers were caused by fallout from cold war nuclear bomb testing - due to the fallout spread across the usa as described on your link.

however, these deaths/instances of cancer have very little to do with commercial power generation or the mortality charts presented to show the 65,000,000 excess deaths.

if wind and rain from far away dosed the population, would your interpretation of the following data be that on days following nuclear tests it was much rainier in the district of columbia than in the contiguous state of maryland?




(most researchers attribute state-by-state variations in infant mortality to many factors, of which poverty is on the top of the list)

once again, if you go to this link

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/28/usat-nuke.htm

and go to the nuclear fallout "graphic" just under the lead article, you get a handy visual representation of fallout patterns across the usa (probably not as accurate as your county by county data, but easier to visualize). interestingly, both nuclear and global tests produced very little fallout in florida, in comparison to elsewhere. in the rest of the country, the east was hit hardest by global tests, and certain locals in the western states by the nevada tests.

[MrMonk]

48. More likely that they understand basic physics

[kysrsoze]

76. I think it all depends on the dosage level

Think about it. There are a number of substances which we take in that can be good for you in small quantities, but horrible for you in large quantities:

1. Germs - antibacterial soaps consistently used on children actually lower their immune systems' effectiveness. I was a waiter for 7 years, exposed to LOTS of germs - almost never got sick.

2. Vitamins, minerals and medication - many can be great for you in small doses, but can kill you if you have too much.

3. Alcohol - in moderation, is good for your heart and attitude. But excess can kill you and others.

4. Oxygen - You can't survive in a room filled with 100% oxygen.

That said, I'd worry about the level of 'moderation' in an area close to a nuke plant. I've driven through Love Canal. It's freaky - lots of vacant, boarded-up homes, but slowly people are returning - I feel sorry for them.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. First I hear Rainier is due to blow, now this? Eeek.

[seventhson]

36. You DON'T want to read these links BECAUSE...

Denial will certainly protect you from Halliburton, Bush, Cheney and the Nukular industry. The less you know the less sick you'll feel? When your friend's child dies of leukemia tell me about it.

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm


"10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.

11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945. The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer. The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout."

[Emperor_Norton_II]

52. Does that include the links you post connecting Chernobyl to Revelations?

Because of course you *ahem* don't believe in it, but expect us to read and tremble.

Pop quiz! Cassini, threat or menace?

[diamond14]

55. shame on all people who make money off WMD....and BTW,

Emperor_Norton_II...I have used the photos of the Plutonium buttons that you sent me several times already...lots of people want to see exactly how BIG those toxic Plutonium buttons are...just these TWO little buttons can vaporize a whole city....Plutonium, the MOST TOXIC of the elements...an element created by the USA...



These buttons of refined plutonium metal were used in the core of the Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki.


http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Library/Plutonium/

[Emperor_Norton_II]

56. Riddle me this.

What, if anything, does "shame on all people who make money off WMD" have to do the question I asked seventhson?

Also, those "two little buttons" were not the core of the Nagasaki bomb. If you think otherwise, you are either shockingly poorly read on the subject or are willfully ignorant.

HTH, HAND.

[seventhson]

57. Hey ! WTF? If Cernobyl is mentioned in Reveleations by name (IT IS!!!)...

It is NOT my fault.

But it is frickin' interesting to an old mystic scholar and shaman like me.

Cassini --- Yes - could have killed millions. I don't know its status today, however.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

59. Never said it was your fault - unless you're actually St. John the Divine

But when discussing science, 'tis best to put the old mystic scholar and shaman hat away if you expect to be taken seriously.

Cassini status: 2 billion miles away from Earth, poses no danger to anybody whatsoever - not that it did to begin with, but your response was not unexpected.

Thank you, that will be all. You may return to your atomic paranoia.

[seventhson]

62. Again the repiglican "paranoia" bullshit.

It is not paranoid to be pissed when your loved ones are ill and your doctor is telling you it is caused by the fact that they used to swim as little kids near the effluent pipes of nuclear power plants that are leaking radioisotopes.

These radioisotopes are mutagenic (mutation-causing) and carcinogenic (cancer-causing). I have two beautiful children. They have become ill from this exposure. So NO ONE can say my concern and obstinancy on this issue is paranoia. THAT is patent bullshit and corporate fascism speaking (via intent or ignorance or brainwashing).

I deal with it every day of my life and I have to live with the fact that their genes and mine and my wife's may be permanently mutated for all future generations.

Bullshit dark actors can play smart and smug and even prevaricate and obfuscate. But they won't deter me from exposing them.

But I happen to believe in ONE of the teachings of Jesus the Hillelian Rabbi and Essene: TRUTH is the only Comforter in the Days when the proverbial shit hits the fan.

Chernobyl irradiated parts of the whole globe. So did (does) nuke testing and commercial reactors.

I think that any advice on self-identification , Mr. Emperor sir, is a bit out of your league.

I happen to be a spiritual man. Evil does not frighten me for that reason. But it does sadden me when I see the pain evil causes.

There is no reason not to think that prophets and seers, if such exist- and according to all religious traditions they DO - would have warned us about Bush and Halliburton and global nuclear genocide.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

65. Uh, yeah

One day, my fine mutant, I will construct a gas-core NTR and light it off in your backyard, simply to see the look on your face. I will do this because I am a "repiglican" (charming phrase, incidentally) and obviously have no other motivations in life except to make people suffer.

Anyway, before we continue this dance, let's clear the air and get something straight between us:

Your position, if I am not misconstruing your postings, is that nuclear energy, in all forms and types harnessed by humans, is unhealthy, potentially lethal and should be stopped. Am I correct in surmising that this is your stand on the issue?

[seventhson]

66. Basically, Yes

Nuclear energy is suicidal, genocidal, and incredibly stupid -- especially in the hands of greedy and imbecilic fascists like the Bushes and Cheneys and Rumsfelds and Wolfowitzes of the world.

There MAY be some forms which do not produce waste or pose andy threat. But as long as they are leaking and emitting and effluenting mutational spew I oppose them in all forms.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

68. Further along those lines

How do you discover those forms which do not pose any threat - or alternatively, develop effective safety and disposal methods - without working with the other types? These things don't develop in vacuum, you know.

Quiz: CANDU. What is it?

[seventhson]

70. Frankly, I don't think they are necessary

But I suppose there are safe ways to do research MAYBE.

It is too vague a question. If the risks outweigh the benefits as with our current programs --- then they are a waste of time and dangerous pursuits. I support global infrastructure change, full employment, solar and natural power design, etc.

All this shit is just fascist global coporate monopoly over energy. It is jthat and ONLY that: criminal in practice and idealogy.


As for CANDU - beats the heck ouyt of me but it looks pretty fucked up


http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:KbRuKn2UjFwJ:www.ccnr.org/turkey_syndrome.html+CANDU&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Emperor_Norton_II]

72. Only maybe?

And how do you define safe?

And as for CANDU: http://canteach.candu.org/ may prove a more useful tool for understanding the system.

[seventhson]

80. or not

I define safe as not dangerous

[Emperor_Norton_II]

81. That's... impresively non-specific

not to mention nigh-impossible to pull off. Walking around town qualifies as unsafe under that condition.

C'mon, you can do better than that.

[stickdog]

84. Ever heard of a laboratory?

It comes in handy for basic research.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

85. Yeah, I've heard of those

I suppose the Chicago U squash court is available for high-energy fission research these days...

Excuse me, I've got a grant proposal to write.

[kysrsoze]

77. Just a coincidence. If you think of the millions of opportunites...

for a 'sign' to emerge in the world, you're bound to find something. Millstone is also a coffee, and too much caffeine is really bad. Then there's "star"-bucks. All too freaky if you ask me.

[seventhson]

87. For a Ko-inky-Dink its a doozy

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:uORrGBlqt6YJ:www.richeast.org/htwm/CHERNOBYL/Chernobyl.html+Chernobyl+Revelations&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[nomatrix]

53. I don't believe he works on

any clean up effort. The people who work with companies on disposal, cleanup, vitrification, spills, etc. realize what they are working with and the dangers associated with it. Don't spend hours trying to prove how safe it is, but how to protect yourself from it's hazzards.

He is way past that. Get over it.

His theory of get rich quick fund raising by the scientific groups associated with Gulf War Vets and their families suffering. How did we ever miss that? Imagine making money off of people who suffer and die. Sure you lose all credibility, but think of the bucks!

(That makes more sense than not wanting to pay the victims of callous government defense agencies who deliberately mislead soldiers to the dangers of exposure to DU, fallout from nuclear weapons, etc.)

[treepig]

92. now that's a bizarre interpretation of anything i said

specifically His theory of get rich quick fund raising by the scientific groups associated with Gulf War Vets and their families suffering. How did we ever miss that? Imagine making money off of people who suffer and die. Sure you lose all credibility, but think of the bucks!

clearly you know nothing about doing scientific research - nobody gets rich at it (a few people are able to translate their findings into commercial products, but they're few and far between). mainstream scientists work long and hard at trying to coax enough funds from scientific funding agencies to continue their work; political advocates who play scientists on the internet work long and hard at trying to coax funds from the gullible public - in both cases they end up grossly underpaid compared to most jobs requiring similar levels of education, training, and expertise.

[nomatrix]

97. Refer to your post #41

Your words
(as compared to google-derived, lets-present-some-alarmist-information-so-we-can-raise-some-money science).

I was being sarcastic to your constant arguements, debunking anyone who does not support your thinking.

You have posted the same arguement on other threads of Demcratic Underground in relation to DU Depleted Uranium used in armored tanks and weapons and Iraq victims including American soldiers, Gulf War Syndrome, actually any thread that has to do with radiation.

Your arguement has always been exposure to Depleted Uranium natural decay as compared to spent fuel enriched uranium.

The Government calls it DU, whether or not you say there is no such thing. Before the WEB, (1991) even the government has done studies to find out what is sickening and killing vets of the Gulf.

[treepig]

99. i'm sorry, i don't understand my own argument

which you say is "Your arguement has always been exposure to Depleted Uranium natural decay as compared to spent fuel enriched uranium.

i assume that you're mocking my poor spelling, grammar, and word use in that sentence. well, glancing back through my posts - it's definitely well deserved on my part

as far as post #41 and me 'debunking anyone who does not support my thinking' - well yes, i was debunking this statement:

It is the Depleted Uranium (made from enriched Uranium) that is really fucking dangerous.

and there's really no way of thinking where this statement would be correct - it's just flat out wrong - depleted uranium cannot be made from enriched uranium. if persons who make such statements want to be taken seriously, perhaps they'd be well advised to correct their factually incorrect statements in order to maintain at least a modicum of credibility instead of spouting off "go check the facts at radiation.org!"

and my concerns about the people who blame radiation from depleted uranium for all the ill health effects of gulf war victims are:

(1) the deleterious health effects of depleted uranium are almost entirely due to it chemical toxicity and not its radioactivity

(2) by focusing on its radioactivity, the dangers of DU can be easily ruled out, and dismissed (as i've seen done on cable tv multiple times) - on a molecule per molecule basis DU produces one million-fold more DNA-damage from chemical mechanisms than via radiation.

(3) even with the chemical toxicity of DU considered, gulf war victims were exposed to a long list (which I don't have currently available) of additional very nasty agents. if these other factors are ignored to maintain an exclusive focus on DU, it's unlikely that a complete medical explanation for gulf war syndrome will ever be found and these people will never receive adequate medical treatment.

[seventhson]

101. This is NOT mt area of expertise -- nd not the point of this thread

But if you want to be an apologist for depleted uranum I'm sure the veterans who are sick from it here would love to know where you live so they can send you flowers of gratitude (not).

I will better inform myself on DU and where it originates. Since I believe almost nothing yoiu say on the subject I will do my own research as I advise ALL here to do.

[MrMonk]

104. Aw, c'mon

What happened to all of the expertise that you've been claiming throughout this thread?

Here are some sources of information on Depleted Uranium and on uranium toxicity in general:

Chemical Toxicity of Uranium
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/ucompound/health/index.cfm

This source includes a hypothetical calculation of Gulf War exposures.
http://vzajic.tripod.com/8thchapter.html

This source claims that no adverse effects have been linked to DU. Therefore, it is obviously untrustworthy.
http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Focus/DU/faq_depleted_uranium.html

A military source:
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/

From the Health Physics Society:
http://hps.org/newsandevents/newsarchive/oldnews172.html
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1906.html

And, of course, there is ChemNet
http://www.chemnet.com/dir/Chemical_resources/Chemical_data/Safety_and_toxicity_data/

[nomatrix]

47. Treepig, I just knew you'd show

original link
http://www.hanfordnews.com/2003/0815.html

We've been down this road before. Let us journey down another path.

"Albert Schweitzer, the humanitarian and Nobel Prize winner, was warning that the nuclear test were creating a great danger for the human race. Speaking of a study made of the Columbia River near AEC's Hanford installation, Schweitzer said: "The radioactivity of the river water was insignificant. But the radioactivity of the river plankton was 2000 times higher, that of the ducks eating the plankton 40,000 times higher, that of the fish 150,000 times higher...the yolks of the water birds 1 million times higher...."

"The snowballing effect of radiation that Dr. Schweitzer pointed out was being given little attention. The flat reading of external gamma radiation were still bandied about with little regard for the internal effects that Windscale had revealed-effects that showed up in readings tens of thousands of times higher than external readings."

from
The Day We Bombed Utah- John G. Fuller

Let us look again at the article posted about the hornets nest. The internal effects. Remember that when you look at the links you post.

[diamond14]

54. from Albert Einstein...."If I would have known what they would do

with my work, I would have become a peddler or a plumber."

[treepig]

91. you know, the wasps are doing just fine!

i completely agree hanford is an ecological nightmare. i'm not sure if this thread should have been hijacked for a forum for anti-nuclear power tirades, i fail to see the connection between the weapons' programs abuses and the somewhat-responsibly run (at least in comparison to fossil fuels) nuclear power industry.

on the topic of wild-life in radiation-contaminated areas (that's what this thread was supposed to be about, right?) interestingly, wild-life is thriving near chernobyl:


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

"Mention of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster usually brings thoughts of death, destruction, cancer, massive economic loss, and other negative images. Clearly, the economic impacs have been devastating for the Ukrainian economy, and the harmful effects such as elevated cancer rates in humans <1-3> and the killing of the pine trees in the Red Forest are real <4,5>. However, the sum effect for the flora and fauna in the highly radioactive, restricted zone has been overwhelmingly positive in favor of biodiversity and abundance of individuals <6>. Our 12 expeditions to the most radioactive areas of these zones reveal that animal life is abundant. Parts of the 10-km zone exclusion zone around Reactor 4 are strikingly, yet deceptively, beautiful (Fig.1). Only the clicks and whistles of our electronic equipment indicated that the habitat was contaminated with radioactivity.

During recent visits to Chernobyl, we experienced numerous sightings of moose (Alces alces), roe deer (Capreol capreolus), Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), river otter (Lutra canadensis), and rabbits (Lepus europaeus) within the 10-km exclusion zone. We observed none of those taxa except for a single rabbit outside the 30-km zone, although the time and extent of search in each region is comparable. The top carnivores, wolves and eagles, as well as the endangered black stork are more abundant in the 30-km zone than outside the area. Trapping of small rodents in the most radioactive area within the 10-km zone has yielded greater success rates than in uncontaminated areas <7>. Diversity of flowers and other plants in the highly radioactive regions is impressive and equals that observed in protected habitats outside the zone."

hmm, how can life go on under conditions such as these?

[seventhson]

93. Darwinism -- Those that survive , adapt.

Sakharov discussed this. It will kill millions but those who survive , if not too mutated, will adapt to it.

[treepig]

103. the devil's in the details . . .

from my previous post

"During recent visits to Chernobyl, we experienced numerous sightings of moose (Alces alces), roe deer (Capreol capreolus), Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), river otter (Lutra canadensis), and rabbits (Lepus europaeus) within the 10-km exclusion zone. We observed none of those taxa except for a single rabbit outside the 30-km zone, although the time and extent of search in each region is comparable. The top carnivores, wolves and eagles, as well as the endangered black stork are more abundant in the 30-km zone than outside the area."

according to you, millions die, a few survive . . . let's apply this reasoning to the black stork. The black stork’s global population is about 7,000 to 9,500 nesting pairs, according to ornithologist Maris Strazds. The biggest population, about 4,500 to 6,000, is found in Eastern Europe (from http://www.msnbc.com/news/783823.asp ). oops, once again the numbers don't add up - the starting number of storks simply was at least 100-fold too low for your theory of millions dying (a concept which you're sticking to with admirable tenacity, btw) to hold up.

i'm sure that most readers consider this post to be unnecessary nit-picking - but the reality is that chronic misrepresentation of established facts and egregious exageration is not helpful in establishing one's credibility. if seventhson wishes to gain justice for a nuclear power facility's negligence in causing his family's illness and presented the evidence he has in this thread, he would have no credibility and would likely not get far in a disinterested forum such as a court of law. and don't believe me when i say this - heck, print out this thread and take it down to your local college or university's physics, chemistry, biology, or radiology department (notice, i'm not telling you which one to go to, that's entirely up to you) and get their opinion who's presented more credible evidence here.

[seventhson]

110. Why do you Bullshit so?

The article you cite in the original post basically says that they do not KNOW what the effects on wildlife are from exposed populations ---BUT they know that in the Zone where people are prohiobited the reason is OBVIOUS: There are no people to fuck up the wildlife.

The ultimate impact on these wildlife populations (according to the article you cite) AGAIN is NOT KNOWN.

NOW you try to make it seem like there are thousands of black storks flocking to Chernobyl and thriving. You are a total bullshit artist, man. The Black Stork is in deep trouble globally, but it has managed to nest and do better in the zone and forests nearer Cernobyl where there are no people than in areas just outside the zone where the population endangers them. What is the long term health and prospects for those nesting in the zone? THEY DO NOT KNOW YET. It may pass on bad genes to the whole bunch of them and kill them all off in a few generations. SOME will survive and maybe mutate resistance to such damage. BUT YOU DO NOT KNOW AND NEITHER DOES THE ARTICLE YOU CITE.

millions OF PEOPLE DIE GLOBALLY OUT OF A POPULATION OF billions, ACCORDING TO THE eu ARTICLE I link. Send THAT study to the professors (many of whom have corporate sponsors).

I am not arguing a court case here.

I am urging people to educate themselves, Be aware, and NOT buy the BFEE corporate NUCLEAR lies that of those who run nuke companies - like Cheney with Halliburton or the Bushes with Carlyle --- and their paeons.

If they ever have to pay for this they will ALL BE OUT OF BUSINESS FOREVER!!!

Think about it.

[treepig]

116. did i try to make is seem thousands of black storks were

flocking to chernobyl and thriving? absolutely not, in fact my point was the exact opposite! the population of black storks is so small that the requisite large number of individuals required for your "millions will die, a few hideous mutants will survive" hypothesis cannot come into play here. instead, the few individuals who wander into the contaminated area survive just fine. sure, their survival is clearly due to the absence of man, not the presence of radioactivity - however the radioactivity is not having a huge impact on their health (the article implies long-term, subtle effects are still up in the air, but your idea that the radiation will kill them off in a few generations is far-fetched at best, for reasons i'm either incapable of explaining to you due either to my lack of writing coherently, or you being purposefully obtuse). these birds (and all animals in the contaminated area) are almost certainly at high risk of developing cancer, but in the wild cancer is not a huge concern for animals compared to other sources of mortality (i.e., they're very likely to die from accidents or predation before they're old enough to suffer human ailments such as stroke, heart attacks, or cancer).

[seventhson]

130. Once again your own words prove my point BUT

then you try to make it seem as if cancer is not a huge problem for wildlife. WHAT ABOUT HUMANS?

And STILL what you claim to be true is NOT IN THE ARTICLE YOU cite!!!??!!

The few indivisuals who wander into the contaminated area survive just fine?

That is NOT what the article says. It says simply that there are MORE of the black storks in the zone where there are no humans than outside of the zone where humans are living. THAT is NOT to say they are surviving just fine. Nobody KNOWS their physical state or degree of health or exposure. It may be a huge exposure (or not) and it may be very damaging (or, I suppose, not). But for you to assert they are fine has no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Every one of them may be sick and die soon or sooner than they would die from natural causes etc.

Again, the article says no one KNOWS what the impact is because it has not been examined yet scientifically. There may be a few black storks who have "wandered" in to the zone and who are having sick babies and mutations that will kill them much sooner. Ther radiation in the zone today may not be as bad as what many of get who live downwind of a commercial reactor or military facility. So your whol;e argument is fairly specious.

Cancer DOES sometimes take many years to develop and may not be affecting their population YET, but it MAY be already. Chicks may die in the nest or during gestation. Or they may have defects that kill them in a few years.

One of thge worst elements, iodine 131 is LONG GONE from that scene because its hal-life is only 8 days.

But where I live (and at Chernobyl) radioiodine has been leaked in high doses (like TMI too). It is ongoing dangerous exposure whenever there is a leak or "incident" where they must release the radioiodine before it is fully decayed.

[treepig]

135. agreed, the effects on animal life are far from certain

nevertheless, the chernobyl site is an oasis for animal life - many of these animals have short life spans and have gone through multiple generations at this site and have not experienced the dire effects you predict.

a fair-minded study on the nuclear contamination effects on wild-life is described at this site:

http://www.tech-db.ru/istc/db/projects.nsf/prjn/K-759

"The strategy of studying the ecological effects of ionizing radiation includes as one of its major elements the analysis of genetic processes in natural populations and ecosystems. A review of literature shows that the assessment of genetic effects of environmental radioactive contamination on man, fauna and flora is a very complicated problem. Many aspects have to be considered, including molecular mechanisms of genetic damage, radiation mutagenesis and reparation on cellular and organism levels, manifestation of mutational alterations, accumulation of induced mutations and their elimination by populations of different species. Consequently, the assessment and prediction of the genetic effects of ionizing radiation in natural ecosystems is only possible if the required information is available on the impact of radiation at molecular, cellular, organism, population and biocenosis levels."

i believe that the results of this type of study need to be in hand before statements such as "millions will die . . . " are justified.

in the meantime, concerning humans - clearly policies should be based on the side of caution - there should be no chernobyls, no atomospheric nuclear bomb testing, no leakage of radioisotopes from nuclear power facilities. on the last point, i still maintain a sensible solution would be to stop the specific environmental contamination in question rather than propose outlandish 'solutions' like banning nuclear power. i once lived near a gas station that (apparently - it's difficult to prove) leaked mbte and gasoline into my drinking water (perhaps that's why i'm now an argumentative asshole?) - most of the neighborhood was interested in shutting down this gas station and cleaning up the municipal water supply - not banning fossil fuels (even though you don't believe, coal plants release 100-fold more radioactivity (per plant) into the environment than a nuclear facility - and as discussed earlier, natural radiation can damage cells similarly to 'man-made' radiation - those are basic facts easily verifiable from independent sources although you choose to characterize them as bullshit on my part). personally, i believe fossil fuels are destroying the planet and would be very happy if they were banned. however, for many technological, economical, and political reasons it's not productive to lobby for their elimination - but it is quite reasonable to insist that they be used safely. sometimes a bit of knowledge and common sense serves one well.

[seventhson]

139. Epidemiological studies and scientific analysis prove millions have died

from nukes of all sorts.

The problem with your bullshit is that you CANNOT RUN A COMMERCIAL REACTOR WITHOUR LEAKING RADIOISOTOPES INTO OUR COMMUNITIES' AIR, WATER AND EARTH.

It cannot be done. That is WHY there is no safe alternative to SHUTTING THEM DOWN NOW. Even shutting them down is not the only solution because then yoiu have to clean up the site and store the waste somewhere . IT CANNOT BE DISPOSED OF IT MUST BE PROTECTED AND STORED FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AT A COST OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR JUST TO KEEP IT FROM BEING ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS OR BFEE LUNATICS!!!

One plant in Conecticut has been decommissioned for 9 years and they just discovered the leakage and seepage of radioisotpes into the groundwater next to connecticut river ---leaking in a plume to the wells of neighbors and probably seeping out to Long Island Sound which is already full of radiation from Millstone and General Dynamics and the Naval Sub Base in New London/Groton (not to mention Pfiser which is Connecticut's top polluter).

AND AGAIN, the articles you linked do NOT say that the animals have not suffered dire effects from nesting near chernobyl: they say there need to be studies to determine what the effects ARE, (insult deleted).

Didn't you even read these links or did some Halliburton PR wonk just hand you your lines to make you look like an idiot (and yes the gasoline leaks might explain mental damage and willingness to shill for nuclear energy assholes)


The links I provided to the radiation.org studies and the European Union study have peer-reviewed scientific studies and THEIR analysis shows that MILLIONS are getting cancer, breast cancer, prostate, leukemia, bone, brain, internal organ cancers, --- Infant deaths and spontaneous abortions and miscarriages are pandemic and ALL of these are, they believe and I thing ably prove, are CAUSED by the nuke t4ewsting and nuclear power plant waste pollution and radiactive emissions from nuclear facilitiesd, civilian and governmental.

Cover up and obfuscate all you want. Only an idiot would believe your corporate energy company BS.


Many millions have Died. Will YOU and YOUR CHILDREN be AMONG THEM?

Shut them ALL down NOW. I'd rather be in the dark for a while than let my kids eat and breathe shit that will mutate their bones and brains and reproductive organs.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

150. $50,000 question:

The problem with your bullshit is that you CANNOT RUN A COMMERCIAL REACTOR WITHOUR LEAKING RADIOISOTOPES INTO OUR COMMUNITIES' AIR, WATER AND EARTH.

Why can't it?

Yrs in anticipation of a non-answer,

[diamond14]

163. hey Emperor...what about Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Power plant...

The ONLY gas-cooled nuclear reactor, Public Service Company of Colorado could NEVER get it to work well, and it continuously LEAKED out cloud of radioactive gases over Denver and it's suburbs...the plant didn't even last 10 years, was totally shut down forever in 1989, leaving a mass of nuclear waste and radioactive concrete...

If you are working at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, besides all the airborne, water, and soil contamination in every inch of the Arsenal...you likely got blasted with radioactive air floating down on you from the Ft. St. Vrain Nuclear Power Plant...it could be affecting your abilities today....seems that you already feel that you are an Emperor...but I empathize, knowing of your location and your exposures...it's a wonder that you can write anything at all, let most something that is connected to REALITY....

Are you one of those gate guards at the Arsenal ????

[Emperor_Norton_II]

169. What about Ft. St. Vrain?

It was a debacle, and it's closed. End of story.

So I've got to ask, what's the proximate cause for your brain damage? Apparently I've got my excuse all lined up...

(Pop quiz! Since you know so much about RMA, what's the street address for West Gate? Where's South Gate? What's the nickname for the road between West Gate and South Plants?)

[bpilgrim]

151. "somewhat-responsibly run nuclear power industry. " - exactly

but even if it is responcibly run it still poses 2 major problems, like it's huge cost (operation and disposal) and secondly they REMAIN dangerous to HUMAN HEALTH for a very long time.

now i am sure there may be plently of existing and brand new organizums that may THRIVE in thier new envio but that STILL doesn't make it any more safe for HUMANS not to mention OTHER SPECIES.

"hmm, how can life go on under conditions such as these?"

deep-sea hydrothermal vents...


From time to time, hydrothermal vents, known as "black smokers," occur along these ridges. They are underwater geysers. At these vent sites, cold ocean water seeps down through cracks in the seafloor to hot spots underground. The water gets superheated to several hundred degrees Celsius and is spit back up in a mineral-rich broth of scalding fluid. And in this bizarre environment, life flourishes.


sea life that flourishes around deep sea volcanic vents


For example, Vrijenhoek and his colleagues have found what he calls "genetic discontinuities" among populations of vent amphipods (small crustaceans) that don't appear among populations of other vent organisms. This is due, he explains, to the fact that there is no swimming larval stage in the amphipods' life cycle. As a result, one population of organisms can easily be cut off from another, causing the two populations to drift apart genetically.

more...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast25apr_1.htm

peace

[treepig]

152. interesting life forms!

similarly, they've pulled living organisms out of the (almost) boiling water of yellowstone hotsprings



and then (to open a whole new can of worms) patented its genes and made alot of money:

Thermus aquaticus and Biotechnology

In order to copy DNA and amplify it using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), an enzyme (DNA polymerase) is needed which is active at high temperature. The DNA polymerase of Thermus aquaticus, called Taq polymerase, fills the bill. During the successive heating cycles of PCR, Taq polymerase is not destroyed, but continues to work. During each successive round of heating, the amount of DNA doubles. Progressive doubling leads to an exponential increase in DNA. From one original molecule, we can get millions! Taq polymerase finds wide use in medical diagnosis (AIDS, for instance) and forensics (DNA fingerprinting) and has become the basis of a $300,000,000 industry.

http://www.bact.wisc.edu/bact303/b27

[seventhson]

67. THANKS AMEN anmd NOMATRIX!!!

and anyone else who helped here.

I sometimes feel like I am tilting at windmills and they are tilting back with WMD.

Very few seem willing to address these issues and - as it directly harms my children -- and many of us who have been affected and we don't even know it as there is no smell taste or anything to see to the ghoulish radiance of death (unless you carry a dosimeter, which I have)-- I am VERY GRATEFUL for ANYONE who supports the position that nukes are dangerous and incredibly stupid methoids of energy production. The costs so far outweigh the energy produced that we will NEVER be able to pay it back as the waste will be dangerous for 500,000 years (100 X's all recorded history)

So MY GRATITUDE to you both!!!

[diamond14]

71. the Emperor is not normal...he lives near Rocky Flats Nuclear

Weapons Plant and has been heavily damaged....I had to teach him EVERYTHING about radionuclides, and now he acts like some kind of expert....don't let him aggravate you...I even had to teach the Emperor about the difference between 'atoms' and 'molecules' on a previous thread...really, how can one intelligently discuss the reactions of Plutonium with a guy who thinks he's an Emperor and doesn't even know the difference between molecules and atoms...

but, nevertheless, look at this nice photo that the Emperor sent me...it shows the HUGE amount of Plutonium currently being stored near the Emperor's house...Rocky Flats has totally inadequate guarding or protection from chemical reactions (Plutonium just keeps on reacting chemically, ignites on contact with air, and reacts with all elements on the Periodic Chart, except the nobel gases)....there's enough Plutonium at RF to create many hundreds of nuclear bombs...even as shrub wants to make more, and sadly, the Emperor is a BIG shrub-supporter, so that should tell you something...


Above is the X-Y plutonium storage facility at Rocky Flats. This facility is now shut down, but plutonium is still stored there. The plutonium is stored in sub-critical units, that are carefully spaced in a rectangular ("X-Y") grid to prevent criticality accidents. The manipulation of the plutonium is handled by remote control machinery - partly for security, partly due to radiation exposure hazards.


(and the Emperor 'tried' to tell me that he LIVED in the X-Y Plutonium storage facility at Rocky Flats, which should give you an idea of his stature)....

[Emperor_Norton_II]

73. Point of order, rocket scientist

I didn't "send" you a damned thing. I posted the image link while defusing your rampant paranoia in the aftermath of the Columbia accident and you jumped on it.

Point of order #2: I live "near" Rocky Flats in the same sense that everbody else in Denver, Colorado lives "near" Rocky Flats. That is, most of us don't get within twenty miles of the facility for any reason. I do, however, work at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. I'll leave the detective work up to you to figure out the difference.

Point of order #3: Plutonium does not react with "all the elements on the Periodic Chart." This is, oddly enough, an idiotic statement. Plutonium cannot react with nonreactive elements. It cannot react with helium. It cannot react with argon, it cannot react with neon, nor any other of the noble gasses (hint: they're called that for a reason). Your statement is false. QED and have a nice day.

Now, if you're quite finished...

[diamond14]

78. Rocky Mountain Arsenal: ANOTHER nightmare brought to us by

our government...in this case the United States Army...

technically, I suppose you don't consider nerve gas and other toxins to be WMD...just nuclear....

but it may surprise you to learn that I spent lots of years trying to clean that mess up at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal...I volunteered to be in the full chemical protections suit when we worked on "Basin F", a LAKE of toxic waste, about ten and half million gallons: benzene, DIMP and DUMP (di-isomethyl phosphonate, and di-methyl methyl phosphonate), a real brew containing pesticides, herbicides (agent orange), heavy metals, and a whole lot of newly forming chemicals....in fact, I gave a lecture at the University of Colorado for my graduate Chemistry work just on the ongoing chemical reactions in Basin F....I even worked at the white laboratory (the building next to the Colonel's house, with the facade hiding the massive numbers of laboratory hoods), because I am such an expert in toxic chemicals...bet you haven't been in there...

I suspect that you may be working out there at Rocky Mountain Arsenal without the proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)...nobody should be anywhere near that place without the proper gloves, boots, respirator, and protective suit....if you do not wear those, then I fully understand your challenges created by those toxic chemical exposures...you are being exposed to MANY toxic chemicals everyday, with both acute (short term) and chronic (long-term) effects...and the synergistic effects are unknown, but evident in your posts...I am sad that you, tauting yourself as the Emperor, are indeed irreversibly poisoned and damaged forever...

did you know that that basin F was highly radioactive, and that the toxic chemicals from basin F are still flowing though the groundwater, surface water and soils toward the North end treatment plants ??? and that EVERYTHING is contaminated...air, water, soils, insects, fish, plants...didn't you ever wonder why the Fish and Wildlife service allows fishing at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, but makes you throw the fish back??...because EVERYTHING is contaminated....

I recommend that people NOT go on those toxic tours of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal..people are just being used as guinea pigs for exposures to toxic chemicals....

[Emperor_Norton_II]

79. Really, now?

What gave you the impression I worked at the remediation sites?

I also note you didn't respond to the rest of my post. Are you afraid that poor lil' mutagen victim me is going to continue to make you look like a fool? I can do that, if you really want.

[genius]

107. The trouble is that these nuclear idiots have contaminated large

sections of America. That's why we need to cut back dangerous programs. So far Kucinich is the only candidate with the courage to make cuts of dangerous programs that we need cut to ensure survival of this planet.

[seventhson]

109. Links on Kucininch or others on Nukes?

That is probably the one issue that I would swing to Kucinich from Dean over. If Kucinich oppposes nukes and Dean supports them then my decision on whom to vote for in the primaries is clear absent some other compelling factor (like stopping Kerry/Lieberman and the DLC candidates)

[Mel]

114. Hi seventhson

here's a link to Kucinich for President- Nuclear Safety
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_nuclearsafety.htm


As you will notice I'm not Even going to get into the discussion you all are having.
I will check out everyones links though.

My own opinion is, I don't want anymore nuclear plants built and I don't want weapons in space.

[seventhson]

115. Thanks

I say shut em al;l dpown and ban nuke weapons too. Globally. Make them ALL a war crime.

[treepig]

119. if your children really are sick

banning nuclear power plants is one of the dumbest things you could do. biomedical research is highly dependent on radioisotope probes obtained as by-products of commercial nuclear power plants.

check out the listing for just one company (click on each letter to see the full lists):

http://www1.amershambiosciences.com/aptrix/upp01077.nsf/Content/Products?OpenDocument&parentid=42310&hometitle=Catalog

wouldn't it be more sensible to get them to run safely, instead of banning them (besides your family, there's a lot of other desperately ill people out there who are hoping for biomedical research advances)?

[seventhson]

123. F### Offf

nt

[Felix Mala]

127. In other words

The only way we can have these treatments is to make the shadowy figures running Hallitburton, and the VP's 'blind' trust, bazillionaires???

Why not just give them their bazillion dollars? (Don't we usually pay up to terrorists in the end?)

Let universities do the experimenting on extracting the nukes we do need.

And put the abomination of 'nucular' weapons behind us.

[newyawker99]

128. DUReader

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from
the news source.


Thank you.


NYer99
DU Moderator

[seventhson]

140. Treepig embraces being a chill for the Nuke companies HERE:

His exact words were:

"Is facing reality being a shill for somebody? well, if so, i'd rather be accused of that than go through life without being able to critically evaluate things." (Post 132 on this thread)

I call that, under the circumstances, an embrace of shillism for the nuke companies.


Look, Treepig: One of my self appointed functiond here at Democratic Underground is to look for those who "probably" work for the BFEE to sow disinformation.

I am an olf hand at it. I come from the ranks of the disinformers as a disenchanted whistleblower.

I worked for a nuke corporation and know how they lie and do illegal shit. I was NOT an engineer -- but in a legal department. It was a brief stint. The corruption and cynicism was palpable and frightening. My conscience made me quit after a little more than six months there afer I goit to truly understand what was happening. Truly frightening coverup and illegalities, IMHO.

I also worked on Capital Hill. I have close friend at Justice and even family who did intelligence work and were part of the secret elite networks that ARE the shadow government.

I KNOW that nuclear radiation is killing MILLIONS. I worked in the environmental medicine litigation department at a nuke company, okay?

I do NOT like to reveal so much about myself --- but I say this for the benefit of all watching this debate.

This is very serious shit.

And the efforts to debunk the issue by posters like treepig MAY be part of a PR effort targeting DU by the extreme right who KNOW that they are killing and ddisabling MILLIONS of us - weakening us. Weakening our resistance and our ability to fight off the infections from new mutated bacterias nad viruses precicted by Sakharov in the 1950's.

They want folks at DU to NOT listen. To downplay the danger. To get people to ignore the debate or be misinformed.

Because the ENERGU BILL IS COMING ANND THEY NEED TO REBOLSTER THEIR COMMERCIAL NUKE PROGRAM. THIS WAS PART OF THE PLAN FROM DAY ONE.NUKES WHICH WILL MAKE THEM BILLIONS IN PROFITS WHILE KILLING MILLIONS OF CIVILIANS GLOBALLY.

That is why the reserch at radition.org and the European Union study are so vital to understand.

If we let them get waway with this we are signing our own death warrants and those of our children.

THAT is why, I think, Treepig is doing this.


But like a dying seal thrashing around in the waters, the more noise you make, treepig, the more sharks come to investigate.

Keep thrashing. There are many here at DU who need to investigate this issue.Their lives and their futures and their children;'s lives are in the balance.

[treepig]

143. that's exactly what i'd like

specifically that people go out and investigate for themselves!

it's helpful to keep in mind that science works by consensus - to find out what's really going on you have to go out and find many studies (say, 100) - if 90 of them (authored by scientists from many different countries and supported my many different funding sources) come to one conclusion, and 5 of them reach a radically different conclusion, suffice it to say the scientific community accepts the conclusion of the 90. global warming is one such situation where the 5 contrarians gain alot of exposure, and are embraced by such entities as the bush administration.

on the topic of this thread, i'll say once again the readers should go out and do research for themselves!! where to start? well france gets 77% of it's electricity from nuclear power, the usa 20%, and italy none. go check out the relative infant mortality, thyroid disease, and cancer rates in these three countries. (note, i haven't done this comparison so i have no idea what you'll find - but this is the type of sensible evaluation that needs to be done to evaluate the risks of nuclear power).


p.s. water kills! go check out the facts at dhmo.org

[Emperor_Norton_II]

144. ENOUGH!

God DAMN it.

Yes, us poor humble people who DARE disagree with you are actually BFEE disrupters. We all get monthly stipends from the Nuke Industry (in fact, that's what the name on the checks is, though the signature alternates between Cheney and James Watt) which allows us to do nothing but post HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE LIES about the EVIL RADIATION.

God knows we can't have different opinions from looking at the evidence, oh no. All RIGHT-THINKING PEOPLE are JUST LIKE YOU, and anybody who thinks otherwise is a DISRUPTOR and DISINFORMATION AGENT!

You know what? I'll even go one step further and share something with you: I WANT to see millions die. I HATE the human race; I hate it with a passion that you could not BEGIN to encompass. There is nothing more I crave than the total and utter OBLITERATION of this planet's biosphere. No, I don't intend to escape the carnage - I will embrace the end as it comes and revel in the flames.

Now, if we've gotten that all cleared up nice and neat...

[seventhson]

145. The best analogy, IMHO: Auschwitz and the German public

There are, I am certain, nuclear apologists who honestly do NOT work for the industry.

But I think that I am kinda like a German citizen who is trying to get people to pay attention to the flames and smoke coming from those huge brick towers at the IGFarben Petrochemical plant at Auschwitz.

Anyone who spends hours and hours trying to convince me and hundreds or thousands of others that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVEER TO THE PARANOIA THAT PEOPLE ARE DYING AND ARE ENSLAVED BY THE CORPORATIONS FINANCED BY BUSHES AND ROCKEFELLERS AND THE NAZI PARTY AND THAT WONDERFUL MARVEL OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY: AUSCHWITZ --- ANYONE who does that type of thing (which I think is an apt analogy here given the scientific data I cite here) = DENYING or COVERING FOR the crime IS in my humble opinion, a likely Halliburton/Cheney/ and hence BFEE shill/

I never said YOU were emperor because you are clearly delusional anyway and not worth the waste of typage.

But tree pig HAS seemed to stay the course with his very poor disinfomration techniques supporting his position which is the nuclear industries most extreme and bizarre positions: RADIATION IS GOOD FOR YOU AND IS HELPING RESTORE POPULATIONS OF ENDANGERD SPECIES!!!


Wow. That is spectacular nuclear spinnage.

Really

[Spentastic]

146. As long as it's just IMHO

I think you're mental.

You give loads of great info but attacking these guys for presenting evidence to back up their arguments leaves you looking shrill.

[seventhson]

154. IMHO "Mental"? What are you 9 years old?

I haven't heard that since grade school. Jeeesss what an effective argument.I do NOT attack them for presenting evidence. I counter their claims by demonstrating that their "evidence" is not even what they claim it is.

It is classic disinformation to obfuscate with totally false arguments and sidetracks (like the black stork fabrication" to somehow try to "prove" that radiation exposure is actually safe or even GOOD for you).

THAT is insanity and is NOT the presentation of evidence. Almost every link posted has proven not even to say what they claim it says. THAT is why it looks like intentional disinformation.

Mental?

Psychic maybe.

In any event - if you are talking to me -- I would say that shrill is the QUIETEST AND LEAST Annoying one should be if our government is murdering its citizens en masse via corporate and industrial effluents and corruption.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

147. Delusional, am I?

Now why, pray tell, do you say that? Think carefully...

[Spentastic]

148. No,

I think you're German. Or am I getting confused. Apparently disagreement is now not tolerated.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

149. Actually...

I'm a nth-generation American descended from British Jews (via South Africa) and Irish Catholics. Raised Episcopalian, became a Discordian and now am a militant agnostic (I don't know, and neither do you!)

You think you're confused. :crazy:

[seventhson]

155. Uhhhhhh... Because you say in your sig line that you are a Royal Highness

and Emperor?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

159. And your point is... what?

I put a kangaroo in my sigline, does that make me one?

If that's your criteria for dismissing me as delusional... well, I daresay I'm not surprised, but I am saddened.

[seventhson]

162. If you claimed to BE a Kangaroo in your sig line...

as you claim to be a HRH Emperor, then YES.

You should be sad. It IS sad.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

170. Okay, let's take stock.

I claim to be an Emperor. This is, to you, delusional.

You claim that the Revelation of St. John the Divine is a prophetic warning about Chernobyl.

I don't spend my time defending my claims. As my predecessor in the office once said "let them laugh; I am still their emperor."

You dismiss those who disagree with you as Freepers and lunatics.

Which of us is more delusional, and which of us is more dysfunctional?

[treepig]

153. sticks and stones may break my bones

but words have never hurt me . . .

meaning, i'm fairly impervious to all your name calling - but if you start throwing some sticks and stones my way (in the form of solid scientific facts that can't be refuted in 30 seconds or so) i'll soon be a quivering mass of jelly, nevermore to trouble you.


p.s. everybody - don't forget to do your part to get water banned before more people die, just click here - see what you can do to help out: http://www.circus.com/~nodhmo/

note: i am not a shill of the

Coalition to Ban DHMO
211 Pearl St.
Santa Cruz CA, 95060

this organization has never provided me with monetary compensation of any type. if fact, they refuse to send me free samples of DHMO so i can do my own testing. nevertheless, the danger is great, and i urge all concerned citizens to act now.

[seventhson]

156. Talk about blackops obfuscation and hijacking a thread....

This post is a classic. Ban WATER?


I am very glad that youy have an intelligent argument to counter with.

[treepig]

157. indeed, banning water is my new crusade

it has recently been brought to my attention that every single person who has died since the 1ate 19th century has come into contact with this nefarious substance. in fact most victims are believe to have ingested quantities of this chemical.

check out the facts at http://www.dhmo.org

still not convinced?

check out the facts at http://www.dhmo.org

am i some kind of nutcase? maybe, but i have plenty of company:

Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary.


A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States.

check out the facts at http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

[progressivejazz]

158. So, let's see, now....

...there's one side in this argument that relies on ad-hominem attacks ("shill", etc.) and characterizing the other side's arguments as "bullshit" rather than countering the arguments logically. This side also shows a weak knowledge of science and relies on a couple of partisan sites for its backup. Oh, and it apparently considers the coincidence that two nuclear power plants have names found in the bible to be a rational, logical argument.

Then there's the other side, that seems to know something about both the facts of science and how science actually works. This side doesn't just direct me to websites of their choosing, but invites me to actually do some work and find out things for myself.


Deciding who to trust here is not much of a problem for me.

[seventhson]

160. I cll bullshit when I smell bullshit. And I smelled Bullshit.

I called bullshit when the poster who claimed nuclear power is not only safe but IMPROVES your health with radioactive pollution MISREPRESENTED the sources he linked.

I also have invited (urged with PLEASE even) folks repeatedly to go and read the studies linked at radiation.org and other sites MANY MANY times on this board.

Treepig and the emperor sure seem like shills for nuclear poweer companies like Halliburton --- but when they use disinformation techniques like misrepresenting the links they have cited as "evidence" I begin to believe that they are actively using propaganda techniques that we all face here every day by those who are not progressives at all.

Speaking of Progrssives.... I smell some pretty unprogressive bullshit here too.

NOW -- I do get testy when the same insults and slurs and name calling or casting of aspersions is dished out towards me. So I try to dish as good as I am dished.

I have stated that I am not a scientist. But I HAVE linked peer reviewed articles which support my position (unlike those whom you defend here) for those who can see ythrough the obfusacation.

Most here at DU do not fall for the technique of repeating lies over and over until they become perceived as truth.

CLAIMING that I do not encourage everyone to look at this data for themselves is utterly untrue. I have linked both the National Cancer Institute and a European Union study that can hardly be called paertisan.

If supporting the eradication of dangerous pollutants is suddenly "partisan" then I guess I accept that. But there is no financial gain in opposing nuclear power. There is HUGE financial incentive for individuals to support Enron, Exxon, Halliburton, GE, Westinghouse, and Carlyle - to name a few who have therir fingers in and profit from the nuke industry of death.

As for your aspersion towards me because I think it is interesting that there the name Chernobyl appears in revelations in the context that it is prophesied that a "star" called Wormwood (which is translated "Chernobyl" in Ukrainian) will poison 1/3 of the earth's waters and kill many -- you can ridicule me all you want for being interested in JudaeoChristian and Islamic Prophecy. According to Billions of people these prophecies are ignored at our peril and such "foreknowledge" is insight from God designed to help us avoid our own self-destruction both spiritually and physically.

I said quite clearly that I do not automatically accept such prophecies as correct or true (especially because they depend on humans for both accuracy of the texts and interpretation).

Was Chernobyl predicted by John at Patmos and written 2000 years ago as a warning to us? That is an interesting religious and philosophical question. But I never claimed it proved a damn thing.

I rely on the scientists that I know and the doctors and epidemiologists who ARE experts for my arguments.

But I have posted MANY links and countered with facts and reason on practically every false argument raised by treepig. And I have acknowledged a few small errors and actually ASKED for more info in some areas where I am not very well versed. I still got back BS usually.

So your demeaning comments towards me are duly noted. Anyway, I assumed that treepig would burn out at some point (especially now that he has resorted to the ridiculous argument of claiming he wants to ban water or something - which is just a distraction) and someone else would ride in or get tasked on a try to rescue his sinking efforts.

I urge ALL to read the articles linked at the bottom of the radiation.org homepage -- especially the links to Dr. Sternglass.

I would NOT be so adamant or even shrill if I did not have two ill children who are in treatment for radiation exposure in our community.

[frustrated_lefty]

164. Hmmm....

"I called bullshit when the poster who claimed nuclear power is not only safe but IMPROVES your health with radioactive pollution MISREPRESENTED the sources he linked."

Eh, your uninformed paranoia about radiation annoys people and makes them go to the opposite extreme. An argument could be made that low level doses of radiation exert selective pressure which would be of long term benefit to the species. It’s a reasonable argument, based in science, but I suspect mostly intended to egg you on. Yes, selective pressure is of benefit to the species.

"I also have invited (urged with PLEASE even) folks repeatedly to go and read the studies linked at radiation.org and other sites MANY MANY times on this board."

No, you have repeatedly expounded upon the enlightenment available to initiates of the www.radiation.org website. Thanks, but no thanks, it’s a biased site with an agenda.

"I have stated that I am not a scientist. But I HAVE linked peer reviewed articles which support my position (unlike those whom you defend here) for those who can see ythrough the obfusacation."

No, again, you have linked sources which are generally scoffed at, and you repeatedly misspell words to the point it becomes cumbersome to discern your meaning.

If you really want to make a point here, I’d very much like to see you cite any articles drawn up through PubMed? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

I AM also concerned about the possibility that your (or anyone’s) children may be affected by radiation within their community. Could you be a little more specific about the medical problems they’ve encountered? There seems to be a fairly knowledgeable medical community here, perhaps someone may have a helpful word to offer.

[seventhson]

166. HMMMM Back atcha, newby

Once again, prevarication and tag-teamism take the front.

I suppose that those who LOVE Halliburton and Cheney and Bush and Nuclear Power with all its deadly waste and death will stoop to any depth to disparage me.

I HAVE over my year or so here posted many many links to sites other than radiation.org. THERE ARE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THERE WHICH PROVE MY POINTS MOST EFFECTIVELY IMHO!!!

I think if you have a sp
But to cast a blanket aspersion to the site is poor argumentation.


I trust most the assessments and writings of Dr. Ernest Sternglass, professor emeritus and founder of the Department of Radiology at the University of Pittsburcgh School of Medecine. He was also the Director of the Apollo Lunar Scientific Station Mission Project when he worked at Westinghouse for NASA AND he holds many patents including the technology which allowed the capture of the images of the first steps on the moon,

As for my typos, I apologize. I have a cheap keyboard and lousy eyesight and with you NUKE-LOVING and RADIATION-EMBRACING WASPS coming at me like a WWF tag team I tend to type fast and not very accurately. I will try to do better.

As for medical advice here: I trust our family doctor. I have also found the writings of Dr. Sherman on environmental illnesses and radiation most helpful which can be found at radiation.org.


My BIGGEST complaint on DU is that folks like you, "frustrated lefty" - and you may or may not be one of them -- often sabotage the information by trying to persuade people NOT to go to sites like radiation.org and educate themselves.

Whether you agree or disagree with that information people here at DU should judge it for themselves and NOT Blindly accept some nincompoop who comes in shouting that the site is "generally scoffed at" or "partisan" (Scoffed at by WHOM, by YOU? Partisan for whom, the human race?)

I mean, Jesus help me, the Nuclear Power Companies are like Big Oil with a low profile. We pay them for electricity just as we buy gas every day, but we only pay once a month and we don't even really know where the source is (nukes, coal, or whatever, etc.). So they are low on our event horizon.

Only folks like me whose families have been sickened or whistleblowers who have inside first-hand knowledge of the dangers and corruption usually even pay that much attention to the issue.


But the studies and evaluation of the baby teeth (which absorb man-made radiation in utero via exposure to their mothers) conducted by the RADIATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROJECT show that EVERY CHILD IN THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO CARCINOGENIC AND MUTAGENICC RADIATION FROM MAN MADE (NON-NATURAL) SOURCES!!!

You, frustrated, can try to discourage people from reading these studies so that women of child bearing age and parents may remain ignorant or unaware and not discover out which communities are most affected (have higher rates of exposure)so they can take steps to protect their children - if that is what your design is by attacking me and my sources here.

ANYONE who wants to discourage people from reading these studies at the Radiation and Public Health Project website is, I suppose, more than welcome to do so here at DU.

But I believe it is a red alert about your true colors.

I happen to care about the exposure of women and children to deadly nuclear materials and so I ask that people inform themselves. You are urging them NOT to. I wonder why.

Actually, I KNOW why.

[frustrated_lefty]

182. Discouraging who to do what?

"I happen to care about the exposure of women and children to deadly nuclear materials and so I ask that people inform themselves. You are urging them NOT to."

Noooo....if you scroll back, you may notice I don't discourage anyone from informing themselves. I make mention of a centralized, searchable database of all available scientific publications regarding health, disease, and their respective causes.

I agree with you to an extent, there are indeed scientific studies out there which support your position to a degree. What I find objectionable is that you do not refer to these studies; instead, you harp on one website which has an agenda.

The problem I have with the radiation.org website is it appears to be designed to prove the point that radiation is very nasty stuff, and it focuses intently upon finding evidence to support that claim. That is akin to experimental bias. Basic science isn't about proving a point. It's about discovering answers. I'm a proponent of forming public policy based upon the answers which are discovered by science; I reject attempts to shape the truths determined by science to make them support pre-determined policies and/or agendas.

[seventhson]

187. Again, your argument is ass-backwards

The organizers of the radiation and public health project CREATED the site toi educate the people about research which had already been conducted and which proved their hypotheses.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that they have EVER had a predetermined policies or agendas or that their research "shaped" the truth to fit such an agenda.

If you in fact read the books written by Dr. Sternglass, for example, you will find that he was a top scientist at Westinghouse working in radiation physics and Nasa space program. He FOUNDED the department of radiological physics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. He discovered the dangers of radiation (published by Alice Stewart and Andrei Sakharov in the 1950's and 60's) for himself and began to research this issue. The publications and website grew out of his research. The research they conduct is alarmingly conclusive on many of these issues.

Once again you assume facts not in evidence and twist the facts to suit YOUIR agenda, which is to support the unsupportable: the exposure of civilians, mothers and babies (in utero too) to toxic levels of radioisotopes that may harm or even kill them.

YOU support it. But, from my perspective, it is being a German supporting the death camps in Germany in 1944. Millions are getting dosed and exposed and getting ill (and they do not even know WHY they have chronic fatigue or chromic infections or even fatal cases of pneumonia).

YOU SUPPORT THAT.

NOT ME!!!

[treepig]

198. an important clarification

just so everyone's clear, i have not been making the following argument in any way, shape, or form:

"An argument could be made that low level doses of radiation exert selective pressure which would be of long term benefit to the species. It’s a reasonable argument, based in science, but I suspect mostly intended to egg you on. Yes, selective pressure is of benefit to the species."

sure, what you say happens, does happen, it's a basic natural phenomenon. however to define this process with value labels such as 'good' or 'beneficial' is something i'd never do (and have not done} wrt to humans - simply because peeople like seventhson could easily misinterpret your statement, as he has done in another post in this thread (in response to one of your posts, i believe):

"One more link to put the truth to treepigs and frustrasted leftie's falsehoods that radiation excposure is actuially GOOD for people.

As an aside, saying that mutating and killing the "weak" is good for the species is very Hitlerian."

i find this statement particularly offensive because seventhson knows full well that i am in no way refering to population genetics or natural selection experiments with humans (which could indeed be classified as hitlerian). instead, seventhson knows i'm referring to the hormesis effects where no one is injured or killed by the radiation in question - he has even posted (by giving one of his typically thoughtful evaluations of the subject matter) in the hormesis thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=370

because seventhson continues to flat out lie about the points i make, i can only conclude he is a incredibly dishonest person.

in any event, the hormesis thread makes it very clear that the "good" effects of radiation i have referred to have nothing to do with killing off millions of humans and then celebrating the few 'fit' survivors. i have no idea why he keeps lying about what i post, but perhaps in this case i have not made myself clear because you seem like a reasonable person and have also dramatically mis-interpreted my point. therefore i'll try once again to explain the effects i'm talking about occur on a short term, individual basis.


as an illustrative example of what i'm talking about, please consider sunlight. it absolutely can kill you - for example if throughout your life you spend one entire august day on the beach under the full sun with most of your skin exposed, two things would happen. immediately, you'd get a incredibly painful sunburn (and perhaps even die from acute exposure), and over the long term your chances of getting skin cancer would be highly increased. by contrast, if throughout your life, you spend everyday on the beach (assuming you live where the climate allows) exposed to the full sun, you would not be sunburned and your chances of getting skin cancer would be only marginally (if at all) increased. why? well, in this case the answer is fairly obvious, your skin cells produce pigments to give you a tan, and also protect you from solar radiation.

in the case of ionizing radiation, the changes in your cells may be less obvious because you can't see them, but they occur just as surely. here, consider if you live in florida (low elevation, exposure to natural and man-made radation) and visit the nuclear-power-plant contaminated stream in connecticut. chances are, your cells would sustain an unacceptably high level of damage. now, consider that you pass through grand central station on a daily basis (or even work there) - because of all the granite, the background levels of radiation are fairly, but not dangerously, high. in this situation your cells would express a suite of genes to protect themselves against the radiation - in essence, they would have a molecular repair crew standing at ready to either prevent or fix any molecular damage that results from radiation exposure. now, when this second person visits the contaminated stream in connecticut, the cellular effects will be much less damaging because of the pre-exposure to low/moderate levels of radiation.

i have no desire to debate hormesis in this thread, but it's an idea with sound scientific backing, and would be quite willing to get your input in a more rational forum (such as the thread listed above).

[seventhson]

161. PS Bullshit Shill still

If you, "progressive jazz" do not understand the technique treepig is using with his dhmo posts then you are missing a good show.

By trying to demonstrate the ridiculousness of MY arguments against Nuclear emissions and exposure of civilians (especially children and pregnant women) by holding up as a model of absurdity those who oppose H2O, Treepig is demonstrating a sophisticated and fairly advanced technique which appears pretty well thought out and planned in advance (as if he was sitting in a little room somewhere and brainstorming with shady nukular PR spooks).


He shouts :SEE I oppose the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide because this dangerous chemical can KILL you. He is talking about water: H2O. which can drown you and even kill you if you drink too much. WOW! Touche! Nice analogy!!! Water is dangerous. See:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:_vuhvK_mAEcJ:www.snopes.com/toxins/dhmo.htm+%22Dihydrogen+Monoxide%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


A ridiculous illustration of how absurd people are when they are totally ignorant. They can be manipulated and fooled by a little sophisticaon and misinformation.

By equating the opposition to nuclear pollution and radioactive emissions to a contrived argument that water is a deadly chemical, treepig has amply demonstrated the depths to which those who support nuclear power will sink to deceive folks.

Radiation causes mutations, cancers and disease and will - or has, actually - damaged the human gene pool FOREVER. Treepig's contrived analogy is pretty slick - but totally inapt.

If you fall for it I pity you.

[frustrated_lefty]

165. Water can cause cancer.

Studies show that. Under controlled circumstances, injecting water into rats can cause statistically significant tumor formation.

You can say, "oh crap, water is bad!, boycott water!" Or you can calm down a second and consider implications.

Your song has been "radiation is bad." Sorry, but no. Radiation would have existed in the absence of humans. I'm not suggesting we expand upon existent radioactive stockpiles, but you act like we created it from scratch.

And your kneejerk "oh, yegads, radiation, we must stop it," is just as kneejerk as "oh crap, water causes cancer,water must be boycotted."

[seventhson]

168. The Radiation is Safe as Water lie. Jesus!

what do you think people are here? Total morons?

The "nuclear age" began with the splitting of the atom in 1945.

We immediately used it to kill almost 200,000 people immediately and then poison many thousands more from the fallout.

We DID create nuclear stockpiles from scratch.

Yes, radiation itself is a natural part of the universe. Solar radiation, for example.

But it is NOT the same as enriched uranium or plutonium or other highly deadly and dangerous and mutagenic and carcinogenic man-made products used by the Halliburton-Cheney nuke industry to promote their military and economic hegemony while sickening and killing millions of us.


Am I the only one who is bothered by these specious arguments?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

175. Ah, the joys of ideological blindness

Initial statement: Injections of water can cause cancerous tumors.

Your response: You're equating water with radiation! Liar!

Innorect facts: The "nuclear age" began with the splitting of the atom in 1945.

No. The atom was first split in the 1930s. The nuclear age began in 1943 when the first atomic pile reactor - the one in the squash court at the University of Chicago - was brought up to power and began a sustained nuclear chain reaction. HTH, HAND.

Yes, radiation itself is a natural part of the universe. Solar radiation, for example.

But it is NOT the same as enriched uranium or plutonium or other highly deadly and dangerous and mutagenic and carcinogenic man-made products used by the Halliburton-Cheney nuke industry to promote their military and economic hegemony while sickening and killing millions of us.

My god, man, what do you think solar radiation is composed of? Light and Happy Rays? The Sun is a GREAT FUCKING BIG fusion reactor (like the inside of a HYDROGEN BOMB!) spinning around a black hole with 400,000,000,000 of its cousins. (that's 400 hundred BILLION, or about an afternoon's shopping spree for Rummy) It produces radiation across the ENTIRE electromagnetic spectrum, which includes all those deadly, dangerous and mutagenic and carcinogenic "man-made" products. Radiation along those lines is what sparked life on this planet in the first place, all those years ago back when God was debating the whole "DNA" thing.

THERE'S your "clean solar power." A deadly radiation-spewing continuious HYDROGEN EXPLOSION. Why don't you convince radiation.org to boycott the fucking SUN? I'd pay good, hard US Military-Industrial Complex money to see that.

[seventhson]

179. Oh how wonderful to be "special" emperor!

The sun is NOT spewing strontium 90 down on the earth nor is it shining rdioactive iodine into my family's thyroid gland compromising their immune systems and fowling their endocrine systems and hormones.

These are gifts from corrupt and decaying men of eveil intent and greed.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

180. Your family has only one thyroid gland?

No, skip that. Not important.

I'm not sure what my being "special" has to do with it, either, nor do I quite get why "special" is in quotes. But anyway...

What about the horrible amounts of ultraviolet and gamma radiation the Sun blasts down upon the just and the unjust alike every single day? Is that not a cause worthy of you? All those people getting skin cancer, and nobody doing anything about it?

[seventhson]

181. One each

the damn s didn't take. Thanks for jumping on the obvious typo


No -- trying to ban the sun or shut it down is not my cause.

I am glad you can ridicule yourself. Senses of humor are important.

[frustrated_lefty]

183. Iodine?

"These are gifts from corrupt and decaying men of eveil intent and greed."

K, http://www.endocrineweb.com/thyroidca.html

Radioactive iodine is the preferred treatment for dealing with thyroid cancer. Perhaps it is a gift from men of "eveil intent and greed," but it's saved more than a handful of lives and the people who developed and apply the therapy certainly aren't living the high life on their exhorbitant middle class incomes.

[seventhson]

185. Radioactive iodine is dangerous and can be a killer

OF COURSE, JESUS, there is a huge difference between ANY substance utilized in controlled medical consitions in very small doses. The reason that radioactive iodine is used in the treatment is that it KILLS the thyroid gland cells which may well have been cancerous due to exposure from radioactive iodine (iodine 131)


Your analogy is totally inapt. Radiation is NOT inherently evil. The daily release of radiation into our air, water and soil for profit and greed is criminal and evil.

I am uncomfortable with radiation "treatment" for cancer. My own experience with it in close family members is that it kills you. But the exposure of my kids to radio-iodine in our neighborhood leaked from a nuke plant by criminals is WAAAAAYYYY f*cking different than the informed medical use on a wartned patient with a dangerous disease which needs treatment.

Could you please get a life?

[progressivejazz]

171. Oh, I understand; but I have a question for you.

Treepig's argument on this point is simply that misuse of anything is bad for the misuser. Hardly an "advanced technique" requiring a cabal of nuclear-loving PR people to come up with.

I have visited the site you asked us to. Having read several unimpressive articles, I came upon the one entitled "Infant Deaths and Chilhood Cancer Drop Dramatically After Nuclear Plants Close" (November 30, 2001). Perhaps you'd like to answer a couple of questions I have regarding this article. The article lists a number of nuclear reactors that have closed and the decrease in infant deaths that occurred downwind after their closing. The first problem I have is that I don't recognize several of the reactors named as having been commercial nuclear power plants. Were they all? The second problem I have is that Connecticut Yankee is not on the list. My memory is that it closed in the time period covered. Why was it not on the list? Could it be that the authors of this study "cooked" the data by choosing only the reactors that showed the results they wanted? Or is my memory just bad?

And no, I'm not part of a conspiracy against you or anybody else. I've had no communication with anyone else posting on this thread. If it looks like a tag-team to you, be assured it's not a tag-team I'm any part of. All I am is someone who wants the truth.

[seventhson]

173. Okay, if you actually READ the article you would see why::

Statistics for plants that were within forty milers of operating plants were not included because the results would not be valid. Duh

[progressivejazz]

172. Your source is dishonest.

I've done some homework since my last post and found the answers to my questions. First, all the reactors named in the article I referenced in my previous post were indeed nuclear power plants. My memory was wrong there.

BUT I also found that the reactors named were not all the reactors that had been shut down during the time period indicated (4/30/87 through 12/96). Where is San Onofre I, that shut down 11/30/92? Where is Haddam Neck (CT Yankee), that shut down 7/22/96? Where is Shoreham, that shut down 6/28/89? In addition, it should be possible to find downwind child mortality data for the plants that shut down before 4/30/87. Where is this data? It sure seems to me that the authors of the article cherry-picked the data in order to make their case. Unless someone can provide me with reasons why these plants were not included in the statistics, that's the only conclusion I can come to. And that puts the credibility of the whole website in question.

And your credibility too.

[seventhson]

174. No, YOU are dishonest. They state the reason in the article

and press release.


Plants were not included if they were too close to still operating plants, which would invalidate the data as radiation would still be polluting that community.

I suggest people go here and read the materials.

http://radiation.org/closed.html

Unfortunately the study itself is archived, but it can be retrieved if one gets a free temporary subscription. I believe "Lefty" here is relying on the press release. But maybe not. In any event the reason is explained why these plants were excluded (too cloe to other operating reactors).


I highly recommend both anything by Dr. Sternglass or Dr. Sherman, both of whom I know personally (I have interviewed them both as a journalist).
The others are some of the most reputable and honest people I know.

[progressivejazz]

176. No. I am not dishonest; and I'll prove it to you.

I was wrong.

I missed footnote 4 of the press release "After reactor closing, nearest operating reactor is at least 70 miles away".

Of course, you were wrong when you wrote: "Statistics for plants that were within forty milers(sic) of operating plants were not included because the results would not be valid. Duh" It was 70 miles, not 40. Does this mean you were dishonest? I don't think so. Nor was I, though my culpability is infinitely greater because the unintentionally ignored footnote removed one of the bases of my charge of dishonesty against the website.

And I've done some more research and found that when they talk of Millstone in the press release they mean both Millstone and Connecticut Yankee. So they're innocent on that score too.

I apologize to all I may have mislead.




Having said all of that, let's examine the "Duh". There is a 40 miles in the study. Footnote 2 says "Includes counties located downwind and within 40 miles of closed reactors". So the health statistics are for these counties. But they exclude cases where there is an operating reactor, not 40 miles upwind, but 70 miles away, regardless of the wind. The fact is that 12 reactors were closed in the time period specified, and they've not included them all by using the 70 miles criterion. That makes me wonder where the 70 mile number came from. As a person who seeks the truth, I'd like to see what the results are for all 12, so I can make up my own mind. I can't find that information anywhere. Can you help?

[seventhson]

177. I would ask one of the the authors of the study. Email the website

I am sure Mr. Mangano will help you.

I also misread in my hurry to answer so I retract the Duh. My Bad.

The thing is that ther4e WAS an explanation and I imaginew the study in its entirety would probably answer that question but so far the only copy of the complete article I have seen requires subscribing. There may be others, though.

These guys are really quite sharp as they are subject to a massive barrage of PR against them from the nuke industry - so they try to remain within accepted scientific standards and methods when they report. Their opinions ARE based on science and their interpretation of the data.

I find them very reliable and dedicated with no financial renumeration for their almosty thankless work.

Sternglass and his book "Before the Big Bang" are absolutely awesome!

I HIGHLY recommend that everyone bookmark and explore radiation.org. Critique it if you want. But READ Sternglass who is as remarkable a human being as I have ever met and was somewhat of a protege of Einstein.

Before the Big Bang is a must read.

[treepig]

201. why do your sources never add up upon closer investigation?

- Dramatic declines in local infant death and childhood cancer rates occurred soon after the closing of eight nuclear power plants, according to a new report announced by New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, Radiation and Public Health Project, and the STAR Foundation. The study documents a 17.4% reduction in infant mortality in the downwind counties within 40 miles two years after reactor closing, compared to a national decline of just 6.4%. Large declines occurred in all eight areas near closed reactors, and remained above national trends for at least six years after closing. The information appears as an article published in the March/April 2002 edition of Archives of Environmental Health.

here is the complete table of contents from the issue in question, where is the author's article? these people wouldn't just be making things up about publishing in this journal, would they?

Volume 57(2) March/April 2002
(C) 2002 by the Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation. Copyright is retained by the author where noted. ISSN: 0003-9896



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

1. Cancer in the Semiconductor Industry.
Fisher, Jim.
•
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 95-97
2. Nephrotoxic Actions of Low-Dose Mercury in Mice: Protection by Zinc.
AFONNE, ONYENMECHI J.. ORISAKWE, ORISH E.. OBI, EJEATULUCHUKWU. DIOKA, CHUDI E.. NDUBUKA, GIDEON I..
• •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 98-102
3. Characterization of Spirometric Function in Residents of Three Comparison Communities and of Three Communities Located near Waste Incinerators in North Carolina.
HAZUCHA, MILAN J.. RHODES, VICTOR. BOEHLECKE, BRIAN A.. SOUTHWICK, KAREN. DEGNAN, DARRAH. SHY, CARL M..
• •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 103-112
4. Is Neurotoxicity Associated with Environmental Trichloroethylene (TCE)?
KILBURN, KAYE H..
• •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 113-120
5. Do Duration of Exposure, Proximity to Electronic Manufacturing Plants, and Involvement in a Lawsuit Affect Chlorinated Solvent Toxicity?
KILBURN, KAYE H..
• •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 121-126
6. Neuropathy in an Artist Exposed to Organic Solvents in Paints: A Case Study.
MOSHE, SHLOMO. BITCHATCHI, ENRIQUE. GOSHEN, JOSHUA. ATTIAS, JOSEPH.
• •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 127-129
7. The Po River Delta (North Italy) Indoor Epidemiological Study: Effects of Pollutant Exposure on Acute Respiratory Symptoms and Respiratory Function in Adults.
SIMONI, MARZIA. CARROZZI, LAURA. BALDACCI, SANDRA. SCOGNAMIGLIO, ANTONIO. DI PEDE, FRANCESCO. SAPIGNI, TRISTANO. VIEGI, GIOVANNI.
• •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 130-136
8. Visits to Physicians after the Oxygenation of Gasoline in Philadelphia.
JOSEPH, PETER M.. WEINER, MARK G..
• •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 137-154
9. Relationships between Indoor Environments and Nasal Inflammation in Nursing Personnel.
SMEDBOLD, HANS THORE. AHLEN, CATRINE. UNIMED, SINTEF. NILSEN, ASBJORN M.. NORBACK, DAN. HILT, BJORN.
• •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 155-161
10. Paraquat Intoxication in Korea.
HWANG, KYU-YOON. LEE, EUN-YOUNG. HONG, SAE-YONG.
• •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 162-166
11. Sleep Disorders and Daytime Sleepiness in State Police Shiftworkers.
GARBARINO, SERGIO. NOBILI, LINO. BEELKE, MANOLO. BALESTRA, VINCENZO. CORDELLI, ALESSANDRO. FERRILLO, FRANCO.
• •
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 167-173
12. Suspected Chronic Organochlorine Pesticide Poisoning.
LANE, JOSHUA E.. LASSITER, C. COY. GRESEN, KENNETH W.. GLASGOW, WAYNE C..
•
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pg. 174-175

[treepig]

203. ok, upon further investigation, i see the study was published

in the January/February issue (doesn't really bode well for the accuracy of the data presented if they can't even cite their own paper accurately . . . )

here's an interesting statement from their discussion section:

Although declines near each reactor have fallen short of statistical significance, the possibility that similar trends should occur in each area by random chance is low.

how's that for an oxymoronic (perhaps just a simply moronic) statement? the whole point of statistical significance is to ensure that events don't occur by random chance. therefore, by definition, if a result lacks statistical significance, there is a likelihood that random chance is involved.

[seventhson]

205. You misread the statement

Each individual plant by itself means little, but when you have such drops at every plant that has shut down it IS statistically significant. Perhaps he should have said it that way for clarity, but it makes perfect sense if you only use your head for a second.

ONE instance would be an insignificant anomaly. But the reduction in infant mortality (by definition babies exposed in utero who died shortly after birth before their first birthday)NEAR EACH AND EVERY NUCLEAR PLANT IN THE STUDY WHICH SHUT DOWN - THE possibiulity that THAT is random cxhance is low.


Keep spinning, spinmeister. You mislead once again.

[treepig]

208. no you can't just lump a bunch of statistically insignificant

result together, and then voila, they magically become statistically significant. upon proper analysis, the 'each and every reactor' trend may be shown to be significant, but these authors have not shown this trend (and if they could have, i'm sure they would have).

if you look at the actually numbers in the tables, they're all over the place. there are some leading trends at play - i'd say this type of data might be sufficient to get a reputable funding agency to fund further work to establish whether the putative trends are real or not. at this point the trends are mere conjecture.

as i discussed in another post, a key issue in these studies is ruling out the effects of poverty. back when the reactors were constructed in the 50s/60s/and 70s the effects of radioactive fallout from cold war weapons testing were well enough known that when the siting of a nuclar power plant was under consideration, the wealthier counties made sure they were not located downwind if at all possible. hence, the downwind counties tend to be poorer, and more prone to bounce back in areas like infant mortality during times like the clinton years. this is a key factor that needs to be addressed in these studies before anything conclusive can be ascertained.

[seventhson]

204. Maybe it was Jan/Feb 2002. But here's the link, bo bullshit

http://ask.elibrary.com/login.asp?c=&host=ask%2Eelibrary%2Ecom&script=%2Fgetdoc%2Easp&query=pubname%3DArchives%5Fof%5FEnvironmental%5FHealth%26puburl%3Dhttp%7EC%7E%7ES%7E%7ES%7Ewww%2Eheldref%2Eorg%7ES%7Eaeh%2Ehtml%26querydocid%3D69597003%40urn%3Abigchalk%3AUS%3BLib%26dtype%3D0%7E0%26dinst%3D0%26author%3DMangano%252C%2520Joseph%2520J%2520Gould%252C%2520Jay%2520M%2520Strenglass%252C%2520Ernest%2520Sherman%252C%2520Janette%2520D%2520Et%2520al%2520%2520%26title%3DInfant%2520death%2520and%2520childhood%2520cancer%2520reductions%2520after%2520nuclear%2520plant%2520closings%2520in%2520the%2520United%2520States%2520%2520%26date%3D01%2F01%2F2002%26refid%3Dency%5Fbotnm&title=Infant+death+and+childhood+cancer+reductions+after+nuclear+plant+closings+in+the+United+States++&pubname=Archives%5Fof%5FEnvironmental%5FHealth&author=Mangano%2C+Joseph+J+Gould%2C+Jay+M+Strenglass%2C+Ernest+Sherman%2C+Janette+D+Et+al++&date=01%2F01%2F2002&ctrlInfo=

[treepig]

200. besides the points already made in this thread

a key issue i haven't seen addressed (and perhaps, since you've already spent a lot of time reading the study you can answer this point and save me the legwork) is that the time period involved for evaluation of post-shut-down infant mortality was primarily the clinton years when poverty and related infant mortality were on a nation-wide downward trend. considering this point, it is not at all surprising that decreases in infant mortality would be found in a supposedly exposed population after shut-down - similar drops would be expected in any small, selected populations based on national trends.

therefore, for this study to have any validity, two control groups would need to be considered. for every down-wind population selected for a shut-down reactor, tow appropriately selected (similar) populations would need to be comparatively analyzed. one population would be down-wind of nuclear power plants that are continuing in operation. the other population should be sufficiently removed from nuclear power plants so that neither shut-down or continued operation would be a factor. only be comparing these three groups would it be possible to get acceptable data to conclude anything about the down-wind health effects on infant mortality. my suspicions are that if this study was done properly, all three groups would show declines in infant mortality (based on larger national trends) and the declines seen downwind of shut-down nuclear power plants have no causative relationship with the shut-down event.

on edit - note that i'm aware that the authors are aware of the nationwide downward trend in infant mortality - and claim that the trend is much higher in down-wind areas. my question is - aren't nuclear power plants likely to be situated in relatively poverty-stricken neighborhoods where the greatest gains in infant mortality reduction would be expected? for example, i expect that there was a much greater reduction in infant mortality during the 90's in harlem as compared to beverly hills but this difference was in fact due to reduction of poverty in harlem (something not really an issue, or possible, in beverly hills), not the shut-down of the up-wind nuclear power plants.

i once plotted the distance of the voyager 1 spacecraft from earth with the age of my pet hamster. the correlation coefficient was over 99.9999999% - it was a statistical rock-solid correlation. yet, common sense indicates the aging of my hamster was not causing voyager to move away from the earth (or vice versa). the danger of unsubstantiated correlations . . .

[treepig]

211. nevermind, i've spent some time looking at the data myself

and as i've posted above, the spread of the data is such that it is basically meaningless.

however, if one wishes to draw meaning from the data, i submit that the data given in the paper could be used to support the hormesis hypothesis.

if you look at the composite downwind/upwind data for the eight areas under study, you see that before plant closures infant morality was (per 1000):

Upwind: 8.29
Downwind: 8.44

what are possible interpretations?

1. there is no statistical difference (the spread from which numbers are derived range from 4 to 10+)
2. upwind areas are 'safer' due to socioeconomical factors
3. down-wind areas are more dangerous due to exposure to radioisotopes leaking from the power plants.

in any event, the up-wind areas saw a decrease in infant mortality during the study period to 7.71. if hypothesis 3 was correct, the down-wind areas should have experienced a similar decrease in infant mortality and end up at the same level of 7.71 (because if the deadly radioisotopes that are killing children are removed, their effect should no longer be seen) - perhaps, you'd think that with residual effects, infant mortality in exposed areas might take a long time to achieve parity with the non-exposed areas. Instead, the down-wind areas saw infant mortality decrease to 7.00 - they became much safer than the previously un-exposed areas!!. what the author focus on is the magnitude of decrease - however by focusing on the absolute before-and-after infant mortality rates, a much different story emerges.

i could easily write a paper equally as convincing as the author's cited here making the following points:

1. during exposure, up-wind and down-wind areas have statistically identical levels of infant mortality (8.29 vs 8.44 isn't that different!). a complex interplay of hormetic and toxic effects was apparently going on in the bodies of the radioisotope-exposed down-wind population. these counteracting effects nicely balanced each other out, resulting in no difference observed between them and the upwind group.

2. upon removal of radio-isotopes, the down-wind population now no longer had to content with the deleterious effects of radioisotope exposure, but the hormetic effects persisted (which, by definition is what they do), allowing the down-wind, previously-exposed persons to actually become healthier than their non-exposed upwind counterparts (with a infant mortality of 7.00 compared to 7.71).

anybody have an alternate explanation for this data?

would i write such a paper? well not without further studies to explain the enormous numerical spread of the data, definitively rule out socioeconomic effects (etc).

[seventhson]

213. Prevailing winds change. Sometimes what is usually upwind is downwind

mostly the proximity to the plant determines the amount of dosing with higher dosing in the predominatly downwind areas and occasional dosing in the areas usually upwind which are sometimes downwind.


You analysis has no merit because it fails to take this into consideration. They key issue is really proximity.

ALSO, as there is not necessarily a straight line increase in danger the more radiation you are exposed to (sometimes low doses are more dangerous because at higher doses there is an effect in which something like the excess creation of free radicals apparently causes a clogging effect so that the cells are not as easily penetrated by the radiation: the analogy used by scientists is the effect when someone yells fire in a theater and bunches of people clog the doorways and nothing gets through.

As a result the RPHP has found that there may actually be a higher proportion of damage at low doses and that there is a curve where folks who get one big dose suffer less long term damage because there is less deep penetration. Second hand smoke is another analogy: smaller particles penetrate deeper into the lungs.

This MIGHT explain some of the numbers -- buit you cannot assume what you have here: that downwinders get all exposure and upwinders get none. That's just false.

[Forkboy]

210. yup...pretty simple choice

I haven't believed much of what Seventhson has ever said.He sounds like my father used to...trouble is my father is bipolar/schizophrenic so that's not a good thing :shrug:

[seventhson]

214. Nice. Very nice.

It's genetic, you know. Right Forkboy? Got it?

Nice of you to just not have any rational argument at all which, come to think about it, would be an indication of bipolar disorder.


Your father was probably right about things, though, if this is how you treat him.

[Forkboy]

220. cry me a river

if your arguments are considered rational I'm somehow not too worried.

[seventhson]

221. Justin?

I knew you were a teenager.

[seventhson]

167. Uranium exposure to Natives (is this SAFE or good for them?)

http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=962&blz=1


One more link to put the truth to treepigs and frustrasted leftie's falsehoods that radiation excposure is actuially GOOD for people.

As an aside, saying that mutating and killing the "weak" is good for the species is very Hitlerian.

I suppose by that logic that if you throw a bunch of preschoolers onto a busy highway, the ones who are quick enough to scamper off without getting hit would be an "improvement" to the species.

Your argument ranks with the lowest of the low. Killing people is good for them.

It is so Bushian as to give me chills.

[frustrated_lefty]

184. I said what?

"One more link to put the truth to treepigs and frustrasted leftie's falsehoods that radiation excposure is actuially GOOD for people."

You're right, I suggested people feed their children a p32 soup to make good and sure the isotope stuck around for a good long while. Or...ooops, maybe I said:

"Eh, your uninformed paranoia about radiation annoys people and makes them go to the opposite extreme. An argument could be made that low level doses of radiation exert selective pressure which would be of long term benefit to the species. It’s a reasonable argument, based in science, but I suspect mostly intended to egg you on."

[seventhson]

186. On other words: natural selection. Survival of the Fittest. Hitler logic.

You say:

"An argument could be made that low level doses of radiation exert selective pressure which would be of long term benefit to the species"


That is eugenics. Kill the defectives who cannot adapt to radiation and the species will be better for it Mein Fuehrer. Yavohl!


Puh-Leeze!!!

[frustrated_lefty]

188. You, sir,

are entirely too shrill for me to waste more time on. Enjoy your crusade.

[seventhson]

189. Me and Al Franken. Shrill and Unstable. Kinda like a Nuke plant

I'm sorry BUT...

To assert that irradiating people to "improve" the species because "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" AND natural selection will weed out the weaker of us (especially children, pregnant women, and the elderly who are most vulnerable to breast cancer, spontaneous abortions and opportunistic infections and heart problems) === These assertions NEED a "shrill" and powerful response.

Ortherwise folks who support nuclear power will ber able to get away with supporting the intentional murder of many of our civilians.

When corporations Pollute communities with killer chemicals and radioactive waste and effluents - this is murder. When it is sanctioned and supported by the government, it is murder.

NOW the Bush energy plan (the secret plan developed by Nuclear Halliburton;'s Chenmey and his secret cabal of enroinites nd scavengers) wants to build NEW MASSIVE NUCLEAR PLANTS TO POLLUTE THE WHOLE NATION WITH KILLER RADIOISOTOPES.

That is why I am on this crusade.

[seventhson]

178. Your child's radioactive Baby Teeth are Science fact

http://radiation.org/florida.html

Excerpt


April 9, 2003,




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

Jerry Brown, Ph.D. and Ernest Sternglass, Ph.D.



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.



Used By Permission


By the way. I have seen the baby teeth results. EVERY TOOTH TESTED in the United States TESTED POSITIVE FOR STRONTIUM 90 WHICH IS NOT FOUND IN NATURE (IT IS A MAN MADE RADIO-ISOTOPE). If you have children, they were dosed with Strontium-90. Not only does this cause cancer but it ALSO damages and mutates reproductive organs and spreads from the bone marrow (after it is absorbed by the bones and teeth) to the entire body where it can damage the most vulnerable organs, like the uterus, ovaries, testicles, breasts and prostate.

There are things you can do to protect yourself and your children.

But the first is to become educated about how Cheney/Halliburton and Bush et al are poisoning us. They WANT us weak and unable to resist.

[seventhson]

190. Thanks DU READER!!!! One last kick for history. PLEASE READ AND COMMENT

roll the credits please.

This thread has pointed out to me some fascinating elements of DU and how it operates.

Most people steer clear of the nuke debate for some reason.

Childish rhetoric (mine included) wastes time and doesn't convince people of much.

Those who want to support the BFEE are fairly well prepared on this board for any comer on any issue -- including the deathly nature of nuke plants and exposure caused by Halliburton and the huge energy companies that own and operate the BFEE.


HOWEVER, from the very beginning -- when I started posting about the Bush Nazi connections during the 2000 elections (and got numerous death threats and harassment) I REALIZED that internet DISCUSSION BOARDS have tremendous POWER



I ALSO realized that with the BFEE (my preferred reference to them now - which used to be Bush Nazis or Bushzis) the BOARDS become a battleground for public opinion.


Almost NO ONE believed the Bush-Nazi history -- even though there were documents online that proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The debate became a battle of attrition (by defintion a war where he whose resources are exhausted first loses) The more one can wear down the opposition (the BFEE) with logic and facts and evidence and even ridicule and haranguing and sheer determination and never giving up - on these boards -- the more folks can be educated about what is truuly happening.

Nuclear pollution affects ALL of us negatively. Like DDT it is EVERYWHERE and it has damaged ALL OF US. It is in our bones and teeth and in our children and poarents and loved ones. It will kill many of us here on DU, maybe in 30 years - maybe next month.

But FINALLY ity seems like the folks battling me have withdrawn (I know they will come back) because I refuse to back down, I refuse to accept lies and bullshit and prevarication and ridicule.

I stand up to it.


And I win the war of attrition.

THAT is how we will defeat the BFEE

[Emperor_Norton_II]

191. You have called, and I respond

Of course, I would have imagined that such and old and experienced mystic like yourself would know that you do not call up what you cannot put down.

You do not back down, but then you don't say anything, either. You parrot others, you insult, you tinfoil with furious abandon, you promote radiation.org with such tenacity that I occasionaly think you're getting paid for clickthru traffic from DU. But for all that sound and fury, you have remarkably little to say:

1) Radiation is Evil.
2) Bush is Evil.

Statement #2 is axiomatic - practially nobody out of the 20,000+ members of DU can go three or four posts without saying it outright. The first statement is subject to Doubt and Criticism. This is as it should be, as it is the core of rational thought. However, you don't review or revise or even apparently recognize the most remote possibility that you might be wrong.

In your mind you are Right, without the slightest sliver of doubt, and all who oppose you are Wrong, lunatics or paid agents. We are either For you or Against you. You have the POWER, and you'll weild that POWER until all who stand against you are defeated.

Does this sound familiar in any way, seventhson? Do you understand? Can you understand? Somehow I doubt that you have the capability for self-examination needed to really understand the flaw in that line of thought. And for that, I pity you, trapped in a cage of your own making and crying for lost freedom.

Allright, I'm done. Call me your childish insults, mock me however you feel like.

[seventhson]

192. Okay your royal highness. Ummm.... Anyone else?

care to comment?

[frustrated_lefty]

193. Newp,

Emperor_Norton summed it up nicely.

[BelgianMadCow]

215. my 2 cents

You seem like a man who fights for a cause in this thread.
I understood personal loss has brought the passion you preach with.

Your cause, in general, summarised by me as "fighting against pollution due to man-made radiation", is, at least to me, a good cause. You, and that website, are part of the necessary checks and balances.

So I understand your cause, and respect your motivation.

I just think you have lost some sense of perspective, and you see enemies where there aren't. People have repeatedly argued with you just to show you the errors in your reasoning, using some of the techniques they didn't agree with in an exagerated way, and triggered by your black and white thinking.

I have nevertheless enjoyed this discussion, your input as well as the others.

peace

[seventhson]

217. Wellll.... Not quite

They used outright prevarication, propaganda and name-calling with some pretty sophisiticated psy-ops sryle disinformation.

Believe me. Nukes are THE fasists' power in this era. Keeping them in the hands of the BFEE and using them to rule (and, I believe, to control the population)is a prime method of the fascists in control/

This is a minor pasttime for them. But it is an idealogical front and so they keep their propaganda mills churning here as on many fronts.
They have the resources for it and if they can barrage on an issue like this they can actually convince a few very naive people to support theri pseudo-"analysis" It is not analysis at all. It is NOT black and white as they have portrayed it and it actually they have not really identified any "errors" in my reasoning as you assert.

In order to make my point I'd appreciate it if you can point out a case where they actually identified an alleged error (with the source of MY alleged error rather than just a vague assertion that there is an error as you have done) then identify what they claim the error is and my response to it.

In most cases you will find that they fabricated an "error" out of whole cloth, spoun it to make it look like an error, and then backed off after I was able to demonstrate that their assertion was fraudulent or fabricated in the first instance.

It is typical propaganda.

If you fall for it then you should probably try studying it a little closer and more objectively.

[BelgianMadCow]

219. a severe case of barking up the wrong tree

the way you write, you make someone sympathetic to your cause feel antagonistic towards you. Your valid points lose appeal through the way you communicate.

But don't trust me :-)

I suggest http://www.peacechime.org/peacebreath/peacebreath.html

peace

[seventhson]

222. If you assert that I am wrong

about the dangers of radiation...

and you assert that the counterarguers here like treepig and emperor norton are NOT antagonistic or baiting and switching and are thus valid -- then you have unjustly attacked my credibility , as nicely as you tried to coat it..

Look you criticized me and said , without any specific references or facts, that I was in error and that my critics on this subject are right. I claim they are supporting the Cheney Energy Company lines.

If my bristling at that -- and again you offer no specifics, just a happy face and a link to nicey-nice persuasiveness - then I am offended and have a right to be.

Argue the facts and quit throwing insults and bolstering bogus arguments without any evidence, just aspersions.

[seventhson]

223. Peacechime.org -- what happy horseshit.. Sounds like Moonies, frankly

By purchasing The Power of Peace—30 Days To A New Peaceful You, you will not only be reclaiming that place of peace within yourself, but you will also become part of community of people who are passionate about creating a world in peace.

The solution for peace lies inside each one of us.
For only $12.95, you can begin to create a better world for yourself and your loved ones, because You Are the solution for peace.

Support The Peace Chime Movement™. Take a stand for peace today.



THAT is what this site offers.


What is this, Paid Programming at 3 a.m.


Not only thsat but they rip off "Peace Now". Jesus. Blatant weird.

[seventhson]

225. PS point of order and example of disinfo technique with insults:

Here is the first attack in this thread on those who were discussing and agreeing on the dangers of radiation:


treepig (900 posts) Sat Aug-16-03 09:30 AM
Response to Original message

28. i realize people who post in threads such as this one


are more interested in fantasy then reality, so i won't say anything except to refer interested readers to threads where nuclear-related issues are being discussed in a slightly more sane manner:

burning coal introduces more radioactivity into the enviroment than nuclear power does:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=169

low levels of radiation (a slightly radioactive hornets nest perhaps?) can actually improve your health:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=370



THAT is pointing out the errors in my reasoning?

Radiation is good for you (the article does not actually say that, as I pointed out)"

And Coal cuaes more radioactive pollution than NUKES. THAT is an old canard of the nuke industry. Man made radiation is far worse than what is in coal.

AND he says that we who oppose nuke plants are more interested in fantasy than real;ity. He starts with two falsehoods and an insult.

If you think THAT is pointing out the Errors in my reasoning then I am sure you will buy anything that treeepig is selling.

Be my guest.

[treepig]

196. i was going to stay out of this thread further

but just had to weigh in on one more misleading (or more precisely, completely false) statement you made:

"Like DDT it is EVERYWHERE and it has damaged ALL OF US"

in some ways, though, the comparison of ddt to radiation is quite apt. ddt was greatly abused as a agricultural pesticide with deleterious effects on bird populations. ddt has essentially no negative effects on human health, even when large amounts are deliberately ingested - in fact, in the past ddt has saved millions of lives due to its anti-malarial effects.

here's some (most-likely bfee-connected, they're everywhere, yikes!)organizations that advocate the resumption of house-spray use of ddt for malaria control:

Malaria Foundation International: http://www.malaria.org/ddtlancet.html

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11071203&dopt=Abstract
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/DDT.html

http://www.malaria.org/ddtlancet.html

Centre for Independent Studies (Australia:
http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/Spring01/PolicySpring01_1.html

Africa Fighting Malaria:
http://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.php?min=60&max=75

on a different topic, thanks for the "sophisticated propagandist" label - that's going on my c.v.!! (right up near the top someplace) (in reality, the whole water-as-a-toxin stint i was on was merely to show how ridiculous this thread had become, i think any sane person realized that fact, and would not have spent time debunking the dhmo.org website).

[seventhson]

197. Of Course you would back DDT

It fits.

[treepig]

199. i wasn't really 'backing' ddt

i was just trying to understand your bizarre linkage of it environmental radiation and point out that your strange black and white cartoon world has little relevance in the complex world most of us live in.

i will leave it to the reader to do research for themselves on the hazards of ddt to human health (my invesigation has shown it to be much less toxic than compounds commonly and willingly used by people such as caffeine, nicotine, and even acetominiphen (tylenol). furthermore, i will leave it to the reader to assess the environmental impact of the 'house-spray' program in relation to the number of lives it would save to come to their own conclusions about whether judicious use of ddt would be a good thing.

but getting back to your strange linkage of ddt and radiation:

first, let's assume that ddt is toxic to humans. then, considering that it's widespread introduction into the environment coincided with the introduction of man-made radioisotopes - isn't it reasonable to conclude that some or many of those excess 65,000,000 deaths you content were caused by radiation actually are due to ddt instead?

second, let's assume that ddt is not toxic to humans. in this case (which i believe anyone who looks into the matter themselves will find to be true) your linking of ddt to radiation looks an awful lot like a backhanded admission that radiation isn't really that dangerous after all.

[seventhson]

206. To quote Jon Stewart: "Wahhh?"

I never linked ddt to radiation. What I said was that, like ddt, raditaion found itrs way into the entire ecosystem so that the tests show that we have ALL been exposed.

And yes, there is a synergistic affect which magnifies the damage if you are exposed to both Radoation AND ddt so that death rates will be higher if you are exposed to both. BUT based on the fact that mortality rates and treatment were improving fairly steadily until the introduction of man-made radio-isotopes into the atmosphere with the first atomic bombs in the 1940's, the issue of ddt may or may not be VERY relevent.

I was NOT claiming that DDT was like radiation in its impact, but merely in its proliferation throughout the environment and its absorption into our tissues.

Dr. Jeanette Sherman at radiation.org , where her books on breast cancer and environment , etc, may be found, is more of a specialist in how these substances interact.

You were defending DDT and it may even be necessary in some limited circumstances. But its widespread use was deadly and remains dangerous.

[treepig]

209. yeah, deadly if you're an insect

if you're a person, not so dangerous:

there's this guy, a "dr. edwards" who goes around eating ddt . . .

As a result of such studies, I felt that it was safe for me to ingest DDT. I was delivering addresses to various audiences almost every week. I carried a commercial box of DDT onto the stage, dug out a tablespoon of DDT (about 12 mgs), swallowed it, and washed it down with water before beginning my talk about DDT’s lack of toxicity to vertebrate animals. Esquire magazine, in September 1971, pictured me ingesting a tablespoon of DDT. The text explained that I had “eaten two-hundred times the normal human intake of DDT, to show it’s not as bad as people think.”

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/Mosquitoes.html

personally, if ddt is never used again for anything, i don't care (although i feel a bit bad for the malaria victim's whose lives could have been saved). i'm just pointing out this information to show that you really, really need to improve your understanding of the underlying scientific issues if you want to be taken seriously as an anti-nuclear power plant advocate.

[seventhson]

212. Damn you are relentless! Would you eat DDT too? DID YOU???

Once again some guy eating ddt is not persuasive to me. Didn't you offer to eat uranium?

How in the hell does anybody KNOW what was in the things swallowed. Cheap parlor trick.

Here is one balanced article on the question:
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:pGoS7C50YU0J:www.idrc.ca/reports/read_article_english.cfm%3Farticle_num%3D850+DDT+dangers+humans&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


And I wonder how "Dr/ Edwards" is doing today. But he coulda been lyin' too.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

218. *ahem*

Didn't you offer to eat uranium?

No, that was me.

Actually, I'll go one better; about - oh, must be ten years ago now - I visited the Trinity crater on a school trip and inhaled many deep lungfuls of radioactive dust. Even found a nice big chunk of Trinitite - which was really lucky, considering most of it had been broken up and hauled off years ago. Lost the fragment, tho, in one move or another. :-(

Anyway, that was ten years ago. I'm still here. Go figure.

Yrs in radioluminescence,

[realFedUp]

202. the thread that never dies

it's like groundhog day seeing this thread on the
front page of the Breaking News day after day....
howabout shutting it down or moving it to The
Believe It or Not forum.

[seventhson]

207. Sorry, fedup, but this is a life and death issue

And I refuse to let folks who support the Cheney-Halliburton nuclear alliance have the last untrue word.


It IS sometimes a war of attrition with pro-Bfee disruptors on this board.

But I too have been surprised by their tenacity and bizarre claims that Radiation is safe and even improves our genes. Utter bullshit.

My family is sick because of it as are probably MANY of us here on this board who live downwind or who were exposed through milk or food produced downwind or downstream from nukes.

But I have NO problem if this gets locked so that it sinks to the bottom.

[BelgianMadCow]

216. lol

I agree but it also made me feel kinda like home.
Familiar faces if you will :-)

[seventhson]

224. Familiar faces from WHERE, exact;ly. Freeperville, capitolgrilling?

familiar from where?