What is the Impact of Radiation on Children Living Near Chernobyl?

[chroot]

Originally posted by russ_watters
How much worse do you consider it than lead?

Not a whole lot worse. I wouldn't want to have vaporized lead all over my house either.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by chroot
Not a whole lot worse. I wouldn't want to have vaporized lead all over my house either.

I guess the main difference then is its easier to vaporize uranium?

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I guess the main difference then is its easier to vaporize uranium?

Well, yeah -- uranium is pyrophoric. Lead is not.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

And here are some good links to balanced, fair assesments of the impacts of the chemical and radiological effects of depleted uranium. The first is from Argonne National Lab, and intends only to determine the risk coefficients for various mechanisms of biological uranium contamination:

http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Depleted-Uranium.pdf

The second is an "almagamation" paper by two guys at the University of Maryland and Princeton. It appears an awful lot of research went into this paper, and I think its presentation is quite fair.

http://www.puaf.umd.edu/faculty/papers/fetter/sags-du.pdf

My final opinion on the matter? I think DU is nasty stuff, both from a radiological and a chemical standpoint. It is no more chemically dangerous than other compounds like lead (a milligram's not going to kill you), but it burns spontaneously in air and aerosolizes easily upon impact, making it easier to get into the body. It's not significantly radioactive (rather low specific activity, 175,000 times lower than plutonium-239) to be dangerous unless rather significant amouts are ingested or inhaled -- but I would bet that some of the soldiers involved in these battles (or some of the very stupid cilivians playing with the spent rounds) have exceeded this threshold. I feel fairly certain that at least a few people will (or have) developed cancers due to DU exposure.

On the whole, I think most of the alarmism about DU is unfounded. I'm also certain that DU is not responsible for the deformed babies shown in theroyprocess's flash site -- but, at the same time, I think its use constitutes a definite ethical problem. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means "tame as a kitty cat" and 10 means "instant wretching death," I personally rank DU as a 4. Your opinions?

- Warren

 

[theroyprocess]

Ubiquitous Disclaimers

Here it is again...deadly, long-lived radioactive waste leaks
into our precious groundwater...and some industry spokesman
will state...'poses no threat to health'. They should go hang
themselves like Judas!
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sellafield leaks worse than feared
Fears for drinking supply as radioactive pollution at nuclear plant
contaminates groundwater

By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
Sunday Herald - 14 December 2003

http://www.sundayherald.com/print38691

Radioactive contamination of the groundwater under the Sellafield nuclear
complex is worse than thought and British Nuclear Fuels isn’t doing enough
about it, says the government’s English watchdog, the Environment Agency.

The agency has told the local community in Cumbria it is “not satisfied”
with the progress being made by the state-owned company in understanding the
spread of pollution. New evidence indicates the contamination is
“potentially significant”.

“BNFL has messed up again,” alleged Pete Roche from the environmental group,
Greenpeace. “Contamination of groundwater is a serious matter, and BNFL has
displayed a lackadaisical attitude in its efforts to discover the source.”

BNFL admitted two years ago that the radioactive wastes, technetium-99 and
tritium, had been found in boreholes on the site. Last year, the government’
s Nuclear Installations Inspectorate reported that the contamination was
also detectable outside the site.

Now the Environment Agency is suggesting it has spread further. “The agency
is concerned that the current contaminated land study is indicating that
there is potentially significant contamination of groundwater,” it reported
to the Sellafield local liaison committee a few days ago.

“The lateral spread of technetium-99 and tritium on the Sellafield site
appears to be greater than last reported. The agency considers the develop
ment of deeper boreholes should lead to a greater understanding of the
vertical spread of contamination into the aquifer beneath the site. The
agency is not satisfied with BNFL’s progress in such work.”

The agency’s inspectors are worried BNFL is not using the best practice when
it samples groundwater. “We are very keen to protect the aquifer,” one of
them told the Sunday Herald. “We are pushing BNFL very hard on this.”

Environmentalists fear contamination of the sandstone aquifer under the site
could affect drinking water.

“It’s disgraceful that this liquid radioactive plume is being allowed to
spread out-side Sellafield unchecked and out of hand,” Martin Forwood, a
member of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (Core).

“That it now appears to involve not just technetium-99 but a number of other
radioactive materials, and to have penetrated the sandstone aquifer below
Sellafield, is a major concern and a threat to drinking water supplies. BNFL
and the Environment Agency must come clean now with the public about what is
happening.”

There are several possible sources for the leak. One is six, huge, old tanks
containing 3000 tonnes of radioactive sludge, another is some old waste
disposal trenches and a third is a complex of ponds and silos containing
high-level waste.

“The most likely source is previously reported leaks from historic
facilities on the site. We are continuing our investigations to confirm the
precise source or sources,” said a BNFL spokesman.

“The levels found pose no threat to health, and are so low that
sophisticated techniques are required to measure them. The company has
already made improvements to its sampling regimes, and is developing an
integrated monitoring programme as suggested.”

* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net *
(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. section 107) *

 

[Nereid]

EDITED by enigma


*flooding deleted*

I wasn't kidding. No more links, no more articles. Not until you answer this:

Now: could you PLEASE tell me how you can think that is worse than the 70,000 people who are killed by air pollution in the US EVERY YEAR.

The remote chance to kill a few hundred people and the chance to increase the probability of getting cancer by a fraction of a percent for a few hundred people

vs.

A guaranteed mortality rate of 70,000 per year plus a dramatic increase in asthma and other breathing related illnesses.

How is the first one worse?

This was posted by enigma, a PF Mentor, in the following Nuclear Engineering thread (The Nuclear Power Thread):
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9091&perpage=12&pagenumber=4

Later, enigma said: "I'm angry with theroyprocess not because of his beliefs, but because instead of stating his points, he's cutting and pasting pages and pages from all over the web to make his points for him without addressing any points made by the alternate viewpoint."

As far as I can see, Ms theroyprocess, you haven't answered any of the questions asked of you on this thread either.

Why is it that you do not answer simple, straight-forward questions on the material which you post?

 

[theroyprocess]

Multi-generational health effects

Radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational
genetic diseases. Ultimately, genocide and extinction. This IS what
makes radiation "different" than other lethalities. I thought this was
obvious!

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational
genetic diseases. Ultimately, genocide and extinction. This IS what
makes radiation "different" than other lethalities. I thought this was
obvious!

Assume for the moment that "radioactive environmental contamination causes multi-generational genetic diseases". Throughout your many posts you have not addressed the following questions:

1) in what ways is 'radioactive environmental contamination' qualititatively different from naturally occurring radioactivity, in terms of its human impact?

2) the incidence of 'radioactive environmental contamination' is several orders of magnitude smaller than naturally occurring radioactivity, by any metric to do with human health. Ergo, detrimental effects on human health arising from 'radioactive environmental contamination' are far outweighed by detrimental effects on human health arising from naturally occurring radioactivity. If your concern is human health, why aren't you working to reduce our exposure to naturally occurring radioactivity?

3) Efforts to reduce the harmful health effects on humans of radioactivity come at a price. Why is it more cost effective to reduce the already tiny incidence of 'radioactive environmental contamination' than to take simple steps to reduce exposure to naturally occurring radioactivity?

 

[theroyprocess]

Man made radiation

Nereid,

Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Rosalie Bertell and others have written books
about man made radioactive threats to human health. I have posted
their URLs on this site.

Nevertheless...I'm sure you will dismiss their work on some
confabulated reason anyway!

 

[chroot]

Yes, Nereid is a fellow member of the International Scientific Conspiracy. We have agents everywhere! You'd be surprised to learn that relativity, quantum mechanics, and even Newton's laws are really just confabulations, and we've pushed them upon the unsuspecting public all this time!

- Warren

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
Nereid,

Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Rosalie Bertell and others have written books
about man made radioactive threats to human health. I have posted
their URLs on this site.

Nevertheless...I'm sure you will dismiss their work on some
confabulated reason anyway!

What I'm looking for *you* - the person posting lengthy material written by others - to do is answer three simple questions.

To clarify: why do YOU believe that man-made radioactivity is a much nastier, greater threat to human health than the naturally-occuring radioactive background we all experience now?

 

[theroyprocess]

It's MURDER

If I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time
savings for treatment...from a radioactive spoon , car,
beltbuckle...because some insect dumped radioactive waste
into commercial manufactured products...it's PREMEDITATED MURDER !
If you can't grasp that...your brain is so cooked you will NEVER
understand the problem!

 

[chroot]

I don't know about you, but I've been thinking my belt buckle's out to get me for some time now. You should see the way it eyes me while it's lying on the floor beside my bed. I think it's definitely planning something.

- Warren

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by theroyprocess
If I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time
savings for treatment...from a radioactive spoon , car,
beltbuckle...because some insect dumped radioactive waste
into commercial manufactured products...it's PREMEDITATED MURDER !
If you can't grasp that...your brain is so cooked you will NEVER
understand the problem!

Oh, and if 'I get cancer and die in great pain, spending a life time savings for treatment...from' spending my winters skiing in the Alps, or flying thousands of hours on trans-Pacific airliners, or ... is that premeditated murder? or a form of suicide? Should I call my lawyers and sue the ski resort (because they didn't warn me about the increased risks of cancer from living at high altitude), or airline company (ditto)?

If you were my lawyer, supposing that I got cancer, how would you prove - in a court of law - that the man-made radioactivity in the spoon I used was the cause of my cancer, and not the *million* times greater natural radioactivity in the spoon?

 

[theroyprocess]

Nuremberg Codes

If the public is being unknowingly posioned...or mislead and lied
to about some products or service advertised as "safe and effective"
which IS NOT. It is breaking THE NUREMBERG CODES...of informed
consent.

When your wife or daughter gets breast cancer and dies in agony.
Just TELL THEM...your b.s.

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


Sunday Herald - 26 October 2003
Revealed: UK mums’ milk second most toxic in world
Survey shows chemicals from everyday products are ‘poisoning’ breast milk
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor


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


Toxic contamination of mothers’ breast milk in Britain is among the highest in the world, a new survey by scientists has revealed.
Concentrations of chemical flame retardants, suspected of damaging brain development and causing cancer, are higher in the UK than in Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Canada. Scientists say the levels are “a real cause for concern”, while environmentalists describe them as “shocking” and “extremely worrying”.

The revelation comes as the European Commission prepares to water down its plan for regulating the 30,000 manufactured chemicals to which people are exposed in everyday consumer products. New controls to be published this week will be seriously weakened because of opposition from the chemical industry, backed by the British, German and French governments.

Scientists from Lancaster University tested the breast milk of 52 mothers in Lancaster and London for a group of chemicals known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), widely used in clothing, furniture and plastics to make them less flammable.

Some PBDEs were found in every sample, the highest being 68.6 nanograms per gram of fat and the average 6.6ng. These are much higher levels than every other country where comparable surveys have been done, except for the United States, which is by far the biggest user of PBDEs.

The toxic effects of PBDEs are poorly understood, though there is evidence from animal studies that they could impair learning, memory and behaviour, as well as trigger liver cancer. Scientists point out that they are structurally similar to PCBs, which have long been regarded as potential carcinogens and as a threat to reproductive and immune systems.

“We don’t know how PBDEs affect human health,” Kevin Jones, professor of environmental chemistry at Lancaster University, told the Sunday Herald. “But we do know that they are accumulating in our bodies and we suspect that they might be as toxic as PCBs. ”

He suggested that the high levels his team found in breast milk could come from the large amounts of PBDEs used in consumer products in Britain to comply with the country’s stringent fire precautions. His study is the first to investigate levels in British breast milk, and it is due to be published in a scientific journal within the next few months.

The marketing and use of two types of PBDEs will be banned by the European Commission from next August . But companies are switching to a third type not covered by the ban, but which scientists fear could be just as harmful.

Environmental groups say the new evidence about PBDEs strengthens the need for the European Commission to introduce a tough set of rules on hazardous chemicals this week. But leaked drafts of the latest EC proposals suggest that several of its key provisions will be abandoned.

The new regulations, known as Reach, will require much less safety information to be provided on two-thirds of the chemicals in use, as well as enabling companies to remain anonymous. Industry will only have to prove that chemicals are subject to “adequate control”, even if safer alternatives are available.

Recent research shows that many chemicals with potential health effects can be detected in a wide range of ordinary household items. Nonylphenols and phthalates, for example, have been found in Disney and Mothercare children’s pyjamas as well as in Woolworths bath ducks.

Earlier this month, the Food Standards Agency warned that a cancer-causing chemical called semicarbazide was migrating into food from the plastic seals on the lids of jars. Last month, the Sunday Herald disclosed that baby toys, nappies, clothes and plastics were contaminated with tin compounds known as organotins.

Now the discovery of PBDE flame retardants in breast milk has set more alarm bells ringing.

“It is extremely worrying,” said Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. He accused the British government of blocking agreement on the new European safety rules. “Given these shocking findings it is high time ministers stood up to the lobbying of chemical corporations and protected people from exposure to toxic threats.”

Another environmental group, WWF Scotland, is this week planning to release the results of blood tests it carried out for chemicals on 12 volunteers, including two MSPs, Sarah Boyack and Christine Grahame. Some of them may have tested positive for PBDEs.

“We cannot reveal individual results but the recent concerns over flame retardants mean that we will be looking particularly closely at these results,” said Dr Richard Dixon, head of policy at WWF Scotland.

“The European proposals to control chemicals are crucial to reducing the threat from the chemical soup we all live in. Until recently the UK supported radical reform of the laws on chemicals, so it is doubly disgraceful that Tony Blair has tried to water down the new testing system.”

The British Prime Minister wrote to EC President Romano Prodi in September, complaining that the proposed Reach chemical regulations were “a long way from being the fast, simple and cost- efficient procedure that was promised”. The letter was also signed by the French President, Jacques Chirac, and German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder.

The chemical industry also protested that the EC proposals would cost billions of euros and could put thousands out of work. As a result, EC environment commissioner Margot Wallström was forced to rewrite large chunks of the draft legislation, which she is due to publish on Wednesday.

But on Tuesday, thousands of protest postcards will be handed into the EC office in Edinburgh by FoE Scotland.

The government’s environmental agencies also seem anxious to ensure that the rules remain strong.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency stressed that “prevention rather than cure is always a better option”, while Scottish Natural Heritage said that if the current Reach scheme was unworkable, other options should be explored.

The Scottish Executive, however, gave nothing away. Deputy environment minister, Allan Wilson, said: “We will study the proposals carefully to assess how well they balance environmental and health objectives with our desire to see a competitive and innovative chemicals industry.”

The new regulations are likely to be broadly welcomed by the Chemicals Industries Association (CIA), though it still wants further changes. “The commission has completed half the job in reducing the scope of the proposals,” said CIA director general, Judith Hackitt.

The new regulations will then go to the European parliament for comments. Environmentalists are hoping MEPs will be more receptive to their lobbying .

“Unless the European parliament strengthens this legislation it will not do anything to protect human health and the environment,” said Mark Strutt of Greenpeace. “The fight to get legislation that protects ordinary people from daily exposure to hazardous chemicals is just about to begin.”



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

 

[Nereid]

Still waiting ...

Ad hoc Nereid scale of global damage to human health (0 = no net negative impact; open ended scale):

PBDEs - bad, 5
radioactive materials (man made) - not good, 1
radioactive materials (natural) - a million times worse, 10⁶


theroyprocesses' assessment (inferred by Nereid, from reading theroyprocesses' posts):

PBDEs - 10
radioactive materials (man made) - 10⁹
radioactive materials (natural) - 0

 

[theroyprocess]

Dr. Kaku on Art Bell

Dr. Kaku's comments on the Art Bell radio talk show..12/15/03

Recap
Nuclear Scenarios
Monday's guest, theoretical physicist Prof. Michio Kaku (mkaku.org) joined Art Bell (who was sitting in for George) in a conversation about the dark side of nuclear energy. Kaku detailed various little-known nuclear mishaps from earlier decades, such as a Soviet incident that happened in the Ural Mountains in the 1950's, which he called "the mother-of-all nuclear accidents before Chernobyl." The reactor was actually in flames and entire villages had to be evacuated, he noted.

"I would say I'm critical of nuclear power," Kaku said, pointing out that having a potentially unstable reactor near a large population center such as Indian Point (which is 20 miles away from New York City) creates a dangerous scenario. But while he believes small nation states and terrorists may soon have access to nuclear weapons technology, he suggested that the world was probably closer to the brink of extinction during the Cold War, when both the US and the Soviets seriously considered a first strike, which likely would have lead to a "nuclear winter."

 

[cozzmikjoker]

I heard the interview, too. I can't believe I ever thought that Dr. Kaku was a whimpy hippie child.
I think he's actually pretty level-headed and has some very good reasons why he switched from being a nuclear proponent to a nuclear opponent.
I've never thought nuclear power plants were a good idea but had always been behind nuclear weapons M.A.D.
Well, we can't feel too sorry for ourselves, though, since Russia has had even more accidents.

 

[russ_watters]

Nereid, I'm pleased to announce that you have been nominated for the PF Foam Rubber Headband Award. Congratulations.

Warren on the other hand, was eliminated from contention VERY early in the game.

Edit: Nereid, your mailbox is full so I couldn't respond to your PM. The award is to keep you from hurting yourself while you bang your head against the wall.

 

[cozzmikjoker]

{ø}

Nereid, does this mean that you're not cool with Michio's opinions on nuclear stuff?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
{ø}

Nereid, does this mean that you're not cool with Michio's opinions on nuclear stuff?

cozzmikjoker,

It means that I would like to engage in a fact-based debate with theroyprocess concerning the material which she posts, and her own views. However, the total of her answers to my questions (and others') so far is the null set.

As to what Michio's opinions on nuclear power, weapons, use of radioactive materials in medicine, science, industry, ... are, all there is in this thread is a couple of snippets from one radio interview, of which but 7 words are Michio's own. If he posts to this thread, I'd be glad to engage in a debate on his opinions.

What are your own views on the topic of public health aspects of radiation?

 

[cozzmikjoker]

Wish it were possible to paste the interview on here. Maybe if Cory and Mike are around, they'll create some sound files.
The doctor's arguments are very convincing.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
Wish it were possible to paste the interview on here. Maybe if Cory and Mike are around, they'll create some sound files.
The doctor's arguments are very convincing.

What are your own views? Which arguments do you find particularly convincing? Can you summarise them?

 

[Nereid]

This is an answer?

Originally posted by theroyprocess
The silkwood movie is a good reminder of what goes on
even today.

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/2003/120303survey.html

Just so that I don't misunderstand ...

Your answer to the question "Why is it more important to reduce the use of nuclear power than reduce long-haul flights and time spent at high-altitude ski resorts, from the perspective of reduction in radiation-causes health problems?" is "Because whistleblowers have a hard time".

 

[cozzmikjoker]

Originally posted by Nereid

What are your own views?

My view used to be that I was against nuclear power plants because it's not worth the risks and it's still my view.
My view also used to be that I was pro nuclear weapons. Amen to Mutually Assured Destruction.
And of course I still think we have to protect ourselves (sometimes your only defense is the threat of offense) BUT someone needs to invent weapons that won't poison the earth.



Which arguments do you find particularly convincing?

I don't argue anymore. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, had enough. I have a life and also I'm on too many other boards, so there's just not enough free time to rattle cages on here.

Can you summarise them?

And no, I don't summarize well. I sent something to Dr. Kaku once and I got a response demanding that I summarize it and I couldn't do it. Sorry. But yeah, the doctor had some interesting information about the dangers of nuclear stuff. Too bad you didn't hear it.


That said, Nereid, it's your turn why to tell us why you're such a big fan of nuclear power plants and weapons, if indeed you are...?

 

[Nereid]

Radiation and public health

I'm interested to explore the relationship between radioactivity and public health, in the broader context of economic benefits and social values.

As you'll have seen from my questions to theroyprocess, there seems to be considerable emotion but not much reason behind an 'anti-nuclear' stance.

As with all choices in public health, there are pros and cons. So how do you go about making decisions, when all choices carry costs (monetary, health, collateral risks, ...), and all realistic ones deliver benefits?

That's why I came here - for an informed discussion and debate.

Being a board in Physics Forums, I also expect a high level of discussion on the underlying nuclear physics.

Is this why you're here too?

 

[FZ+]

I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is also the element of choice involved. We can decide not to have nuclear power, but there is very little we can do to eleiminate natural radioactivity, and only limited ways to avoid it. So if N is the natural radioactive dose in some location, and P is the dose resulting from nuclear power at the same spot, then the fact that P < N is irrelevant to the choice should we have N or N + P? Especially if you also believe that there is no minimum dose for harm from radioactivity.

 

[cozzmikjoker]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.

Sounds like it's not worth the risk. It's the reason I won't have a loaded gun in my house.
Without the bullets, it CANNOT kill you. With the bullets, however, there is a remote chance that it could go off regardless of where it's stored.
I weigh it like this: if I'm going to die without a certain thing and that certain thing has the potential of killing me, I have no choice.
But if I can live without something and it has that same potential, why should I keep/use it?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.

Interesting ... any particular nuclear problems? or is the use of all radioactive material a bad idea, whether in medicine (e.g. cancer therapy), industry (e.g. food sterilization), even science (e.g. RTGs on spaceprobes, testing GR)?

Perhaps the worse 'nuclear problem' is nuclear weapon proliferation; if so, do you truly believe we can put the genie back in the bottle?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by cozzmikjoker
Originally posted by Nereid
Which arguments do you find particularly convincing?

I don't argue anymore. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, had enough. I have a life and also I'm on too many other boards, so there's just not enough free time to rattle cages on here.

By "arguements" he meant "reasons." What are your reasons for your opinion? Or, what pieces of information were most important in forming your opinion?

I think the anti-nuclear stance is based on the image of nuclear problems as a low probability/high impact threat: It probably won't happen, but the consequences if it does happen is very very bad.

I think you are right, FZ+, but the problem is that most people don't know either the probability or the impact. So most people overestimate both the probability and the impact, leading them in the direction of theroyprocess - irrational fear of the unknown.

Sounds like it's not worth the risk. [re: FZ+'s post]

But he didn't SAY what the risks are! See, this is exactly my point. Its as if the word "risk" itself is all the information you need. It isn't. There is a real and calculable risk associated with EVERYTHING we do as humans. To decide if something is worth the risk or not, you have to know WHAT the risk is.

 

[cozzmikjoker]

Russ said: By "arguements" he meant "reasons." What are your reasons for your opinion? Or, what pieces of information were most important in forming your opinion


Well, we already know that radiation and nuclear stuff is deadly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Let's be realistic.

Look at chemotherapy. The radiation might kill some or most of the cancer but many people die because the radiation compromises their immune system and they die as a result of the effects of the radiation weakening them.
Keeping all of that in mind, if someone is going to tell me that anything nuclear is safe, then isn't the burden of proof upon them?

Finally, with the toxic waste that has been dumped in the past, I really don't want to put my faith in someone else to "do the right thing" when it comes to nuclear power plants. Sorry, no can do.

 

[cozzmikjoker]

Knowing the answer to those questions is how you know what the risk really is

True. I have to admit having a bit of curiosity and wanting to take a peak at those autopsey reports that Dr. Kaku has on the workers killed in the nuclear labs.

There are other issues, too. Our society is becoming ill with chronic diseases at younger and younger ages (diabetes, obesity, heart disease) as a result of the changes in diet and sedentary lifestyle. I just don't think any of us want to add any more problems than we already have.
And then you've got the magnetosphere (depleting?) and we won't have as much protection from cosmic radiation and stuff.
We're going to helena handbasket, Russ.

 

[theroyprocess]

Physician Jailed for Chernobyl Research

FYI


Subject: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact details


Dear All,
some of you may already have this, just come through
from the ELP,(Earth Liberation Prisoners) which is
publicising his case. If anyone has any update on this
contact then please let me know. Dr Bandazhevsky needs
all the support he can get.
cheers
davey


Dr. Yurl Bandazhevsky
Ul. Kalvarijskaya 36
PO Box 35K
Minsk 220600, Belarus.

Serving 8 years for telling the world that the nuclear radiation around Chernobyl is worse than the Belarus Government has admitted.




* See also: NucNews Links and Archives (by date) at http://nucnews.net * (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *




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

MANIFESTO FOR PR. BANDAZHEVSKY'S RELEASE AND
FREEDOM OF RESEARCH

Pr. Yury Bandazhevsky is currently imprisoned
in Minsk, Belarus since
June 2001. As a Doctor and an Expert on radiation
exposure caused by the
Chernobyl accident he was appointed in 1990 as
Rector of the Gomel Medical
institute. Gomel has been the hardest hit area by
nuclear releases. From
1990 to 1999, along with his wife Galina, also a
Doctor, Pr. Bandazhevsky
studied damages caused by Caesium 137: heart
diseases, cataracts, early
aging, etc.. He has discovered a measurable
relationship between nuclear
doses and various symptoms. In 1999, he published
his results at a time
when many people wanted to turn a blind eye to the
problems and wish to send
Belarus inhabitants back to the lands that are
still contaminated. Before his
arrest in July 1999 he had written a report
critical of the Belarus Government
official research conducted with international
funds regarding Chernobyl
after effects. Pr. Bandazhevsky was arrested
shortly after the issuance of
this report on the basis of a Presidential Decree
" for the Combat of
terrorism."

In 2001, he stood accused of having received
money from students
seeking admission to Gomel Medical Institute.
After a trial held before a
Military Tribunal he was sentenced to eight years
imprisonment. Expert
witnesses who attended the trial have noted at
least 8 infringements of the
Belarussian Criminal Code and the main prosecution
witness had retracted his
statement against Pr. Bandazhevsky. Pr.
Bandazhevsky is currently jailed in
a penal colony with harsh conditions tantamount to
a Gulag.

But we think that the right to a fair trial
is not the only one to have
been thwarted. Beside people's opinions about
things nuclear, what is at stake is
the RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, the right to conduct
research and the scientist's
right to communicate data. Also the right for
people to know it without
interference that is politically or economically
motivated.

THE INDEPENDENCE OF ALL RESEARCH in the
services of Humanity is as
important a principle as the independence of
Justice. Pr. Bandazhevsky's
imprisonment flouts both these principles.
Therefore, we, the undersigned,
ask for the immediate and unconditional release
of Pr. Bandazhevsky in
order that he can carry on his research without
interference at his
Institute.

We suggest that all scientists, researchers,
scholars and citizens
stand for these principles:

- Sign this manifesto for freedom of research
and Pr. Bandazhevsky's
unconditional and immediate release.
- But also to have Pr. Bandazhevsky appointed as
a Best Man (or Honourable
Citizen) of their cities, such as Paris and
Clermont-Ferrand (France)
- Or have him appointed as Doctor Honoris
Causa in their universities

We wish to publish this Manifesto in a large
newspaper and send it to the
Belarus Government. Please sign it and pass it
to all parties interested in justice, freedom of
speech, freedom to conduct objective research and
human rights asking them to sign it, too. Your
help is greatly appreciated and will go a long way
in helping to free Dr. Bandazhevsky and promote
accurate research and publication of the radiation
induced effects of Chernobyl on humanity.

 

[theroyprocess]

Dr. Bandazhevsky Eco-Prisoner

FYI

Aleksei Smirnov,
Governments have a long history of cover-ups. A professor friend
of mine said 'the business' of government is to lie...lie...LIE!
This IS the reason Dr. Bandazhevsky is in jail...for daring to
tell the TRUTH about radiation health effects from Chernobyl.
So far as your government's 'recognized facts' on Chernobyl
caused sickness and deaths...a lie is a fact...not necessarily
the TRUTH !

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1993/may93/may93Gofman.html


Dennis F. Nester
Phoenix, Arizona
USA


----- Original Message -----
From: "Aleksei Smirnov (Mail.Ru)" <21185857772@mail.ru>
To: "davey garland" <thunderelf@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: <nucnews@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact
details


Shall we open discussion on Chernobyl effects using recognised facts
instead of blaming the Belarus government with no proof?
Best regards
Aleksei Smirnov

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

Subject: [NucNews] Dr Yurl Bandazhevsky -eco-prisoner - contact details

Dear All,
some of you may already have this, just come through
from the ELP,(Earth Liberation Prisoners) which is
publicising his case. If anyone has any update on this
contact then please let me know. Dr Bandazhevsky needs
all the support he can get.
cheers
davey

Dr. Yurl Bandazhevsky
Ul. Kalvarijskaya 36
PO Box 35K
Minsk 220600, Belarus.

Serving 8 years for telling the world that the nuclear radiation around
Chernobyl is worse than the Belarus Government has admitted.