Anon3c67 2012-02-25 17:43:03
Norwegian scientists who studied the health records of 43,000 men and
women have shown that even light smoking — less than five cigarettes
daily — triples the risk of dying of heart disease or lung cancer.
The dangers of smoking are well documented. Previous research has
shown that smokers die on average 10 years earlier than non-smokers
but stopping, even in middle age, can halve the risk.
Todd benson 2012-02-25 18:51:50
Minimization is a component of denial? Do you have a source for that one?
Robert wagner 2012-02-25 18:52:31
More bullshit. Actuarial tables say smokers die four years earlier in the US. In other
countries, the diference is as low as one year.
Anon3c67 2012-02-25 18:53:08
First you say I don’t understand denial and then you show you don’t.
Come on, Todd, don’t be so lazy and do a search on “drug denial”
and become less ignorant. After you learn something, tell us
how the “democratic disease state” pattern doesn’t apply to you.
Todd benson 2012-02-25 18:53:29
No, I am trying to show you how the “minimization” as a component of denial
is much different than the minimization of use as described in the article.
Instead of trying to prove a negative, how about you answer the questions I
have been asking:
What am I in denial about and what makes you think I am in denial?
Ron freimuth 2012-02-25 21:17:45
So, it was also at Yahoo.
“The study was published in the journal Tobacco Control.”
Based on the name, they clearly have a bias.
Robert wagner 2012-02-25 22:04:38
I’m pleased to see you back, Ron. For those who don’t know, Ron is an engineering hotshot
with a masters from Stanford, formerly with NASA Ames, Hewlett-Packard and some black
government contractor. He knows Maxwell’s equations like a recent grad. He’s now a leader
in Flight Sim software.
Tell us why smokers die prematurely in the US but not in countries such as Greece, China
and Japan, where the smoking rate is higher. Is it diet or socioeconomic status?
Collateral question — why are asian and south american babes so hot, but hard to live
with? Extra points for a practical answer.
Ron freimuth 2012-02-26 00:13:19
You embarrass me, Robert. Master’s from The Farm were a dime a dozen
in Silicon Valley.
Maxwell? … Oh…… He’s the guy who invented a Demon.
Some Flight Simulator cockpits have a “No Smoking” light that can be
toggled. I never bother to turn it on. 😉
All babes are messed up!
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 00:13:26
He was prescient. Those demons exist in the ion-gated channels, such as acetylcholine
receptors, we’ve been discussing. Proteins magically convert INFORMATION about the
presence of ligands into ENERGY POTENTIAL, seemingly in violation of the Second Law.
Unless one believes information has physical properties. I’ve read that Shannon,
Kolmogorov and a guy named Kantor did some work in this area.
It could be radioactive Po-210. It cannot be acrylamide, because all tobacco burns at the
Anon3c67 2012-02-26 00:13:33
”Changes in lung cancer mortality occur 20 years after smoking trends
change. Worldwide, this disease is on the increase. For instance,
in Japan deaths from lung cancer increased from 2.7 per 100,000 in
1950, to 20.2 per 100,000 in 1979. Such increases are the direct
result of increased cigarette consumption.”
Todd benson 2012-02-26 00:13:58
Anon3c67 2012-02-26 00:14:04
It’s from many years ago before I found out how to get urls.
Are you too lazy to look it up. Or has nicotine addiction
dull your senses to the point you are useless?
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 00:14:09
Your cancer statistics look good, but the unsupported claim that smoking increased is
Percent of smokers
Year: 1955 1965 1976 1980 1985
U.S. Males 52.6 52.1 41.6 37.9 33.2
U.S. Female 24.5 34.2 32.5 29.8 27.9
U.S. Average 38.6 43.2 37.1 33.9 30.6
Japanese Males 81.4 82.3 75.1 70.2 64.6
Japanese Females 12.8 17.7 15.4 14.4 13.7
Japanese Average 47.1 50.0 45.3 42.3 39.2
Source: Comparative Epidemiology of Cancer Between the United States and Japan, Wynder et
al., Cancer, 2/91
As you can see, both countries peaked around 1965 and Japan has always been higher, except
1945-49, when Japan was economically devastated. By 1950, Japan’s rate of male smoking had
climbed above the US.
Wynder’s cancer statistics are hugely discrepant with all other sources. Someone should do
a study on the possible link between nicotine deprivation and innumeracy.
Lung cancer deaths per 100,000, men only
Year: 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
U.S.(1) 90 130 160 165
U.S.(2) 32 58 75 85 80 75e
Japan(1) 15 35 45 50
Japan(3) 5 10 20 40 50 65e
(2) American Cancer Society
(3) Vital Statistics of Population, Japanese government
The US DOES show a 20 year lag between consumption and cancer; Japan does not. Why? If
smoking is the predominant cause of lung cancer, why does the cancer rate continue to
increase 40 years after the smoking rate turned downward?
Let’s do a 20 year phase shift and compute cancer rate / smoking rate. If the hypothesis
is true, we should see a horizontal line.
Cancer rate vs. former smoker rate Rate of climb, %
Years: 75/55 85/65 95/75 05/85 85 95 05
U.S. 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.3 14 19 21
Japan .2 .5 .7 1.0 150 40 43
In both cases, deaths per aging former smoker is climbing, but the Japanese rate of climb
is double the US.
… Japanese cigarettes are becoming more like US cigarettes.
… Something else is causing lung cancer.
… Japanese life expectancy is increasing twice as fast as American. Cancer usually occurs
after age 70. If Japan has more old people, that could explain the discrepency.
? 2012-02-26 00:14:16
How stupid do you have to be to not be able to “get” URLs?
That’s funny. You use someone else’s work and expect me to go looking for it?
Useless would be posting without a source and trying to blame someone else
for your incompetency. Nice try.
Rumik 2012-02-26 00:14:25
In other words, you don’t have a source.
Typical of you!
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 00:14:28
I looked it up and posted numbers that agree with yours, with a cite to Japanese
Marky 2012-02-26 01:15:06
or it could be diagnostic chest x-rays…they seem to be more popular in
countries that have higher lung cancer rates…
Marky 2012-02-26 01:15:09
Yes…something else…like that radioactive spill they had about twenty
years ago…or was it ten…
Maybe what they are doing over there in terms of s** with penquins might
explain the whole thing…
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 01:15:28
If one got 365 chest x-rays per year for three years, his risk of cancer would increase 1%
Ten CAT scans would have the same effect.
Radiation, in milli-Sieverts:
Chest x-ray .1
Dental x-ray .1
Background 1 per year
CAT scan 12
P0-210 in tobacco 30 per year, 1.5 packs
1% increased risk 100 cumulative
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 01:15:30
[ columns lined up when posted them ]
They had two, both localized:
March 1981 More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 1.5 mSv per day
radiation during repairs of a nuclear power plant in Tsuruga, Japan, violating the
company’s limit of 1 mSv per day.
September 30, 1999 Japan’s worst nuclear accident to date takes place at a uranium
reprocessing facility in Tokai-mura, Ibaraki prefecture, northeast of Tokyo, Japan. The
direct cause of the criticality accident was workers putting uranyl nitrate solution
containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a
precipitation tank. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was
not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to radiation
doses in excess of allowable limits (two of these workers died); a further 116 recieved
lesser doses of 1 msV or greater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
Penguins live in Antarctica and southern parts of South America and Africa. There are few
puffins left in Japan. You must be thinking of shags, the arctic cormerant.
Marky 2012-02-26 01:16:07
Yes, except that the radioactivity of tobacco is questionable at best but a
chest x-ray is direct, certain, and covers the entire chest area…
I thought they ruled out that ‘low dose’ is safe dose…just like there is
no safe level of exposure to ETS…there is no safe level of exposure of
We are, of course, looking at todays figures for chest x-rays…my
understanding of this is that 50 years ago chest x-rays were thousands of
times more dangerous…and even todays machines are questionable in constant
doses and can vary from one machine to the next…and an even greater degree
of variablilty from the actual technician doing the x-ray…
The whole ‘ets radiation’ seems like nothing more than a way of hiding the
damage caused by overuse of chest x-rays and a lame attempt to cover up what
real nuke fallout has done…
But, then again, when you read how they tried to cover up things that
wouldn’t surprise anyone…
Marky 2012-02-26 01:16:09
Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be minor blips in the workplace safety books
when it comes to explaining how safe radiation is…
Only a few hundred thousand died immediately…millions have died as a
result of the radiation exposure, but those numbers have been skewed…or so some say…
Africa. There are few
Nope…penguins…I hear they’re everywhere, but are particularly common in
PA…when the ice freezes, that is…
Marky 2012-02-26 01:16:12
Oh, Robert, since you like reading these things I thought you might like to
I like what Gofman has to say about nukes and chest x-rays…everyone else
(on THIER side) will tell you radiation is harmless and some even say it is
good for you…
I suppose a bit won’t hurt…and that some people have a higher tolerance to
cell damage from any source of radiation than others (better immune
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 02:14:34
Your numbers are exaggerated.
“the United States military dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Japan on August 6 and August 9, 1945 respectively, killing at least 120,000 people, about
95% of which were civilian, outright, and around twice as many over time.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
In summer they migrate to the Arctic Circle, walking 300 miles and swimming 3,000. Sure.
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 02:14:36
How many chest x-rays could one possibly get in a lifetime? 40? That increases the risk
from 1.0000 to 1.0004. I’d call that safe.
Hundreds of times. True.
” In the mid-1960s, Morgan’s division of the Oak Ridge Laboratory studied the x-ray doses
being received by U.S. children as a result of a mass chest x-ray program. Starting in the
1950s, portable x-ray machines in special trucks were brought to schools and hundreds of
thousands of U.S. children were given chest x-rays. The Oak Ridge study found that each of
these children was receiving an x-ray dose of 2 to 3 rem; Morgan knew this was excessive
because workers at the Oak Ridge Laboratory were getting a dose of only 0.015 rem from a
chest x-ray. In other words, children were getting a dose of x-rays 130 to 200 times as
high as the dose needed to produce an adequate x-ray film — not to mention that most of
the children did not need a chest x-ray at all. ” http://www.garynull.com/Documents/erf/major_cause_of_cancerpart_2.htm
The ‘technician’ is an accredited radiologist following, indirectly, FDA standards. All
medical devices, including x-ray machines, are certified by the FDA.
That was certainly true until the early ’60s. The above reference is a history of radiation control.
I prefer to deal with measurable FACTS, like radiation, than speculate about good guys and
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 02:14:38
Its reportage seems reasonably accurate on the subjects it covers, but its choice of
subjects is biased.
I saw a movie like that tonight: The Future of Food, which is against genetic modification.
Background radiation has been in the environment since life began, a billion years ago. We
must have a defense against 1 msV per year. I can’t get worked up over an increase to
As with automobiles and other risks, the issue is economic rather than purely medical. How
much damage/cost is society willing to tolerate in exchange for a benefit. If one ignores
benefit, as these one-sided arguments always do, the answer is zero. But there always are
benefits. If there weren’t, the risk wouldn’t have been created.
A thorny problem arises when benefits accrue to one sector, for instance large
corporations, while costs are borne by another sector, for instance the public. In an
ideal world, a efficient free market would redistribute benefits in the form of lower
prices and costs in the form of product liability. In reality, markets are neither
efficient nor free. They’re controlled by politics which, in turn, is controlled by
special interests. Government regulators, who are supposed to defend the innocent public,
are usually in bed with the industry they regulate.
The solution I favor is disclosure via labeling. Refrigerators are a good example. Each
has a label saying how much energy the thing will consume. They even translate it into
dollars. Imagine a menu of diagnostic procedures labeled with radiation cost. Would people
agree to a CAT scan if they knew it exposed them to 12 msV .. 12 years of background and
120 times a chest x-ray? Studies found that >90% of doctors seriously underestimated the
radiation level. Every EU country requires genetically modified food to be labeled. The
result: consumers refuse to buy it. Why? Because there’s no benefit to consumers.
Instead of waving their hands and saying ‘harmless’, make them quantify it. If it’s .04%,
I’ll give them a pass; if it’s 1200%, the benefit better be d*** compelling.
Marky 2012-02-26 04:04:15
I mostly agree with you here Robert, and understand the economics of it
(basically)…but my point of contention with equating background radiation
with diagnostic X-rays has always been this:
Background radiation (if we are actually exposed to it since this is an
average measurement intended to throw people off from the reality of the
overuse and danger of nukes and x-rays) is accumulated over the course of a
year and if you divided that same 1mSV by 365 you’d see a very, very small
A diagnostic X-ray, however, takes less than a second so the actual impact
is trillions of times higher than background radiation…we are not meant to
be exposed to this immediate, intense, certain blast of ions…Rosalee
Bertell did fairly intesive research into the effects of a single x-ray and
came to the conclusion that there were roughly 10,000 to 100,000 genetic
mutations per x-ray…
She also concluded that the body would mend most, but not all, of them…the
ones that are not mended show up as cancer any where from 1 to 65 years
after the initial X-ray…hypothetically, of course…
The biggest problem with the ‘experts’ who defend radiation exposure is that
they are on the side of governments and doctors who are actually responsible
for this man-made exposure…it has been one-sided since they first realized
that radioactivity damages human genetic material and only a handful of
people have gone against this to any degree…Gofmann was one of the few
respected individuals that has actually made any impact on reductions of
man-made radiation exposure…
There were others, of course…like JFK…who just happened to have been
assassinated shortly after putting a moratorium on atmospheric nuclear
weapons testing…not that that is any way, shape or form related to the
assassination…or was it?
Marky 2012-02-26 04:04:20
In my last post I’d made reference to the difference between background and
medical x-ray doses…the findings initially back in the 50s and 60s and up
to today indicate there is no safe level of exposure…
This would explain the rapid increase in lung and other cancers far better
than Po210 or any other ingredient that has yet to be shown to actually
cause cancer in humans with any kind of consistency…
BPDH (sorry but I forgot what it stands for other than Benzo(a)Pyrene
something something…an ingredient that is common in gasoline
combustion…) was reported as being linked to lung cancer in 1998, but if
you read the study closely you’d find that only 3 of 500 possible mutations
in the genes they studied could be remotely linked to BPDH…
about good guys and
So do I, actually, that is why the measurements they give are questionable
when compared on a per second basis…
Marky 2012-02-26 04:04:23
Well, my numbers are based on estimates done by opponents of nuclear weapons
(mostly nuclear physicists)since the above information was provided only on
those who died five years after the bombing…they managed to overlook the
ones that died within days, weeks or a few years later…not to mention
those who inhaled, absorbed, and ingested the fallout around the world…
A friend told me that he detected measureable radioactivity in a town just
south of Alliston three days after Chernobyl blew…that means that any
atmospheric test or bombing would result in fallout that reached around the
globe (northern hemisphere only in this case) and all those tests (thousands
of them) dumped more and more radiation into the atmosphere…some of it
went so high as to guarantee it would be raining down on us for thousands of
You may have heard this yourself, but most commercial airliners actually
have radioactive testors on board…to avoid ‘hotspots’ of nuke fallout
floating around up there…
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 04:05:11
One cigarette contains 10-50 ng of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), of which 10% (my estimate) is
delivered to the lungs. Multiplied by 20 cigarettes per day gives 60 ng or .06 ug. The
average American is exposed to 2.2 ug per day, nearly all from food. Thus, smoking causes
a 3% increase. If my estimate is off, the increase is still less than 10%.
It is tempting to postulate that animal studies are inapplicable to humans because we’re
the only species that cooks food over fire. In the course of 150,000 years, we may have
developed a defense. That’s called hand waving. Fortunately, there have been many studies
on the carcinogenicity of airborne BaP outside the context of smoking. See:
The US EPA (1984) found 1.000087 risk from continuous lifetime exposure to 1 ng of PaB per
cubic meter of air. An average person inhales 11 cubic meters of air per day, so exposure
is 11 ng per day. A smoker is exposed to 60 ng per day. Assuming dose/response is linear,
the smoker’s lifetime risk from PaB is 1.0005. About 5% of smokers will die from lung
cancer. PaB explains 1% of that 5%. What causes the other 99%.
Here are measurements from a seemingly unbiased source. They show fallout radiation to be
Natural: Cosmic 26
Terrestrial 29 (varies with geography)
Radon 200 (varies with geography)
Internal (K-40, C-14, etc.) 40
Manmade: Diagnostic X-Ray 39
Nuclear Medicine 14 (applies only to cancer patients)
Consumer Products 11
All Others (fallout, nuclear
power plants, air travel,
occupational, etc.) 2
Average Annual Total 361 mrem/yr
Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)
The tobacco in cigarettes contains lead-210. Lead-210 is a naturally occurring
radionuclide that precipitates out of the atmosphere and deposits on the leaves of
tobacco. When the tobacco is inhaled, the smoker receives a dose from the inhaled
lead-210 as well as polonium-210, the decay product of lead-210. Lead-210 is deposited on
the surfaces of bones and polonium-210 is deposited in the liver, kidney and spleen.
To convert mrem to mSv, divide by 100. This source says background (natural) exposure is 3
mSv; my previous source said 1. This one says smoking adds 2.8; my previous source said
30. The smoking difference is easy to explain. Radiation from Po-210 and Pb-210 is at
least half alpha particles, which are considered 20 times as damaging as beta and gamma.
This source did not adjust for that difference; the previous one did.
For an in-depth discussion about inspection of x-ray machines, see:
Marky 2012-02-26 04:05:28
1 ng of PaB per
Well, again, “if” the smoker is inhaling radioactive particles, and “if” the
radioactive particle happens to break down before a “hack Ptuie” expells it
from the lung, the smoker may be exposed to damaging alpha particles…
Most lung cancer in males happens at the bronchial split of the
windpipe…that would mean that these damaging alpha particles are lodging
in that exact spot in most smokers…that would also mean that there is a
reason for this to happen such as a build up of tar (or other)…but this
same buildup would also trap radioactive fallout from nuke testing and
reactor blowoff making smokers more susceptible to lung cancer…
So, it is the reduced lung clearance that is actually the key here with
smokers as well as non-smokers that have chronic respiratory diseases where
their lung clearance is hampered…and that is what stood out about
radioactive fallout during the peak cold war testing of nuclear arms…the
ones most susceptible to this would be smokers…and it is not the smoking
that is causing the lung cancer, but the reduced lung clearance…
If a non-smoker who has good lung clearance inhales radioactive particles
then it may go out faster or it may go in farther…therefore being,
possibly, taken into the bloodstream where it could end up in any number of
places…and manifest itself in other forms of cancer that would be not as
common in smokers (but still possible)…
So, again, the concept of smoking causing cancer, in spite of numerous
studies trying to nail down the “magic bullet” are missing a very large and
understood factor that affects both smokers and non-smokers: radioactive
X-rays tend to be focused on the central chest for a male …thus the higher
concentration of ionized partricles passing through the bronchial split
How many genetic mutations does it take to cause cancer?
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 04:05:31
” The United States conducted 210 aboveground nuclear weapons tests in the lower 48 states
and Pacific Ocean between July 1945 and November 1962. ” The total number of tests by all
countries was about 2,000, 80% of them underground. Today, our exposure to radiation left
over from those tests is less than .3% of background. http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/fallout.htm
Not true. The only commercial plane that carried a radiation detector was the Concorde. It
was there to detect cosmic rays, not fallout.
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 04:05:34
How many of these RANDOM mutations are viable, in other words capable of surviving and
reproducing? It’s like a million monkeys with typewriters. Only a tiny fraction will produce coherent writing.
Our immune system is adaptive, not hard-wired. Genetic mutations occur for many reasons,
some exogenic, some caused by internal errors in copying genes. Our immune system’s
cytotoxic T-cells identify cells containing errors and kill them before they can
The greatest danger comes not from direct mutation, rather from damage to the immune
system itself. HIV works by invading a component of the immune system called helper
T-cells and making them non-functional. The HIV virus reproduces and repeats the attack
millions of times. The victim eventually succumbs to a mutagen that normal people can
The RANDOM destruction from ionizing radiation lacks the ability to reproduce. If all
T-cells are disabled at once, due to a massive ratiation dose, that causes death. But
small modifications cannot act like a seed that reproduces in the way HIV does. Radiation
damage does not accumulate in the body, as claimed. The only thing cumulative is the
statistical probability that a given ray will be fatal. Imagine being the target of
undirected machine-gun fire. The probability of one bullet hitting you is small; the
longer you’re exposed, the more likely one of those bullets will get you.
I read Gofmann’s responses to his critics at:
His work shows that city dwellers get more cancer and heart disease than people living in
the country. He made no attempt to explain the etiology nor do a case-controlled study.
Many possible confounders come to mind — air pollution, diet and exercise. I know from
personal experience that country people, being more in tune with nature, eat more fresh,
seasonal and natural food. Urban dwellers think food ‘grows’ at the supermarket and
restaurant. Two small examples: country people eat butter whereas urbanites eat margarine,
a chemical nightmare full of trans-configured fatty acids; country people make their own
hamburgers whereas urbanites buy them from McDonald’s.
The assasination was retaliation for multiple attempts to kill Castro.
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 04:05:57
It takes one mutation that can reproduce faster than the immune system can detect and
destroy it. All of us get mutations daily or weekly. Our immune systems defend against
99.99.. percent of them. Cancer should be viewed as an immune system failure.
If you continue to claim radioactive fallout is significant, you should provide a
measurement of it.
Marky 2012-02-26 05:31:20
That is hypothetical at best, but the idea that it only takes one and there
are tens of thousands in a single X-ray (in 1952 when the “lung cancer
epidemic” was noticed doctors recommended that smokers have two x-rays a
year to screen for cancer…a great way to ensure that smokers have higher
than normal lung cancer stats) and most people had more than one chest x-ray
during the TB screening and after the above mentioned ‘recommendation’.
Yes, if they T-cells are there to do this…one of the things I learned
about X-rays is that they have a tendency to shut down the immune system…a
doctor I once visited for a bronchial infection mentioned that upwards of
six months after an x-ray the immune system is not functioning at full
capacity…and infections were more common in this period than others…
With an X-ray you can pretty much see every bone in the chest area…this is
produced by the ions striking the film on the other side…meaning that this
isn’t simpy a random screening and chance encounter with an ion…it is
The “dots per inch” doesn’t have to be very high on these images to show the
basic details, but it is high enough to ensure that genetic material between
the film and the gun is standing in the way of a passing ion…if you get a
more detailed image it is from an increase of the ‘spray’ of the ionizing
radiation…or cranking the dose…that is typical in chest X-rays…my
chiropractor did a set of spinal x-rays on me and had mentioned that the
dose had to be high due to the density of the bones in the spine…it
enabled detection of hairline cracks…how many people in NA go to
chiropractors and have these “initial” tests done (mandatory prerequisite
for any kind of treatment)…
people living in
exercise. I know from
eat more fresh,
urbanites eat margarine,
make their own
When I was researching lung cancer in Canada (library archives) I happened
upon some statistical studies from the 60s and 70s…lung cancer was most
common far up in the northern parts of Ontario (since it was the hotspot for
lung cancer) and not, as I had thought it would be, concentrated around big
cities. The common thing with Northern Ontario and lung cancer is mining.
Most miners up until recently had to have a pre-screening chest
They also were exposed to radon gas and daughter particles due to the nature
of their work…it wasn’t until much later that radon gas detectors were
I also read a book on the history of radium and people thought it was a
miracle cure…they’d pay to sit in mine shafts to be ‘bathed’ in radium
(radon gas) and this went on for several years before they (government)
finally determined that it wasn’t such a great idea…
Yes, that is one theory…the book “Plausible Denial” covered a few
more…like the CIA being ticked off for having their Viet Nam money making
rackets yanked out from under them when JFK threatened to pull the plug…
Marky 2012-02-26 05:31:23
That, of course, is a gov blurb so the 3% is questionable…it does not
mention specifically that the USSR and China tested another 200+ atmospheric
tests…those were the worst for fallout since they spread it farthest and
fastest…worse than a hundred Chernobyls…
the Concorde. It
I will check my records on that…you have to understand that most of my
‘research’ was done about 10 years ago and I have lost or destroyed most of
my collection…out of frustration with pro-nuclear brainwashing done by
governments and doctors…
Like the estimated 1% to 4% of cancer deaths caused by x-rays…estimates by
the people giving exposing us to the danger are always questionable…but,
then again, we can alwasy refuse X-rays…
Marky 2012-02-26 05:31:25
That would be a nice thing to have…but what we get are estimates of the
dose and how widespread it is…meaning it can be sloughed off to something
like 3% of background radiation…
If it was a worthwhile endeavor…there are no crash courses on nuclear
physics…but there is enough information available to do some
Generally speaking, if it were really safe we’d probably still be testing
the bombs…or using them for New Years Eve celebrations…that would be
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 05:31:58
Ice cores are a good way to measure changes in radioactivity.They show a sharp decline
after 1964, with a brief spike for Chernobyl. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html
As with smoking, estimates from opponents are even more suspect.
Do you really believe 100% of nuclear physicicsts belong to a global cabal demanding
silence or misinformation? Most scientists I’ve known were blabbermouths. If they’re not
on the payroll, they can’t be silenced.
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 05:32:03
That sounds like a reasonable subject to investigate. If radiation disables the immune
system, cancer could be caused by that rather than ionization.
It is well known that miners get more lung cancer .. not because of screening x-rays,
because there’s radon and other radiation in mines.
There you go. That explains why miners in northern Ontario got more cancer.
On the Kennedy Assassination there are tons of misinformation and *deliberately planted
disinformation* to distract people from the truth. For instance, it has been proven that
the KGB forged a note from Oswald to “Mr. Hunt”. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm Mark
Lane, author of Plausible Denial, is one of those who spreads disinformation. He had ties
to the USSR and likely to the KGB. The idea is to make all conspiracy theorists look like
nuts. If someone uncovers the truth, he’ll be dismissed as just another nut.
Why? Because if the truth had come out, 40 million Americans would have died. (see
Anderson (9) below)
I don’t think the CIA, FBI, Religious Right or Russians did it. I think Lee Harvey Oswald
did it. The more important question is who was behind it? The answer is here:
Marky 2012-02-26 06:12:45
Of course not…I do know, however, that the few that actually did speak out
against this were mostly ignored or sloughed off as being alarmists…
Besides, how many nuclear physicists who have any kind of authority on the
topic are NOT on the payroll? I don’t see long lineups at the employment
agencies for this kind of work…in fact, I’ve never even seen it
Another aside would be why would they bother knowing that their future could
depend on their towing the line?
Several publications have pointed out countless incidences where the
govenment had stepped in and altered facts or simply did not reveal them
properly…the only recent settlement for the uranium workers for damages
caused by their workplace exposure is just one case of where they were kept
in the dark and fed nonsense…most of these workers were not alive to
actually collect their share…
To bring radioactivity in tobacco up as a possible cause is, essentially,
admitting there is a problem but pointing to a source that is, at best,
The EPA never did come up with any concrete figures on levels of Po210 in
tobacco as far as I’ve seen…and this has been tossed about for roughly 40
years as a probable cause of lung cancer in smokers…let’s just forget
about the tons of radioactive fallout that rained down on us or the dozens
of chest X-rays that many (who is to say that any given smoker who has died
from lung cancer did not have at least one chest x-ray?) of these lung
cancer victims endured in the name of medical science…
I don’t have a problem with people looking for answers…I do have a problem
with people ignoring or sloughing off more likely causes and trying to
justify it with government released studies that neatly point to things that
are related but push the blame back on the smoker for smoking…
The evidence available on Po210 as a possible cause of lung cancer is not
conclusive…perhaps it is possible that this was a part of the big picture,
but, as anti-smokers would say, probably less than 4% total…the other 96%
is more likely to fall somewhere between diagnostic chest x-rays and nuke
So we have smoking bans and treat smokers like second class citizens to
protect against 4% of all possible lung cancer deaths…
Marky 2012-02-26 06:12:49
disinformation. He had ties
theorists look like
Lee Harvey Oswald
Hmmm…interesting…will read some more of this…
Anon3c67 2012-02-26 07:44:31
Marky. Tin foil hat.
Robert wagner 2012-02-26 07:44:42
Believe everything government says: dunce hat.
Marky 2012-02-26 07:45:02
Laughing at bruce wearing a dunce hat: Clown hat