tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-90627822764677824152024-02-20T15:16:02.050-05:00The Betrayal of Mankind by the Radiation Protection AgenciesPaul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-75622430590743044352010-12-06T09:00:00.001-05:002010-12-07T11:08:23.913-05:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book<i> A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">To complete this indictment, we must return to the subject of depleted uranium weaponry. Research, to be discussed in later chapters, has confirmed that veterans suffering symptoms of what is called Gulf War Illness test positive for the presence of depleted uranium in their bodies. These findings must be taken seriously. But those who defend depleted uranium munitions as radiologically benign don’t sponsor credible research to confirm their claims. Instead, they rely on two arguments to bolster their position. First, the dose of radiation delivered by internalized uranium is too low to produce injury; second, a review of published studies on internal exposure to uranium provides no evidence that DU, in concentrations likely to be encountered on the battlefield, could be radiologically hazardous. Setting aside the second argument for a later chapter, the first argument can now be easily refuted. The concept of dose falls apart when applied to low levels of internal contamination with radioactive particles. It is a meaningless and scientifically fraudulent idea when transported from the phenomenon of external exposure at high doses of x-rays and gamma rays and then forced to fit the altogether different phenomenon of localized damage to cell clusters vastly smaller than whole organs. The rationale of this translation is that both phenomena share the common characteristic of transferring energy from the radioactive source to tissue. However, dose requires averaging energy over masses of tissue, and it is scientifically absurd to take localized emissions from embedded radioactive particles and average that energy over the mass of an entire organ. All this does is make the biological damage disappear behind some mathematical hocus-pocus, which then produces the impression that the contamination and the cellular chaos it causes are irrelevant. Radioactive particles decaying within the human body cause biomolecular alterations and cellular damage. The important scientific question is whether this damage is repaired or if it induces altered function and disease. “Dose” provides no relevant information on this fundamental issue. It is just a mathematical abstraction that is adequate for quantifying whole-body exposure or whole-organ exposure to either x-rays/gamma rays or a uniform distribution of a radionuclide throughout an organ, but it is meaningless when applied to nonuniform distribution of radioactive particles. Further, the Hiroshima study and other studies of external exposure provide no relevant information regarding low levels of exposure to internally embedded hot-particles. Again, the notion that it is scientifically justifiable to extrapolate from high levels of external exposure to low levels of internal exposure is grounded on the erroneous idea that biological effect is proportional to the quantity of energy absorbed. However, as has been shown, the alteration of essential macromolecules within cells has nothing to do with the quantity of energy absorbed. It is voodoo science to discount the hazard of embedded uranium particles, or any other radioisotopes, solely on the basis of dosage. The only responsible way to proceed for determining whether or not contamination by depleted uranium is hazardous is to examine the outcome of epidemiological studies of instances of uranium exposure and determine the health consequences. The question to be addressed later is whether or not any previous studies have any relevance to the inhalation on the battlefield of insoluble, micron-sized particles of alloys of uranium metal laced with other contaminants such as plutonium, americium, neptunium, and technetium-99.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-2596557577555361572010-12-02T09:00:00.001-05:002010-12-02T09:00:09.983-05:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Following up on the idea that a woman’s geographical location and the environmental forces acting within that location may be a factor in the development of breast cancer, Gould <i>et al</i>. compiled data for age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rates (age-adjustment to 1950 standard population) of white women for each of the continental 48 states and the District of Columbia. They compared the breast cancer mortality rates for the periods 1950-54, 1980-84 and 1985-89, and displayed this data in a chart where the states were organized into the nine census regions of the country. In this way, regional variations would be immediately apparent and possible environmental factors could be easily postulated. Shockingly, the NCI had never published national data in this format, ruling out a useful method for detecting environmental influences that may be contributing to cancer. This was either a gross oversight, or perhaps, another scam. Gould notes that only once did the NCI publish a table for breast cancer rates for all states, for the period 1984-1988, but the data was organized with the states listed alphabetically. This method precluded easy detection of regional, i.e., environmental, causes of cancer. When the statistics compiled by the NCI were organized and displayed by regions, the end result supported the conclusion that a regional correlation existed between age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rates and cumulative release of radioactivity from weapon tests and commercial nuclear power plants. Fission products in the diet and drinking water — new pollutants introduced into the environment at the end of W.W.II — were identified as the likely initiators for the increasing rates of breast cancer. During the course of their research, Gould et al. made a host of interesting discoveries, some of which are listed below:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">1. In the New England, Middle Atlantic, and East North Central regions, breast cancer mortality rates are significantly above the national average. Such widespread distribution of above-average rates in a genetically diversified population rules out the possibility that genetic factors alone are responsible. Some unidentified environmental factor is at work sustaining the breast cancer epidemic. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">2. Breast cancer mortality rates in the Southern and Mountain regions have been rising since 1950-54 far more rapidly than in the nation as a whole. New Mexico and North Carolina registered increases as great as 30% since 1950 compared to moderate increases for the US as a whole of only 2% for 1980-84 and 1% for 1985-89.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">3. For the period 1950-54, 10 years after the beginning of nuclear weapon testing, breast cancer mortality rates differed widely between regions. The lowest rates were in the rural East and West South Central regions. Arkansas had the lowest mortality rate of 15.4 deaths per 100,000. Again, differing rates of breast cancer in different geographical regions bear witness that genetic factors are not the sole cause of the breast cancer epidemic.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">4. In the period between 1950-54 and 1980-84, the state with the greatest increase in breast cancer mortality was New Mexico, with the rate increasing by 39%. Why New Mexico? Could the Trinity nuclear weapon test in 1945 and the presence of the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory be possible contributing factors? Supporting this contention is the fact that in the 10 contiguous counties in the southeast corner of New Mexico, the region in which the Trinity blast occurred, combined age-adjusted mortality rates increased by 72%. In 1950-54, there were 12.1 deaths per 100,000 people. By 1980-84, 40 years after the test blast, the rate had increased to 20.9 per 100,000.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">5. After New Mexico, Arizona and Utah showed the next greatest increase in breast cancer mortality — 29%. These states, bordering Nevada and immediately downwind of the Nevada Test Site, were the routine dumping ground of large amounts of radioactive fallout from weapon tests that silently and invisibly contaminated food and water sources.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">6. The cessation of aboveground weapon testing in the early 1960s had a marked influence on breast cancer mortality rates 20 years later. Not only did the enormous increase in breast cancer mortality taper off within the rural states of the Mountain region bordering the Nevada Test Site, they actually showed a significant decline between 1980-84 and 1985-89. This reversal is no surprise if fallout contamination in the diet was a contributing factor to cancer rates.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">7. Of the nine census regions, the West South Central region, comprised of Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma, had the lowest rate of breast cancer mortality for the entire period between 1950 and 1989. These low rates persisted despite the fact that these states hosted the largest petrochemical manufacturing facilities in the nation and their agricultural lands were the repository for large amounts of DDT and other chlorine-based pesticides and herbicides. Consequently, these environmental factors by themselves cannot be responsible for the breast cancer epidemic. If they are in some way responsible, some other unidentified cofactor(s) must also be involved.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">8. In contrast to the declining rates of breast cancer in the Mountain region after the end of aboveground weapon testing, breast cancer rates continued to climb between 1980-84 to 1985-89 in the rural southern states along the east coast from Delaware to Florida. If nuclear pollution is contributing to the breast cancer epidemic, this fact can be explained by the ongoing emissions of radiation from the region’s commercial nuclear reactors and releases from Oak Ridge and the nuclear weapon installation at Savannah River. All but one of the nine southern states along the Atlantic coast with nuclear reactors registered increases in mortality rates. In contrast, this was not the case in the high rainfall states of Louisiana, Kentucky, and Mississippi, which had no operating reactors before 1982. These states registered declines in breast cancer mortality of three, six, and three percent respectively during the 1980s.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">9. Despite the cessation of aboveground weapon testing, breast cancer mortality continued to climb in states receiving large amounts of radioactive pollution from nuclear facilities. This was particularly evident in Rhode Island, downwind of four large reactors in Connecticut and two smaller reactors at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York. Rhode Island, during the 1980s, had the largest increase of any state in breast cancer mortality. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">10. Identifiable trends in the rates of breast cancer mortality exist between different states that are explainable on the basis of varying levels of radioactive pollution. For instance, almost every rural state showed increases between the period 1950-54 to 1980-84, most probably as the result of fallout from weapon tests. In the period between 1980-84 and 1985-89, a different pattern emerged. In states with no operating nuclear reactors, the rate of breast cancer deaths began to decline whereas in states most significantly exposed to emissions from nuclear reactors, rates continued to climb. The rural states evidencing declines in breast cancer mortality included North and South Dakota, Kansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada. As observed by Gould: “Since all of these rural states had similar exposures to pesticides and other chemical pollutants, we may conclude that exposure to bomb-test radiation was the principal cause of the overall increased mortality since 50-54.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">11. Between the period 1950-54 and 1985-89, breast cancer mortality in the Washington state county housing the Hanford Reservation increased from 13.2 to 21.7 deaths per 100,000. For the county in which the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory was located, rates increased from 4.8 to 21.7. In St. Lucie county in Florida, exposed to pollution from four commercial nuclear reactors, the death rate from breast cancer jumped from 6.5 to 23.5. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">12. In the 14 counties in which the seven oldest DOE reactor sites are located, combined age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rates for white females rose by 37 percent during the period 1950-54 to 1985-89. During the same period, the corresponding rate in the US as a whole rose by only one percent. In these 14 counties, the rate quintupled, from 371 deaths to 1,926 deaths, while the rate in the US as a whole only doubled.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">13. The Oak Ridge study can be replicated for any area in the country where old DOE facilities are located. Women living in counties near the oldest reactor sites have registered by far the highest long-term increase in breast cancer mortality of women in any group of counties in the nation.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">14. A comparison was made of breast cancer mortality rates among women in an aggregate of 14 counties that housed seven DOE facilities with reactors to women in an aggregate of nine counties housing DOE facilities without reactors. The women living in the 14 counties exposed to reactor emissions displayed an extraordinary and significant increase in breast cancer mortality of 37% between 1950-54 to 1985-89, compared to a 6% decline among women living in the counties not receiving emissions. This is a clear demonstration that reactor emissions are producing breast cancer.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">15. The flat low-rainfall states between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River receive the lowest exposure to fallout from commercial nuclear reactors and have the lowest rates of breast cancer mortality.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">16. Most civilian nuclear power plants are located in areas where precipitation levels are over 30 inches per year. There are only five reactors located in states with annual levels of precipitation below 15 inches. Interestingly, these five reactor sites are the only ones studied that fail to show a significant upward divergence in breast cancer mortality rates compared to the nation as a whole.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">17. Brookhaven National Laboratory is located in Suffolk county in New York state. From 1950-54, when BNL began operation, through 1985-89, the county’s rate of breast cancer mortality was 40 times greater than the increase throughout the nation as a whole.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The research accumulating on the health detriment produced by released radioisotopes is putting the Cult of Nuclearists in a terrible double-bind. Mounting pressure will eventually force them into admitting either that doses to exposed populations have been greater than previously published or that the risk factors are in substantial error. They cannot have both. The only escape from this predicament is to attack the integrity of the research that casts them into this dilemma. This tactic, however, is becoming increasingly transparent as evidence mounts that radioisotopes in the environment are producing illness and death. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-84782567101898471022010-11-29T09:00:00.000-05:002010-11-30T20:40:33.016-05:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">People tolerate nuclear power plants in their midst only because of constant reassurances by government and industry that routine emissions of radionuclides are insignificant and “doses” to the population are below regulatory concern. This posturing is intended to imply that the health of citizens is not being eroded by radiation. But what about the high incidence of breast cancer consistently found downwind of nuclear reactors? </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“Libel!” thunders the Cult of Nuclearists. “Call in the prosecutor! The National Cancer Institute, in a study completed in 1990, found no heightened rates of cancer among populations living in proximity to nuclear reactors!”</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The NCI study being referred to is <i>Cancer In Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities</i>. If ever there was a scam orchestrated to beguile citizens, this was it. Thanks to Jay M. Gould and members of the Radiation and Public Health Project, its fraudulent conclusions were exposed in their book, <i>The Enemy Within: The High Cost of Living Near Nuclear Reactors</i> [1]. As revealed in this work, the authors of the NCI research, in a brilliant act of deception, based their entire study on the devious premise that the only people exposed to radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants are the people living within the counties where the facilities are located. Swept under the carpet was the embarrassing little detail that liquid and gaseous effluents pay no attention to county lines, that they are whisked to outlying counties by meteorological and geophysical forces. By defining at-risk counties as those actually hosting the reactor, the NCI authors harvested a second boon for deceit. Most nuclear reactors are located in rural counties with relatively small populations. Consequently, an increased incidence of breast cancer mortality, if one were detected, would represent only a small number of cases, too small to be considered statistically significant. As observed by Gould,</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>“A change in mortality in any county cannot be considered significant if it can be shown to be the product of chance variation. Most of the 3,000-odd counties in the United States are small rural counties. Any single county would have to register an extremely high above average mortality increase to be judged statistically significant, simply because there would be too few deaths involved.”</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Thus, guaranteed by the dishonest methodology of examining cancer mortality in individual counties, the foregone conclusion was that no “statistically significant” rise in cancer mortality would ever be found among residents of “nuclear counties.” The NCI study echoed this in its conclusion: “if any excess cancer risk was present in the US counties with nuclear facilities, it was too small to be detected with the methods employed.” Case closed! Nuclear reactors do not cause cancer. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The monumental deficiencies of the NCI study and its counterfeit claim that living nearby to nuclear reactors presented no hazard to health were first exposed by Joseph Mangano in his article “Cancer Mortality Near Oak Ridge, Tennessee” [2]. (Oak Ridge was one of the secret cities of the Manhattan Project, created during World War II to produce uranium-235 by the process of gaseous diffusion. After the war, it remained a major production facility, helping America to amass its nuclear arsenal.) When the NCI turned its attention to Oak Ridge, it confined its study to examining cancer mortality for the two counties in which the facility was actually located, Anderson and Rowe. Although it identified an increased rate of cancer mortality in these counties when compared to the nation as a whole, the excess cancer deaths did not represent a sufficient number of cases to be statistically significant. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Using a more sensible methodology, Mangano set out to reexamine any possible connection between cancer mortality (from all types of cancer) and the nuclear pollution emitted from Oak Ridge. He compiled NCI statistics of the aggregated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates from 1950-52 to 1987-89 for the 94 contiguous counties within a 100-mile radius of the Oak Ridge facility. Using this approach, he overcame the two shortcomings of the NCI study. His “nuclear counties” were more realistically representative of areas actually contaminated by radionuclides emanating from Oak Ridge, and the study population was large enough for statistical significance to be achieved. (During 1987-89, 20,000 cancer deaths were on record within the area studied.) What Mangano uncovered put the NCI research to shame. During the period under investigation, combined cancer mortality rates in the counties under investigation increased 34 percent as compared to the five percent increase for the United States as a whole. As Gould observes, </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>“The probability that so great a divergence over a 37-year period could be the result of chance is less than 1 in 10,000 cases. Proximity to the plant must be a factor involved in this epidemiological anomaly. In the absence of a plausible alternative explanation, it is evident that some malevolent force of mortality has been emanating from the Oak Ridge reactors for a long enough time to have a much wider geographic impact than would be shown by merely the two counties chosen by the NCI for study.”</i> </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Through his new window on the cancer cluster near Oak Ridge, Mangano was also able to observe important environmental trends that had remained invisible in the NCI study. For instance, he discovered a significantly greater combined cancer mortality risk for counties located downwind of Oak Ridge, to the north and northeast, in comparison with counties upwind of the facility. This was to be expected if the center of the study area, the Oak Ridge reactors, were responsible for the increased mortality rates. He also discovered that residents living in elevated mountain counties faced a greater risk of cancer mortality than people living in lowland counties due to the greater precipitation to which they were exposed. This also was to be expected since radionuclides afloat in the air are brought down to the ground primarily by rain and snow. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Replicating Mangano’s methodology, Gould et al. studied age-adjusted breast cancer mortality in white females nationwide based upon a county-by-county database published by the NCI. Examining statistics for the 71 counties fully enclosed within a 100-mile radius of Oak Ridge, they calculated a 29 percent increase in aggregated breast cancer mortality during the same study period (1950-54 to 1980-84) compared with the national increase of only one percent. Recognizing that nuclear pollution from other distant sites may have contributed to the cancer increase in so large an area, the researchers narrowed their study to 20 contiguous rural counties downwind of Oak Ridge. In this instance, the aggregated breast cancer mortality rates showed a gain of 38 percent. In comparison, eight counties upwind of Oak Ridge during the same period had a four percent decline in breast cancer mortality.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>The Enemy Within</i> recounts the complete study performed by Gould et al. who investigated 60 reactor sites throughout the United States and calculated the age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rates within areas of 50- and 100-mile radii from these installations. What they uncovered was that, throughout the nation, counties within these designated areas had significantly higher rates of breast cancer mortality than either aggregates of counties further from reactor installations or for the nation as a whole. (The 50-mile radius was set for the study because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission uses a 50-mile definition to calculate dosages to the population in connection with nuclear plant licensing procedures. The implication is that the NRC is granting licenses to facilities that are killing women with dosages that are deemed safe.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The national database used by both the NCI and Gould <i>et al</i>. consisted of 3,053 counties. In the research conducted by the NCI, cancer mortality rates around 62 reactor facilities were studied. On the basis of their location, only 107 counties were identified as “nuclear” counties, i.e., counties hosting or immediately adjacent to the reactors whose population was considered potentially exposed to radionuclides. This fundamental premise of the NCI study is completely unsound. Any eighth grader would know that pollution vented into the air or flushed into waterways will migrate great distances through the environment, contaminating humans either directly or through food chains or water sources that in turn will be the vehicle for contaminating humans. The control population used by the NCI consisted of people living in 292 different counties. For three-quarters of the nuclear facilities under investigation, the control counties were adjacent to the nuclear counties. All the control counties were located within 100 miles of a reactor. This ridiculous choice hopelessly biased the data. Whatever exposure to radionuclides suffered by people in a “nuclear county” would likely be suffered by people dwelling in a “control county.” Rates of cancer would be similar, allowing the fraudulent conclusion to be reached that people in nuclear counties are at no greater risk of dying of cancer than anyone else. This foolishness is an example of our tax dollars at work. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Gould <i>et al</i>. reviewed the conclusions of NCI study. When they looked at all 107 nuclear counties as an aggregate (simultaneously taking into account cancer rates in each county before and after the startup of each reactor), they observed a statistically significant increase in all types of cancer including breast cancer. When they combined the populations of the 107 nuclear counties with the 292 control counties and compared the cancer mortality rates in this population to the rates for the US as a whole, they once again discovered a statistically significant increase in cancer risk for this group of people. This finding soundly refuted the NCI claim that nuclear reactors were not inducing excess rates of cancer.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In their own study, Gould <i>et al</i>. studied 60 reactor sites and the age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rates in those counties located within a 50- and 100-mile radius of these facilities. This procedure produced study populations large enough to display statistical significance. At one point, using a methodology similar to that of the NCI, they calculated the combined breast cancer mortality trends of seven contiguous rural counties downwind and within 50 miles of each reactor. The total number of counties was 346. For the period 1950-54, the recorded age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rates for the people living within these counties was well below that of the US as a whole. In contrast, breast cancer mortality among women living within these counties today is well above the national rate. This observation again refutes the conclusions of the NCI study. As Gould observes in <i>The Enemy Within</i>:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>“All in all, for 55 out of the 60 reactor sites we have been able to define some 346 contiguous, mainly rural counties that adjoin one or more reactor sites that have registered aggregated increases in current breast cancer mortality rates significantly higher that the corresponding national increase. Our sole purpose here is to demonstrate the limitations of the NCI definition of proximity to nuclear reactors, which in almost all cases resulted in too small a number of deaths to achieve statistical significance.”</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "> </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In the Gould <i>et al</i>. study, 1319 counties in the United States were identified as being “nuclear,” within 100 miles of a nuclear reactor. The remaining 1734 counties, mostly rural and lying between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River, were defined as “non-nuclear.” For the period 1985-89, the combined age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rate for the nuclear counties was 25.8 deaths per 100,000. By contrast, the breast cancer death rate in the non-nuclear counties was 22.1 deaths per 100,000. Once again, the conclusion was reached that nuclear reactors were inducing cancer in the population. In an attempt to discredit this conclusion, the NCI undertook a review of the study of Gould et al., copying their methodology. Looking at the mortality rate of nuclear counties within 50 miles of a reactor site, they estimated a rate of 26.9 breast cancer deaths per 100,000 women, based on the 69,554 deaths nationally in the years 1985-89. In contrast, the breast cancer death rate for all other counties was calculated at 23.3. Of this, Gould made the following observation:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>The probability that so great a difference could be due to chance is infinitesimal. This means that the cause of the current epidemic increase in breast cancer involves geographical factors that must be environmental and cannot be ascribed to differences due to genetic factors. We must therefore discard all the “blame the victim” and lifestyle factors invoked by the authorities to conceal the true man-made cause of the epidemic.”</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Gould J.M., Sternglass E.J., Mangano J.J.., McDonnell W. <i>The Enemy Within: The High Cost of Living Near Nuclear Reactors</i>. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows; 1996. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] Mangano J.J. Cancer Mortality Near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. <i>International Journal of Health Service</i>. 1994; 24(3):521-533.</p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-91364683064191312442010-11-25T21:00:00.004-05:002010-11-30T20:21:39.643-05:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<div><br /></div><div><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The previous examples come from Europe and Asia, but health and longevity can be compromised just as easily by reactors operating within the United States. Evidence substantiating this was published in the Archives of Environmental Health in the article “Elevated Childhood Cancer Incidence Proximate to US Nuclear Power Plants” [1]. Mangano et al. compiled data on rates of cancer and leukemia in people living within a 30-mile radius of 14 commercial nuclear power plants located in the eastern United States. The 49 counties under investigation were home to approximately one-third of the 50 million Americans who live within 30 miles of a nuclear reactor. The rates of illness in the study area were then compared to rates compiled by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) of the National Cancer Institute. SEER data is widely regarded as an accurate proxy for national incidence data. It compiles statistics from established tumor registries in five states and four metropolitan areas, representing about one-tenth of the US population.</p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In their study, Mangano et al. discovered that the incidence of total cancers in children under five years of age during the period 1988 to 1997 was higher near every one of the 14 nuclear plants than the national incidence rate represented by SEER data. The smallest excess in the cancer rate, + 0.7%, was observed near the Salem/Hope Creek nuclear facility in New Jersey. The largest excess, +29.1%, occurred near both the Turkey Point and St. Lucie power plants in Florida. The childhood cancer rate for all 49 counties combined was 22.51 per 100,000. This was 11.4% greater than the SEER rate.</p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">For the same period, cancer incidence in children between the ages of five and nine exceeded the SEER rate in 13 of the 14 areas under study. Cancer incidence was 12.15 per 100,000 — 12.5% higher than the SEER rate of 10.80. The smallest excess of +2.2% was found near the Millstone reactors in Connecticut. The largest excess, +73.6%, occurred near the St. Lucie reactors in Florida. (For the sake of comparison, the incidence rate near the Crystal River facility in Florida was 6.5% below the SEER rate.)</p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">When the two age groups were combined, the rate of cancer incidence was calculated to be 17.42 per 100,000 children, which is 12.4% above the national rate found by SEER. In 38 of the 49 counties studied, cancer incidence rates in children from birth to nine years old exceeded the rate for the US as a whole. When the incidence of childhood cancer occurring in counties within 30 miles of the reactors under study were compared to the rates for the remaining counties in states where the reactors were located, cancer incidence was once again discovered to be higher. The total excess incidence between the two groups of counties was 5.0%.</p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Investigating the incidence of childhood leukemia, Mangano et al. examined the rate in the 23 counties near five nuclear power plants in Pennsylvania. These regions accounted for slightly more than half the population of the state. Leukemia in these counties exceeded the US rate by 10.8% while the remainder of the state showed an incidence that was 11.5% below the US rate. According to the authors: “This finding supports the considerable evidence that, although the risk of all forms of childhood cancer is increased by radiation exposure, the risk may be greatest for leukemia.” For all other cancers, no difference was seen in the rate of incidence between the nuclear and non-nuclear counties even though they both exceeded the national rate by 2.6% and 3.2% respectively. The researchers concluded:</p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">"</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11.6667px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">This study found a consistent pattern of increased childhood cancer incidence in all study areas less than 30 mi (48 km) from nuclear plants in the eastern United States. Our findings support the biologically plausible concept that susceptibility to carcinogens, such as radioactivity, is greatest in utero and in early childhood. They also support numerous analyses documenting elevated childhood cancer rates near nuclear facilities in the United States and other nations. The finding that cancer incidence for children less than 10 yr. is 12.4% greater in the study counties than the US as a whole suggests that emissions from nuclear power plants may be linked with 1 of 9 local cases of childhood cancer. These descriptive epidemiological findings suggest a relationship between radioactive nuclides and childhood cancer and should be taken seriously in future research." </span></i></span></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: -webkit-xxx-large; "><i><br /></i></span></span></p><i><i><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Mangano J.J., Sherman J., Chang C., Dave A., Feinberg E., Frimer M. Elevated Childhood Cancer Incidence Proximate to U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. <i>Archives of Environmental Health</i>. February 2003.</p></i></i></div><i><i></i></i>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-66021046192367793392010-11-22T09:00:00.000-05:002010-11-24T18:17:19.006-05:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The finding of an excess incidence of leukemia in areas near nuclear installations is not confined to the UK. A 15-fold excess in the incidence of childhood leukemia has been discovered near Cap de la Hague, France’s nuclear fuel reprocessing facility [1,2]. In this study, it was determined that the two excess risk factors for children were playing on the beach and eating shellfish. In a separate study, childhood leukemia within a 10 kilometer radius of the plant was six times the expected rate [3]. In northern Germany, a similar discovery was made. In children 0-4 years of age living within five kilometers of the Krummel nuclear power plant, a five-fold relative risk of leukemia was observed. This jump in leukemia incidence appeared five years after the plant began operations in 1983. A significant increase in adult leukemia in proximity to Krummel was also observed. Elevated levels of chromosome aberrations in the blood of local residents further supported the hypothesis that radiation was the causative agent for the leukemia cluster [4]. Environmental monitoring detected the presence of artificial radioactivity in air, rainwater, soil and vegetation, confirming chronic leakages of radioactivity from the facility. Calculations applied to the observed levels of radioactivity in the environment implied that emissions from the plant must have been well above authorized annual limits. In a separate study conducted by Korblein et al., a statistically significant increase in all types of childhood malignancies was discovered in children, ages 0-4, who lived in the areas closest to all commercial nuclear power plants in Germany. These findings remained unchanged when statistics for the area around the Krummel plant, with its confirmed leukemia cluster, were excluded.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In 1995, Iwasaki et al. published data concerning leukemia and lymphoma mortality between 1973 and 1987 in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Japan [5]. Their study concluded that mortality from these diseases in the municipalities where the facilities were located was not significantly different from the control areas. The authors reached this conclusion by analyzing Standardized Mortality Ratios for each individual municipality. This created a multitude of small-number comparisons producing results of very low statistical power and guaranteeing that unless large numbers of illness were detected, no statistical significance would ever be derived from the study. The data was reanalyzed by Ziggel et al. [6] by pooling the incidence of leukemia and lymphoma for all municipalities housing reactors and for the control regions. When this was done, it was discovered that in the period 1973-1987, there were 307 observed leukemia deaths in all age groups where only 251 would have been expected based on Japanese national figures. The resulting Standardized Mortality Ratio of 1.22 demonstrated a 20% increase in leukemia in the study areas. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Viel J.F., Poubel D., Carre A. Incidence of Leukemia in Young People around the La Hague Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Plant: A Sensitivity Analysis. <i>Statistics in Medicine</i>. 1996; 14: 2459-2472. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] Viel J.F., Richardson S., Danel P., Boutard P., Malet M., Barrelier P., Reman O. Carré A. Childhood Leukemia Incidence in the Vicinity of La Hague Nuclear-Waste Reprocessing Facility (France). <i>Cancer Causes and Control</i>. 1993; 4(4):341-343.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[3] Guizard A-V., Boutou O., Pottier D., Troussard X., Pheby D., Launoy G., Slama R., Spira A., AKRM. The Incidence of Childhood Leukemia Around the La Hague Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Plant (France): A Survey for the Years 1978-1998. <i>Journal of Epidemiological Community Health</i>. 2001; 55: 469-474.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[4] Ziggel H., Schmitz-Feuerhake I., Dannheim B., Heimers A., Oberheitmann B., Schroder H. Leukemia in the Proximity of a German Boiling-Water Nuclear Reactor: Evidence of Population Exposure by Chromosome Studies and Environmental Radioactivity. <i>Environmental Health Perspectives</i>. 1997; 105(Supplement 6):1499-1504.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[5] Iwasaki T., Nishizawa K., Murata M. Leukaemia and Lymphoma Mortality in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Stations in Japan, 1973–1987. <i>Journal of Radiological Protection</i>. 1995; 15:271-288.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[6] Ziggel H., Hoffmann W., Kuni H. Leukemia and Lymphoma Mortality in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Stations in Japan 1973-1987. Letter to the editor in <i>Journal of Radiological Protection</i>. 1996; 16:(3):213-215.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-81056912121340327652010-11-18T09:00:00.002-05:002010-11-18T09:00:12.411-05:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">A very dramatic cluster of cancers has been discovered along the Menai Strait between the island of Anglesey and North Wales. Mud banks in this area are known to be heavily contaminated by radionuclides discharged from Sellafield. As reported by the Low Level Radiation Campaign:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>In the seaside town of Caernarfon, leukemia in the 0-4 year-old age group is more than 20 times higher than the UK national average. Brain cancers in the 0-14 age group are 18 times the average. Elevated risks not confined to the town — the 34 wards surrounding the Menai Strait - have:</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>* an eight-fold excess of leukemia in children younger than 4</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>* a five-fold excess of brain and spinal cancer in children younger than 15</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>* a 10-fold excess of retinoblastoma in children under 14. </i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>(Retinoblastoma, a rare eye cancer, has been associated with radioactivity since the Seascale cluster of leukemia is accompanied by a 20-fold excess of retinoblastoma in children of Sellafield workers)</i>” [1].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">These findings are highly relevant to the current discussion. Britain’s Committee of Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) investigated the reported childhood leukemia cluster in the environs of Seascale, near the Sellafield reprocessing plant. Repeatedly, they advised that, according to the current knowledge base, doses to the surrounding population from Sellafield were too low to be responsible for inducing the observed illnesses. The even more dramatic cluster of childhood cancers along the Menai Strait serves as a powerful indictment of COMARE’s objectivity and its assessment of Sellafield’s innocence. What it does is offer further confirmation that radioisotopes released from this reprocessing facility are inducing cancer in children. This newest revelation of the relationship between radiation in the environment and cancer screams out, once again, that there is something terribly suspect in what is currently embraced as the “truth” about the risks to health posed by internal exposure.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In Europe, other nuclear facilities besides Sellafield have been found to be inducing illness in their neighbors. Clusters of childhood cancer and leukemia have been discovered in communities near the nuclear reprocessing facility at Dounreay in the far north of Scotland. Research undertaken in 1986 revealed that childhood leukemia within 12.5 km of Dourneay was 600% higher than the average incidence elsewhere in Scotland [2]. As at Sellafield, COMARE confirmed that this excess was real, but denied that it was the result of nuclear pollution, on the grounds that the currently accepted dose-response models could not account for it. Another cluster of childhood leukemia in the United Kingdom was identified in the region close to the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire. The excess was observed in children under five years old who lived within 10 km of the facility [3]. According to the CERRIE Minority Report: “<i>these well-documented effects indicate a potential for the existence of errors in the ICRP risk model of between two and three orders of magnitude</i>.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The Hinkley Point nuclear power plant is located near Burnham-on-Sea in Somerset, UK. The first reactor came online in 1964. That the plant was contaminating the surrounding area was confirmed in subsequent years with the discovery offshore of radionuclides adhering to fine sediments in the Steart Flats mudbank. To discover whether or not this pollution was harming the local population, the Somerset Health Authority in 1988 undertook a study of the incidence of leukemia in parishes within a 15 km radius of the plant. The study confirmed that, during the period 1959-1986, a significant increase occurred in the incidence of leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma among people younger than 25 years of age [4]. The relative risk, driven by a high number of cases occurring in the first five years of the plant’s operation, was between 2.0 ad 2.5 times the national average. For the period 1995-1999, breast cancer mortality in Burnham-on-Sea was twice the national average. Evidence that Hinkley Point pollution was responsible for this increase was made obvious by this observation from the researchers who discovered this increase:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>Our first analysis of the Hinkley Point area was for breast cancer mortality. Results supported the hypotheses: analysis showed that there was a statistically significant excess risk of dying of breast cancer in the aggregate wards within 5 km of the center of the offshore mud banks near Hinkley Point (RR=1.43; p=0.02). The risk fell off with increasing distance from a point source taken to be the center of the mud bank with Relative Risks of 1.43, 1.33, 1.24, 1.16 and 1.13 in wards contained within 5, 10,15,10 and 25 km rings around the point source. The overall risk in the study area was 1.09 (relative to England and Wales rates for the same period). The most significant high risk ward was Burnham North with 8.7 deaths expected, 17 observed (RR=1.95; p=0.02).</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>We followed this by analyzing risk of dying of prostate cancer (Busby et al., 2000b). This also supported the hypothesis. As with the breast cancer, prostate cancer mortality showed a significant trend with distance, falling from 1.4 in the 5 km ring around the center of the offshore mud banks to 1.02 in the 25-30 km ring (Chi square for trend 3.47, p = .05). Again, the downwinders at Burnham-on-Sea suffered a significantly raised cancer mortality risk: for prostate cancer mortality in the two wards, Burnham North and Burnham South combined, the Relative Risk was 1.5 with p = 0.05 (14 expected, 21 observed)</i>” [5,6}.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In the UK, HM Dockyard Plymouth services nuclear submarines. When the decision was made in 2000 to increase capacity, Devonport Management Limited, which operates the facility, applied to the Environment Agency to be allowed to increase its annual emissions of radionuclides. A 700% increase, from 120 GBq to 800 GBq, was proposed for tritium discharges into the Tamar River, which flows past Plymouth. In addition, permission was sought for raising tritium discharges into the atmosphere from 1 to 5 GBq together with a new requirement for releases of 45 GBq of carbon-14 and 15 Gbq of argon-41. This proposal raised concern among local citizens. One question that many people sought an answer to was the health effects, if any, caused by the lower levels previously permitted. In response, the South West Devon Health Authority (SWDHA) issued a report on leukemia in the Plymouth area, based on figures provided by the South West Cancer Intelligence Unit. According to the report, a statistically significant excess in leukemia incidence of 25-30% was present for the period 1995-1997, for both men and women of all age groups. However, the SWDHA report concluded that these increases were not related to radionuclide discharges from the dockyard. Their reasons, according to <i>Cancer and Leukemia and Radioactive Pollution from HM Dockyard, Plymouth</i> was: “<i>(a) the crude death rates from leukemia were not highest in the wards closest to the dockyard, Keyham [on the east side of the Tamar near the dockyard] and Torpoint [on the western side of the Tamar, opposite the dockyard], and (b) radiation exposure from the releases were too small to cause any measurable increases in leukemia</i>” [7]. To prove (a) as false and (b) as an invalid assumption based on incorrect risk models of the ICRP, Plymouth’s Campaign Against Nuclear Storage and Radiation (CANSAR) and the environmental group Green Audit conducted research on the incidence, not death rate, of cancer and leukemia in Keyham and Torpoint. The results of their study confirmed that in the 10-year period 1994-2003, there was an 18-fold excess risk of leukemia in Keyham (seven reported cases where only 0.38 were expected based on national rates) and a 4.7-fold excess in Torpoint (four cases reported where only 0.84 were expected.) To add greater strength to the findings, a proportional incidence analysis was carried out in which the ratios of leukemia to all cancers were determined and compared to the ratio for the country as a whole. Again, an excess incidence of leukemia in the two wards was confirmed. The risk for all cancers combined was also elevated. In Keyham, for all ages, there were 39 cases of cancer reported when the expected number was only 20. In Torpoint, there were 76 reported cases where only 45.8 were expected. These results confirmed the excess leukemia risk in the vicinity of the Plymouth dockyard. Further, they drive another nail into the coffin of inaccurate risk factors that leave leukemia incidence near nuclear installations unexplained.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Low Level Radiation Campaign (LLRC). The Nuclear Laundry - Again! New Cluster of Childhood Cancers and Leukemia Far Worse than Seascale. Low Level Radiation Campaign Activists’ briefing. March, 2004. http://www.llrc.org/menaibriefing.htm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] Busby C. <i>Wings of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human Health</i>. Aberystwyth, Wales: Green Audit Books, Green Audit (Wales) Ltd; 1995.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[3] Beral V., Roman E. and Bobrow M. Childhood Cancer and Nuclear Installations. London: <i>British Medical Journal</i>; 1993.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[4] Green Audit. Hinkley Point Cancer Cluster: Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station 1995-1998. http://www.llrc.org.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[5] Busby C., Dorfman P., Rowe H. Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station 1995-1998: Part 1-- Breast Cancer. Aberystwyth: Green Audit: 2000. http://www.llrc.org</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[6] Busby C., Dorfman P., Rowe H. Cancer Mortality and Proximity to Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station 1995-1998: Part 2 -- Prostate Cancer. Aberystwyth: Green Audit; 2000. http://www.llrc.org</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[7] Busby C, Avent I. Cancer and Leukemia and Radioactive Pollution from HM Dockyard, Plymouth. Occasional Paper 04/04. Aberystwyth: Green Audit; March 2004. http://www.llrc.org</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 14px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 10px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 12px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-35964659101711995472010-11-15T09:00:00.000-05:002010-11-16T18:02:11.136-05:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"></p><p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">When confronted with evidence that radionuclides emitted from nuclear installations do cause leukemias and other cancers, nuclear apologists parry the attack with the observation that those studies which do demonstrate a correlation between radionuclide exposure in the environment and illness involve relatively small population samples and the frequency of observed illnesses are not statistically significant. In many cases, this is a valid criticism which, for over half a century, has successfully prevented liability being assigned to those who discharge radiation into the environment. However, as research continues to accumulate, this position is becoming increasingly less tenable. Although small studies may produce statistical anomalies that fail to prove a rule, the cumulative power of numerous small studies, all confirming heightened incidence of childhood leukemia and cancer in contaminated areas, has to be respected as evidence that some real effect is being observed. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In Europe, a number of epidemiological studies have been carried out to examine the relationship between nuclear pollution and ill health. In geographical areas where isotopes have been found to accumulate, the local inhabitants have consistently faced greater risks of developing leukemia and cancer than predicted by ICRP models. Coastal communities in Ireland and Wales in proximity to the Irish Sea have been investigated due to the accumulation in that body of water of fallout, discharges from nuclear fuel-reprocessing (Sellafield) and dumping of radioactive waste (Sellafield and nuclear reactor facilities.) Along certain shorelines, radionuclides — most notably plutonium-239, cesium-137 and strontium-90 — have contaminated mudbanks, estuaries, and intertidal sediment (the sediment lying between high tide and low tide marks). Studies have shown that the radioisotopes discharged into the Irish Sea bind preferentially to fine silts. While afloat on the water surface, the action of wind and waves resuspends this fine particulate matter and blows it ashore. Alternatively, radioactive sediment trapped in the intertidal zone during low tide dries and is swept into the air by wind. In either case, the end result is that radionuclides from the sea contaminate inland air where it is available for inhalation by populations living along the coast. This hypothesis is supported by a number of observations. Airborne plutonium was collected in muslin screens set at various distances from the Irish Sea. The highest concentration of plutonium was found in those screens closest to the coast with a rapid falloff occurring within a few kilometers inland and then flattening out further into the interior. Analysis of plutonium in deciduous teeth showed the same gradient. Residents close to the coast bore a higher burden of plutonium contamination in their teeth than their neighbors living slightly further inland. As distance from the coast increased, plutonium concentrations decreased. A study of plutonium concentrations in sheep feces bore witness to the same phenomenon. Another study looked at the concentration of plutonium and cesium-137 in autopsy specimens. Again, a correlation was established between the distance of a person’s home from the Irish Sea and the extent of the body burden of contaminants. In this study, it was observed that the highest levels of radionuclides were found in the lymph nodes draining the lung, suggesting that inhalation was the route of exposure. This evidence of differential exposure to radiocontaminants diminishing with distance from the Irish Sea strongly suggests that sea-to-land transfer is the best explanation for the phenomenon. This radioactivity in the environment correlates with observations of a high incidence of cancers in certain coastal communities. In Ireland, a significant excess of childhood leukemia was discovered in a strip three miles wide along the east coast [1]. An excess of breast cancer was also observed among Irish women living close to the coast [2]. As noted in the CERRIE Minority Report: “The trends in cancer risk by distance from the sea correlated well with inland penetration by sodium chloride and concentrations of plutonium in air as measured by Harwell [Nuclear Research Establishment] workers in the late 1980s [3].”</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The period of peak emissions from Sellafield, coinciding with the highest level of radioisotope pollution along the coast of Wales, occurred between 1974 and 1989. According to the Green Audit Irish Sea Research Group, the incidence of cancer in Wales for most age groups was significantly higher among people living in population areas centered within a 800-meter wide strip stretching along the coast of the Irish Sea. Compared with the combined population of England and Wales, a 4.6-fold excess of leukemia in 0-4 year olds was discovered in this coastal area [1]. The risk of contracting cancer was found to fall off as one moved west from the coast, first of all falling sharply, then showing a slight rise inland at the mountains, and then steadily decreasing toward the border with England where rates then became comparable with English rates.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Busby C., Kocjan B., Mannion E., Scott Cato M. Proximity to the Irish Sea and Leukemia Incidence in Children at ages 0-4 in Wales from 1974-1989: First Report of the Green Audit Irish Research Group. Green Audit Aberystwyth, Wales. Occasional Papers 98/4. August 1, 1998. http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/child_leuk_wales.htm</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] CERRIE Minority Report. Minority Report of the UK Department of Health / Department of Environment (DEFRA) Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters (CERRIE). Aberystwyth: Sosiumi Press; 2005.</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[3] Eakins J.D., Lally A.E. The Transfer to Land of Actinide-Bearing Sediments from the Irish Sea by Spray. <i>Science of the Total Environment</i>. 1984; 35:23-32.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 14px; "><br /></p><p></p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-6967041508095316072010-11-11T09:00:00.000-05:002010-11-11T09:00:13.216-05:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Further cracks in the ICRP barricade against truth have surfaced as a result of research conducted on nuclear workers. The ECRR mentions a study conducted by Roman et al. of prostate cancer risk in nuclear workers who were monitored for internal contamination. Results suggested an error of up to 1000-fold in the ICRP model for this disease. The CERRIE Minority Report cites a study by Beral et al. of prostate cancer in UKAEA workers, which provided evidence that the risk factors for a number of radionuclides including zinc-65 and tritium were in error by at least three orders of magnitude. The Report also mentions in passing a number of other studies of nuclear workers that revealed greater numbers of cancer than those predicted by the ICRP risk factors. These were conducted by Carpenter <i>et al</i>. [1], 1998; Muirhead <i>et al</i>. [2], 1999; Draper <i>et al</i>. [3], 1997; and Omar <i>et al</i>. [4], 1999. Of these studies, the CERRIE Minority makes an interesting observation: “<i>Many of these effects in nuclear workers have been discounted by the authors on the basis of their failure to conform with a linear dose response relationship</i>.” This is truly startling. Rather than trust the veracity of their data, researchers will discount findings that are in violation of established dogma, never questioning that the dogma itself might be based on faulty premises. In the case of low levels of internal contamination, as this work has attempted to demonstrate, there is no evidentiary basis for the belief that biological effect is linearly related to the quantity of energy deposited in tissue.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1} Carpenter L.M., Higgins C.D., Douglas A.J., Maconochie N.E.S., Omar R.Z., Fraser P., Beral V., Smith P.G. Cancer Mortality in Relation to Monitoring for Radionuclide Exposure in Three Nuclear Industry Workforces. <i> British Journal of Cancer</i>. 1998; 78(9):1224-1232.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">{2] Muirhead C.R., Goodill A.A., Haylock R.G., Vokes J., Little M.P., Jackson D.A., O’Hagan J.A., Thomas J.M., Kendall G.M., Silk T.J., Bingham D., Berridge G.L. Occupational Radiation Exposure and Mortality: Second Analysis of the National Registry for Radiation Workers. <i>Journal of Radiological Protection</i>. 1999; 19:3-26.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[3] Draper G.J., Little M.P., Sorahan T., <i>et al</i>. Cancer in the Offspring of Radiation Workers-- A Record Linkage Study. <i>NRPB R298</i>. Chilton: NRPB; 1997.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[4] <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11.6667px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">Omar R.Z., Barber J.A., Smith P.G. Cancer Mortality and Morbidity among Plutonium Workers at the Sellafield Plant of British Nuclear Fuels. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">British Journal of Cancer</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">. 1999; 79:1288-1301.</span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11.6667px; "><br /></span></div>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-35150223925955637932010-11-08T09:00:00.000-05:002010-11-08T20:50:19.087-05:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11.6667px; ">The ECRR relates an interesting story with regard to the search for correlations between atmospheric weapon testing and childhood cancer. During and following the period of aboveground weapon detonations, a disturbing increase in childhood cancers, notably leukemia and brain cancer, began to be noted. In an attempt to provide an explanation for this trend, the hypothesis was advanced that fallout, perhaps strontium-90, occurring in milk, was responsible. In the UK, the Medical Research Council was asked to make a study of this hypothesis. The council reported, on the advice of the epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll, that according to the data from Hiroshima, fallout could not be the cause of the childhood cancers because the doses were too low. In 1994, Doll, with a number of other researchers [1], published a famous study concerning the relationship between childhood leukemia and fallout in Nordic countries. They discovered a modest increase in the incidence of the disease during the period 1948-58 and 1965-85, from 6.0 cases per 100,000 to 6.5 cases. This increase was deemed insignificant. According to the ECRR, this study is frequently cited as proof that low doses of internal radiation produce no adverse affects on health. Since then, the study has been reexamined and found to be riddled with errors that prejudiced the conclusions. (An extensive discussion can be found in Busby’s Wings of Death.) The first error was that the rates of childhood leukemia in the five Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland were pooled together despite the fact that, due to different rainfall patterns, doses to the populations would not be uniform. Further, the populations had different eating habits and different genetic make-up. These differences invalidated the methodology of pooling the data. The second error was that no data of childhood leukemia were presented for any time prior to the study period. (A study in the UK by the Medical Research Council, co-authored by Richard Doll, displayed unequivocal evidence of a rise in the rate of childhood leukemia corresponding to the beginning of atmospheric detonations of atomic bombs.) The third error was catastrophic to the study. The leukemia data for the period 1948-58 was drawn exclusively from the Danish Cancer Registry. This was then compared, for the period 1965-85, with the pooled data from the five Nordic countries. No mention is given in the paper that the study population changed halfway through the study! Only by these monumental errors were the authors of the Nordic Leukemia Study able to conclude that the risk factors of the ICRP for childhood leukemia were essentially correct. </span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The ECRR states that when the pooled data of the five Nordic countries is correctly compared for the period under study, leukemia in children 0-4 years old increased from about 5.0 cases per 100,000 to 6.5 cases. This was an increase of about 30%. Concerning this increase, the ECRR makes the following observation:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>The leukemia incidence increase of 30% in the children exposed over the 5-year period [1958-63] followed a cumulative dose of between the 0.15 mSv bone marrow dose received in utero and the 0.8 mSv received between ages 0 and 4. This suggests an error in the ICRP risk factor (of 0.0065 per Sievert, for children) of between three and 15-fold if no further excess leukemia occurred in this cohort and an error of between 40 and 200-fold if this excess risk continued throughout their lives. In this respect it is of interest that a similar proportionate increase of about 30% occurred in the trend in Standardized Incidence Ratio of ‘All Cancers’ in England and Wales some 20 years after the exposure</i>.” </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The CERRIE Minority report mentions a study of childhood leukemia in England and Wales after weapons fallout by Bentham and Haynes. The researchers stratified different geographical areas by rainfall exposure and studied the correlation between this exposure and rates of leukemia. A 25 percent excess in the disease was observed in high rainfall areas relative to areas of low rainfall. This observation is in agreement with the revised data of childhood leukemia in Denmark and supports the conclusion that an error of greater than 100-fold exists in the currently accepted risk factors. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Darby S.C., Olsen J.H., Doll R., Thakrah B., de Nully Brown P., Storm H.H., Barlow L., Langmark F., Teppo L., Tulinius H. Trends in Childhood Leukaemia in the Nordic Countries in Relation to Fallout from Nuclear Weapon Testing. <i>Bristish Medical Journal</i> 1992; 304:1005-9.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-40697772865420839452010-11-04T09:00:00.000-04:002010-11-04T09:00:07.484-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #2d2d2d">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #2d2d2d; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #2d2d2d; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #2d2d2d">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">Currently, an epidemic of cancers is ravaging the health of people in many parts of the world. In response, a highly contentious debate has arisen over the contribution played by fallout from nuclear weapon tests to this scourge. The Cult of Nuclearists rigidly adheres to the position that fission products, now ubiquitous in the environment, do not contribute significantly to people’s yearly doses from natural background radiation and cannot possibly be a health hazard. They base this assessment on their biologically questionable concept of dose, the total amount of energy deposited in the body by radiation. They give scant attention to the reality that the radionuclides from weapons tests, which we all carry within our cells, may decay while in proximity to a cell’s genetic material and disrupt that cell’s programming for healthy functioning. Under this scenario, the biological effect might be totally unrelated to the total amount of energy absorbed. </p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">In 1993, using models of the ICRP, UNSCEAR published calculations of the average committed effective doses in person Sieverts from fallout to world populations. According to their tabulations, the amount of fallout radiation released on the Earth since 1945 and stretching infinitely into the future due to the decay of long-lived radionuclides, totals 29,800,000 person Sieverts. Applying to this number the ICRP risk factor for fatal cancer of 0.05 per Sievert yields the estimate that fallout from weapon testing will be responsible for ultimately producing 1,500,000 cancer deaths. As mentioned elsewhere, this number is totally dependent on the assumptions and models upheld by the ICRP. Using different models which attribute greater biological effect to internally incorporated radionuclides, the ECRR estimates that 120,000,000 radiation-induced cancers will be diagnosed, with 60,000,000 of these being fatal. In other words, the so-called nuclear superpowers, flaunting their nuclear machismo, have already committed crimes against humanity, and World War III hasn’t even started yet. With talk of a new, fourth generation of nuclear weapons, mini-nukes, micro-nukes, nuclear bunker-busters and so forth, the human guinea pigs of the world must not be lulled into forgetting that these weapons release vast quantities of radionuclides that migrate freely around the globe.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">In their review of the literature, the ECRR examined 10 studies of cancer incidence in the wake of fallout from nuclear weapon tests. They assert that evidence exists that global fallout has produced infant mortality and increases in the rate of cancer, leukemia and other diseases of genetic origin. They make a very convincing argument that the cancer epidemic of today can be sourced to the nuclear contamination of the Earth that occurred decades ago. According to the ECRR:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">“<i>In reaching this conclusion, the committee has been impressed by the lack of evidence as to the origin of the global cancer epidemic which began in the period 1975-85. Cancer is now widely seen, in the medical community, as a genetic disease expressed at the cellular level, and both early and recent research have supported the idea that the origin of the disease is essentially environmental exposure to a mutagen. If cancer rates began to increase sharply in the period 1975-1985, and since research has shown that the disease is known to lag the exposure by 15-20 years, clearly, the origin of the epidemic must be the introduction of some cancer-producing mutagen into the environment in the period 1955 to 1965. The identification of the mutagen with ionizing radiation from weapons fallout is persuasive. In addition, the variation in cancer incidence rates across regions of high and low rainfall and deposition points to radiation as the main cause of the cancer epidemic</i>.”</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">Nuclear weapon testing vented an enormous quantity of radionuclides into the atmosphere. Since rainfall washes radiation out of the air, the presumption is made that people living in high rainfall areas received greater doses of this radiation than people living in low rainfall areas. To gauge the impact of fallout radiation on health detriment, a number of studies have been conducted comparing the rates of cancer in high and low rainfall areas. As reported by Busby in Wings of Death, when cancer rates in Wales (high rainfall) were compared to rates in England (low rainfall), a high correlation was discovered between cumulative strontium-90 exposure of between 0.2 and 1.0 mSv over the period of fallout and the trend in Standardized Incidence Ratios for all malignancies in Wales 20 years later. According to the CERRIE Minority Report, “<i>The error in ICRP implicit in this correlation is 300-fold</i>.”</p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-82046647055889101372010-11-01T09:00:00.000-04:002010-11-01T10:01:01.288-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Before proceeding, it is worthwhile to digress for a moment to explain how inaccurate risk factors for internal contamination have been able to endure. The radiation protection agencies are responsible for perpetuating a number of dogmatic ideas concerning radiation effects in man. Students of the radiation sciences are indoctrinated with these ideas and have no reason to question them. These ideas have a powerful influence on the thinking of researchers and have caused otherwise sincere and scrupulous scientists to reject data that is out of sync with so-called “conventional wisdom.” By this means, the knowledge base of radiation effects is severely constrained. The authors of the CERRIE Minority Report have identified a number of the presumptions that have held sway over radiation epidemiology and prejudiced the outcome of so-called “definitive” studies of the effect of radiation on human health. These include the following:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">1) In response to expectations inherent in the ICRP’s models and risk factors, a large range of epidemiological studies of internal radiation have been dismissed. Rejection of this data is justified on the grounds that it is not in harmony with what is presumed to be unassailable scientific fact.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">2) Radiation effects in populations are assessed through the prism of the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis. Those who receive the highest dosages are presumed to be the ones that will manifest the greatest effects. If evidence is gathered that shows that the greatest effects are suffered by those with less than the highest dosages, this evidence is considered suspect and frequently rejected. The hidden assumption in this is that <b>ALL</b> endpoints of radiation-induced damage is linearly related to dosage. This certainly may not be the case with certain endpoints created by internal contamination. For instance, in the case of infant leukemia after Chernobyl, populations receiving the highest dosages may not have exhibited the highest incidence of infant leukemia because of an increase in spontaneous abortions, fetal deaths or still births.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">3) In most incidents of radiation exposure, populations receive a mixture of external irradiation and internal contamination. However, by convention, the dosages of those exposed are almost invariably defined in terms of the dose delivered externally. In this way, the health effects produced by the internal contaminants are either missed entirely or not adequately studied. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">4) Frequently, simplistic assumptions are made about how radioactivity, once liberated, migrates through the environment, which groups receive exposure and the dosages received by those exposed. These “assumptions” color the outcome of epidemiological studies and prejudice the “objective” findings of a study.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">5) Only certain disease endpoints are assumed to be radiation-induced, namely cancer, leukemia, and genetic disorders. Other possible endpoints receive no attention. This cocksure assumption has presented a severe obstacle to the investigation of the role played by depleted uranium in the etiology of Gulf War Illness. </p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-23956155711548594132010-10-28T09:00:00.002-04:002010-11-01T09:52:15.685-04:00<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Under normal circumstances, thyroid cancer is a rare occurrence. After the core of the Chernobyl reactor became scattered to the winds, however, an epidemic of thyroid cancer among children and teenagers broke out in the most affected Soviet territories. For example, Stsjazhko et al. reported in 1995 on the officially validated rate of thyroid cancer in Belarus in the under-15 age group before and after the accident (2.8 million children fell within this group out of a total population of 9.9 million.) In the years 1981 to 1985, approximately 3 cases of thyroid cancer existed per million children. In the years 1986 to 1990, the number of thyroid cancers had increased to 47 per million — 17 times the pre-accident level. Between 1991 to 1994, 286 cases per million were validated — 102 times greater than before the accident.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">This epidemic was beyond the purview of the ICRP risk models. Ignoring the tragedy of the Marshall Islanders, the prevailing view of the cancer-causing potential of internalized iodine-131 was given clear expression in UNSCEAR 1988. The authors stated that their literature review provided “<i>little proof that iodine-131 is carcinogenic in humans and support[ed] the notion that the carcinogenic potential of I-131 beta particles might be as low as four times less than external x-rays or gamma rays</i>” [1]. Here in a nutshell is expression of the corrupted paradigm of radiation effects: external radiation is more hazardous than internal contamination and the risk to health is extremely diminished if the exposure is chronic rather than acute. According to the ECRR, these two errors were demolished by the high rate of thyroid cancer after Chernobyl. First, internal contamination, not external irradiation, caused the runaway epidemic. Second, chronic low-dose exposure from radionuclides in the environment was the method of delivery. Further, Chernobyl refuted the prevalent idea that a latency period of 10 years or more was required between thyroid exposure and the onset of clinical symptoms. After the Chernobyl explosion, increases in the rate of thyroid cancer became observable within a few years.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">To fit the skyrocketing incidence of thyroid cancer to their incorrect models, the radiation protection agencies attempted to massage their data:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>“The risk agency community, having had to swallow the facts of the increase, promptly responded by adjusting the doses to as high a level as possible to try and fit the data to the model. The idea was to assume that the children who were affected had been iodine-deficient and therefore their thyroid glands would take up more iodine. This was unsuccessful since doses large enough to fit the cancer data would be so high that the children would have died of radiation sickness” </i>[2].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In his book <i>Wings of Death</i>, Chris Busby provides an excellent example of the type of shenanigans that can infiltrate the field of radiation protection. It is mentioned here because it bears on the accepted risk factor for thyroid cancer and the reason for the inaccurate predictions made for this endpoint in the wake of Chernobyl. Both BEIR V and UNSCEAR 1988 cite a study by Lars-Erik Holm and colleagues on iodine-131 induced thyroid cancer. (The UNSCEAR document referred to the study as “important evidence.” Lost to many in the fine print was the fact that Holm was one of the authors of UNSCEAR 1988.) The development of the accepted risk factor for thyroid cancer relied heavily on this study. Holm et al. conducted research on a population of 35,000 patients, who between 1951 and 1969 had undergone diagnostic procedures that involved injections of iodine-131. In determining the incidence of radioiodine induced thyroid cancer, the authors made a scientifically questionable procedural decision. They discarded from consideration all cases of thyroid cancer that had been diagnosed within five years of the I-131 injections. They justified this extraordinary step on the basis of the Hiroshima Life Span Study, that claimed that a considerable time elapsed between exposure and the clinical expression of thyroid cancer. Assuming the truth of this observation to be applicable to all avenues of exposure, the authors concluded that cancers diagnosed within five years of exposure could not be reliably attributed to the radioiodine injections. They proceeded on the unwarranted premise that these cancers were present prior to the injections but had gone undiagnosed. From a study of the control population, the authors calculated that in a population of 35,000 the expected number of thyroid cancers would be 39.4. After discarding the questionable cancers appearing within five years of injection, 50 cancers were recorded in the study group. This number was not statistically significant when compared to the control population, and the conclusion the authors arrived at was that the internalized iodine-131 had no effect on the incidence of thyroid cancer. How many cases of thyroid cancer did they need to throw out to reach this conclusion? As Busby reports: “<i>Careful analysis of the paper reveals that 156 extra cancers developed in the group in the first five years but that these were discarded. The true result should have been 156 + 50 = 206 cancers, or five times the control group incidence [3]</i>” [4].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">By this time, the reader needs little coaching to discern the scam being enacted, perhaps unwittingly, by scientists enmeshed in the bastardized system of radiation effects. Holm and colleagues ground key ideas of their research on the corrupted Hiroshima data of acute, external irradiation that purportedly “proved” that thyroid cancer requires a long latency period. They then imported this “fact” into a study of internal contamination by iodine-131 and used it to justify throwing out 156 cancers from their study group. This permitted them to reach the conclusion that internalized radioiodine does not contribute to excess thyroid cancers. At this point, the radiation protection agencies step in and use this “important evidence” to establish risk factors for iodine-131. In the event of a radiation accident that vents radioiodine into the environment, the radiation protection agencies can refer to what by this time has gained the stature of a canon, in order to bamboozle the population into believing that the public health impact will be much less severe than what actually transpires. In the event that anyone questions the accuracy of these authoritative assessments, they will be referred to the mind-numbing Gordian Knot of indecipherable journal articles, cryptic mathematical models, and unconquerable decrees of the ICRP: the modus operandi of a near-perfect crime. One can only marvel at the sophistication of this debauched edifice, which masterfully conceals mass casualties and death delivered to the people of the Earth by the Cult of Nuclearists. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The severity of the Chernobyl accident caused this corruption to be unveiled. Using data from Belarus that was reported in UNSCEAR 2000, the ECRR calculated that the error in the risk factors of the ICRP for thyroid cancer was about six-fold or more. In confirmation of this conclusion, Wings of Death contains the following observation:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>“It is clear, nevertheless, that a major error exists in the accepted risk for thyroid cancer. There are already 450 cancers in the first 10 years for the under-14 age group alone in the areas into which the evacuees [from Belarus] were moved. Only 100 excess thyroid cancers were predicted for all age groups combined in this population for the next 50 years. Thyroid cancer has also increased in adults. In 1993 there were 2,039 registered cases in Belarus (population 10.5 million) and more than 3,000 in the Ukraine (population 53 million) (BMJ, 1993). At minimum the error defined by this is already several hundred per cent; at maximum it is truly enormous, since only 10 years have passed out of the 40 years covered by the prediction. The trend is upward: this error will grow. These predictions were made on the basis of the existing risk factors, so their inaccuracy, already apparent and no doubt to become more obvious over the coming years, indicates that the risk-factor calculations for thyroid cancer, like those for leukemia, are unreliable. Chernobyl represents the most important recent test of these risk factors; it has proved that they are in urgent need of revision”</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). <i>Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation</i>. Report to the General Assembly, New York 1988. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). <i>Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk: the Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes</i>. Regulators' Edition. Brussels; 2003. www.euradcom.org.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[3] Gofman J.W. <i>Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure: An Independent Analysis</i>. San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear Responsibility; 1990. www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[4] Busby C. <i>Wings of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human Health</i>. Aberystwyth, Wales: Green Audit Books, Green Audit (Wales) Ltd; 1995.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 14px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 10px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 12px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "> </p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-8051768070045859772010-10-25T09:00:00.001-04:002010-10-26T07:26:44.619-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Observed health effects after Chernobyl have provided further evidence that the ICRP models are in error. For instance, research conducted in Sweden confirmed a 30% increase in the incidence of cancer between 1988 and 1996 as a result of the fallout from Chernobyl [1]. In this study, dosages to the population were estimated on the basis of the deposition of cesium-137 in 450 parishes in northern Sweden and cancer rates were recorded for the 1,143,182 residents of the area. The 22,409 cases of cancer that were diagnosed during the nine-year study period presented an excess of 849 cases compared to what was predicted by ICRP models. According to analysis conducted by the Low Level Radiation Campaign, these excess cancers are 125 times the incidence predicted by the ICRP on the basis of the cesium doses. Due to the fact that this study was concluded nine years after the accident, LLRC warns that, due to the long latency period prior to the onset of cancer, future diagnoses are likely to demonstrate even greater error in ICRP models. If the observed effect up to 1996 is representative of the distribution of increased cancer risk throughout the lifetime of the study population, cancer incidence may prove to be more than 600 times that predicted by the ICRP. The LLRC has offered a further interesting observation about the Tondel study:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>“The dose response trend calculated by Tondel on the basis of the various levels of cesium deposition is biphasic, not linear. In other words it does not conform with the ICRP dogma that dose and effect are always strictly proportional or “linear.” The Tondel study does not show twice as much dose causing twice as much cancer.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>The doses given by Tondel et al. are calculated from cesium fallout. This may mean nothing since cesium is a gamma emitter which means that its energy deposition (in the form of ionizations) is spatially well distributed in tissue. It is, moreover, soluble and does not form particles. Its health effects are therefore likely to conform with the external irradiation models. However, it is well known that north Sweden received a large amount of fallout in the form of uranium fuel particles. With diameters of less than a few millionths of a meter such particles are highly mobile in the environment and they can be inhaled or swallowed. Once embedded in body tissue they deliver their energy so locally that the few cells immediately next to them are irradiated at very high energies while the rest of the body gets no dose at all. This makes nonsense of the concept of “average dose” – another establishment dogma”</i> [2].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Tondel M., Hjalmarsson P., Hardell L., Carlsson G., Axelson O. Increase of Regional Total Cancer Incidence in North Sweden due to the Chernobyl Accident? J<i>ournal of Epidemiology and Community Health</i>. 2004; 58:1011-1016. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] Bramhall R. E-mail Circular from the Low Level Radiation Campaign: New Chernobyl Effects Falsify Radiation Risk Model. November 26, 2004.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "> </p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-72308783128793073552010-10-21T09:00:00.002-04:002010-10-21T09:00:02.908-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Lucida Grande';font-size:100%;color:#2D2D2D;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:130%;color:#000000;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:16px;"><p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">This new body of data on minisatellite mutations provides unequivocal evidence that <b>radiation in the environment can induce alterations in the germ cells of human beings that can then be transmitted to offspring.</b> Due to current limitations in research techniques, the analysis of changes in the mutation rate of other parts of the human genome has not yet been performed. The big question that remains to be answered is how frequently transmittable mutations occur in protein-coding segments of DNA and how often heritable diseases result from these mutations. Here, a whole new field of inquiry lies waiting to be explored. We must remove the blinders to our vision produced by the corrupted Hiroshima study. What has been considered in the past as hereditary disease might in fact be radiation damage to the germ cells of the parents, producing an array of chronic diseases in the next generation. At this point in history, we have no idea what portion of the inheritable diseases suffered by our progeny is being created by the radiation we have scattered throughout the biosphere. The CERRIE Minority Report offers this cautionary note:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>The question before the Committee is not whether such changes occur [minisatellite mutations] but whether they are associated with significant health detriment. In our view, repeat sequence mutations of various types have been associated with recognizable effects in humans, including neurological disorders, mental retardation, malformations, spontaneous abortion, epilepsy, diabetes, and cancers</i>” [1].</p><p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">Bibliography</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">[1] CERRIE Minority Report. <i>Minority Report of the UK Department of Health / Department of Environment (DEFRA) Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters (CERRIE)</i>. Aberystwyth: Sosiumi Press; 2005.</p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></span></span></span></span></div>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-31877816342884096102010-10-18T09:00:00.002-04:002010-10-19T07:29:29.548-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #2d2d2d; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #2d2d2d">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #2d2d2d; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #2d2d2d; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #2d2d2d">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In addition to the research conducted on infant leukemia induced by Chernobyl fallout, the ECRR has identified a second body of research that unequivocally confirms that major shortcomings exist in the ICRP model of radiation effects. Again as a result of radiation vented from Chernobyl, data has been collected that proves elevated rates of minisatellite DNA mutations among exposed groups. Minisatellites are identical short segments of DNA that repeat over and over again in a long array along a chromosome. These stretches of DNA do not code for the formation of any protein. What distinguishes these minisatellites is that they acquire spontaneous repeats through mutation at a known rate, which is 1,000 times higher than normal protein-coding genes. Dr. Yuri Dubrova, currently at the University of Leicester, first realized that these stretches of DNA could be used to detect radiation-induced genetic mutations by showing that their known rate of mutation had increased subsequent to exposure. By this technique, only small population samples would be required to detect a trend in the rate of radiation-induced mutations. The accuracy of this methodology was first confirmed by Dr. Dubrova in mice. He then set out to investigate radiation-induced mutation in the human germ line — sperm and egg cells — among groups receiving exposure to Chernobyl fallout. That such mutation occurred in fruit flies and mice which was then passed on to their offspring had been known since the 1920s. That the same phenomenon occurred in humans had yet to be proven. Human germ line DNA is well protected against acquiring mutations. Most damage is immediately repaired. Irreparable damage frequently initiates cell death so that mutations are prevented from being passed on to the next generation. As a consequence, germ line mutations are rarely detected. The children of the atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided no evidence of any significant difference in mutation rates when compared to control groups. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Dr. Dubrova and his colleagues [1,2] studied the rate of minisatellite mutations in families that had lived in the heavily polluted rural areas of the Mogilev district of Belarus after the Chernobyl meltdown. They found the frequency of mutations being passed on by males to their descendants was nearly twice as high in the exposed families compared to the control group families. Among those exposed, the mutation rate was significantly greater in families with a higher parental dose. This finding was consistent with the hypothesis that radiation had induced the germ line mutations. It was the first conclusive proof that radiation produced inheritable germ line mutations in humans. The significance of this line of research was further confirmed by research in Belarus on the germ line mutations induced by Chernobyl fallout in barn swallows [3]. Minisatellite mutations were observed and were accompanied by observable phenotypic alterations in plumage patterns as well as reduced rates of survival. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In 2002, Dr. Dubrova published further research [4] in the journal Science concerning genetic mutation in populations exposed to fallout from atmospheric weapon testing. Between 1949 and 1956, the Soviet Union had detonated a series of aboveground atomic tests at the Semipalatinsk nuclear facility in Kazakhstan. The local population suffered significant radiation exposure throughout this period. The team led by Dr. Dubrova analyzed blood samples from three generations of about 40 families dwelling in the rural district of Beskaragai. They discovered a nearly 80-percent increase in the mutation rate in individuals directly exposed to the fallout in comparison with a suitable non-irradiated control population. The children of affected individuals evidenced a 50-percent increase in minisatellite mutations when compared to the children of non-irradiated parents. After the 1950s, when the practice of atmospheric weapon testing came to an end, the rates of mutation steadily declined. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Minisatellite DNA testing has also been performed on the children of Chernobyl “liquidators” i.e., those people who participated in post-accident cleanup operations. When the offspring of liquidators born after the accident were compared to their siblings born prior to the accident, a sevenfold increase in genetic damage was observed [5]. As reported by the ECRR, “for the loci measured, this finding defined an error of between 700-fold and 2,000-fold in the ICRP model for heritable genetic damage.” The ECRR made this further observation:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>It is remarkable that studies of the children of those exposed to external radiation at Hiroshima show little or no such effect, suggesting a fundamental difference in mechanism between the exposures [Satoh and Kodaira 1996.] The most likely difference is that it was the internal exposure to the Chernobyl liquidators that caused the effects</i>” [6].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">Bibliography</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">[1] Dubrova Y.E., et al. Human Minisatellite Mutation Rate after the Chernobyl Accident. <i>Nature</i>. 1996; 380:683-686 .</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">[2] Dubrova Y.E., Nesterov V.N., Jeffreys A.J., et al. Further Evidence for Elevated Human Minisatellite Mutation Rate in Belarus Eight Years After the Chernobyl Accident. <i>Mutation Research</i>. 1997; 381:267-278.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">[3] Ellegren H., Lindgren G., Primmer C.R., Moeller A.P. Fitness Loss and Germline Mutations in Barn Swallows Breeding in Chernobyl. <i>Nature</i>. 1997; 389(9):583-584.</p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15.0px"><br /></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">[4] Dubrova Y. E., et al. Nuclear Weapons Tests and Human Germline Mutation Rate. <i>Science</i>. 2002; 295:1037.</p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'"><br /></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">[5] <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">Weinberg H.S., Korol A.B., Kiezhner V.M., Avavivi A., Fahima T., Nevo E., Shapiro S., Rennert G., Piatak O., Stepanova E.I., Skarskaja E. Very High Mutation Rate in Offspring of Chernobyl Accident Liquidators. </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">Proceedings of the Royal Society London</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">. 2001; D, 266:1001-1005.</span></p><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Lucida Grande';font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:16px;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'">[6] European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). <i>Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk: the Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes</i>. Regulators' Edition. Brussels; 2003. www.euradcom.org.</p><div><br /></div><p></p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-50520676094278124592010-10-14T09:00:00.000-04:002010-10-12T07:46:20.095-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The significance of the infant leukemia clusters in the wake of the Chernobyl accident must not be lost on the reader. Radiation was delivered to developing fetuses through their mothers breathing and eating radionuclides that were released thousands of miles away. Levels of radiation in the environment where these women lived, declared by the radiation protection community as being below regulatory concern, adversely affected the development of their babies. This evidence definitively demonstrates that, at least for infant leukemia, the ICRP model is wrong. This model, based on instances of acute, high-dose exposure to external radiation fails to adequately account for illness induced by chronic low-dose exposure from decaying radioisotopes lodged within the human body’s interior. The fact that the frequency of childhood leukemia occurred at a rate greater than predicted by the risk estimates derived from the ICRP model signifies that populations are incurring more illness from low-level radiation in the environment than the radiation protection community wants us to believe. An important corollary of this conclusion must never be forgotten. In the aftermath of many radiation releases, good epidemiological evidence is not always available. Consequently, the radiation protection agencies assess the impact to public health by turning to their models and allowing their models to inform the public of the cost they are paying in eroded health and death. When these models are flawed, they serve to cover up the true incidence of radiation-induced illnesses foisted on the population. Corrupted science becomes an accessory to murder. This is the fraud for which a guilty verdict is being sought against the Cult of Nuclearists.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The post-Chernobyl infant leukemia cohorts provide evidence that developing fetuses incur genetic damage from low-level radiation from internal emitters absorbed by their mothers. Although not proven, this evidence suggests that other types of genetic illnesses may likewise be traced to exposure in the womb to levels of internal emitters currently deemed inconsequential. In support of this hypothesis, Busby and Scott Cato cite evidence of other in utero effects in the immediate aftermath of Chernobyl. Data obtained from the UK Office of Population Census and Surveys provides evidence of babies with a very low birth weight — less than 1,500 g (approximately 3.3 pounds) — born in Wales just after the accident. These births peaked between January 1987 and January 1988. (The Chernobyl accident occurred on April 26, 1986.) This evidence gives further credence to studies that demonstrated increased levels of infant mortality following exposure to fallout during the period of atmospheric weapon testing. In the light of these findings, it is essential to recall that, according to ICRP models, the radiation released into the environment by humans has not been responsible for producing any fetal deaths, still births, or death to infants. As the ECRR notes:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>The ICRP only considers heritable effects which are measurable in phenotype after birth e.g. congenital defects and perhaps increases in clinically diagnosed heritable genetic diseases. Thus fetal death and infant mortality are not addressed as radiation exposure outcomes by ICRP</i>.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Busby C, Scott Cato M. Increases in Leukemia in Infants in Wales and Scotland Following Chernobyl: Evidence for Errors in Statutory Risk Estimates. <i>Energy and Environment</i>. 2000; 11(2):127-139.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-83800263272102169802010-10-11T09:00:00.001-04:002010-10-12T07:45:01.946-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F continued<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(45, 45, 45); "><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">EXHIBIT F continued:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The infant leukemia produced by Chernobyl confirms that radioactive pollutants are the likely cause of childhood leukemia reported in the vicinity of Sellafield and of the other main sources of radioisotope pollution in Europe. Gardner et al. [1] have confirmed a 10-fold increase in childhood leukemia near Sellafield. In proximity to the Dounreay reprocessing plant in Scotland, an eight-fold excess has been observed [2]. A 15-fold excess in childhood leukemia has been reported near La Hague in France [3,4]. Near the nuclear facility of Harwell in Oxfordshire and the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire, a two-fold excess in childhood leukemias were discovered [5].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Rather than admit that the risk factors of the ICRP model are in error, representatives of the nuclear establishment in Europe have entrenched themselves in the position that the research is in error and that the infant leukemia clusters are a fabrication. How do they defend this position? They say that the “doses” in the vicinity of the studied nuclear facilities are simply too low to be responsible, based on the “accepted” risk models of the ICRP.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>All the analyses of causality in the case of nuclear site clusters rely exclusively on the ICRP risk model to show that the calculated doses to the children or their parents were insufficient to have been the cause of the disease since the linear ICRP model did not predict the leukemias or cancers</i>” [6].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">According to the analysis of the ECRR, the numerous studies of childhood leukemia clusters in many parts of Europe confirm errors in the risk estimates of the ICRP models. When the doses to the population living in proximity to these installations are plugged into the model, wide discrepancies emerge between the expected number of cases of childhood leukemia and those actually observed. A 100 to 300-fold error in the risk estimates are evidenced by the leukemia clusters around Sellafield. A 100 to 1,000-fold error is observed from the clusters around Dounreay in the UK and La Hague in France. And a 200 to 1,000-fold error is apparent from studies of Aldermaston/Burghfield, Hinkley Point, Harwell and Chepstow in the UK, Kruemmel and Julich in Germany, and Barsebaeck in Sweden. From the 11 studies which it cites, the ECRR calculates that the probability that the excess leukemia is due to coincidence rather than being directly related to radioisotope pollution is less than 0.000000000001 (1 in one million million.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>The confirmation of cancer and leukemia clusters in children living near nuclear sites has put considerable pressure on the scientific models of the ICRP and led to a dissonance between the model and observation that cannot be accommodated within a scientific paradigm</i>” [6]. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In 2007, the European Journal of Cancer Care published an article which further strengthened the conclusions reached by the ECRR. In “Meta-Analysis of Standardized Incidence and Mortality Rates of Childhood Leukemia in Proximity to Nuclear Facilities” [7], Baker and Hoel confirmed that rates of leukemia in children are elevated near nuclear installations. Reviewing seventeen studies which covered 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, the USA, Germany, Japan and Spain, the authors found that, depending on the distance of the child’s home to the nuclear facility, the death rates from leukemia for children up to the age of nine were elevated between five and twenty-four percent. For children and adults aged zero to twenty-five, increased death rates ranged between two to eighteen percent. Regarding the incidence of leukemia, rates were elevated between fourteen and twenty-one percent in children zero to nine years old. When the age group zero to twenty-five was considered, the incidence rate of leukemia was elevated between seven and ten percent. Exercising caution, the authors couched there conclusions with this observation: “The meta-analysis was able to show an increase in childhood Leukemias near nuclear facilities, but does not support a hypothesis to explain the excess.” Relevant to the thesis of this chapter was the observation by Baker and Hoel that the <b>dose-response</b> studies they reviewed did not show excess rates of leukemia near nuclear facilities. <b>In other words, the current dose-response model fails to accurately depict reality.</b> </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Gardner M.J., Hall A.J., Snee M.P., et al. Methods and Basic Data of Case-Control Study of Leukemia and Lymphoma Among Young People near Sellafield Nuclear Plant in West Cumbria. <i>British Medical Journal</i>. 1990; 300:29-34. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] Heasman M.A., Kemp W.I., Urquhart J.D., Black R. Childhood Leukemia in Northern Scotland. <i>Lancet</i>. 1986; i:266.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[3] Viel J.F., Poubel D., Carre A. Incidence of Leukemia in Young People around the La Hague Nuclear Waste Reprocessing Plant: A Sensitivity Analysis. <i>Statistics in Medicine</i>. 1996; 14: 2459-2472. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[4] Viel J.F., Richardson S., Danel P., Boutard P., Malet M., Barrelier P., Reman O. Carré A. Childhood Leukemia Incidence in the Vicinity of La Hague Nuclear-Waste Reprocessing Facility (France). <i>Cancer Causes and Control</i>. 1993; 4(4):341-343.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[5] Busby C., Scott Cato M. Death Rates from Leukemia are Higher than Expected in Areas Around Nuclear Sites in Berkshire and Oxfordshire. <i>British Medical Journal</i>. 1997; 315:309.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[6] European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). <i>Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk: the Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes</i>. Regulators' Edition. Brussels; 2003. www.euradcom.org.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[7] Baker P.J., Hoel D.G. Meta-Analysis of Standardized Incidence and Mortality Rates of Childhood Leukaemia in Proximity to Nuclear Facilities. <i>European Journal of Cancer Care</i>. 2007; 16(4):355-363.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-12003879632742149042010-10-07T09:00:00.000-04:002010-10-07T09:00:02.945-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: EXHIBIT F<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span style="text-decoration: underline"><b>EXHIBIT F</b></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The Cult of Nuclearists stands accused of perpetrating a fraud against the entire human race. Were the prosecution to rest its case at this point, the evidence presented in Exhibits A through E easily might be dismissed as toothless, theoretical arguments. Thus, before concluding, indisputable proof needs to be submitted to substantiate the charge that in many cases the risk factors for radiation induced disease are in error and the science of radiation effects has been intentionally corrupted. The information to be presented here will bear witness that the radiation protection community has allowed some monumental flaw to persist in current approaches to radiation safety, either through perpetuating defective models or a basic misunderstanding of radiation effects, ineffectual oversight as to the true extent of population exposure, insufficient epidemiological investigation or intentional malfeasance. When it is proven that levels of radiation in the environment deemed “permissible” are ruining human health, the science of radiation protection as currently practiced will stand exposed as counterfeit and duplicitous. This single crime has sired millions more, for it has given license to government and industry to deploy weapon systems and technologies that contaminate the Earth, invisibly sickening and killing untold numbers of unsuspecting victims.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">According to the ECRR, there exists unequivocal evidence within the public domain that proves that the ICRP model of radiation effects is plagued by fundamental errors with regards to low levels of internal contamination. These errors lead to an underestimation of health detriment in the wake of a radiation release. The clearest example of these deficiencies surfaced after the accident at Chernobyl in 1986. As the clouds of fallout wafted around the planet, most governments broadcast reassurances to their anxious citizens that there was no cause for concern, that expected doses would be too low, based on current standards of radiation protection, to be medically significant. In most locales throughout the world, caution was not advised and people were informed that it was perfectly safe to continue to consume fresh meat and produce, dairy products, and unfiltered water from surface sources. This lackadaisical approach to radiation safety allowed the unnecessary internal contamination of unsuspecting bystanders and produced elevated rates of illness in many populations. What came to light in years subsequent to the accident was that children who received exposure to Chernobyl fallout, while still in the wombs of their mothers, experienced an elevated risk of developing leukemia by the time of their first birthday. In countries where unimpeachable data was collected for levels of fallout deposited in the environment, doses to the population, and the incidence of childhood leukemia, an unmistakable, uniform trend emerged: the cohort of children born during the 18-month period following the accident suffered increased rates of leukemia in their first year of life compared to children born prior to the accident or to those born subsequent to the accident after the level of possible maternal contamination had sufficiently diminished. This was confirmed in five studies conducted independently of one another: in Scotland [1], Greece [2], the United States [3], Germany [4], and Wales [5]. In calculations prepared by the ECRR, the probability that it was a chance occurrence that increased incidences of leukemia appeared in five different countries during the period of heaviest fallout from Chernobyl was less than 0.0000000001 (one in 10 billion). Low levels of internal exposure from Chernobyl was the indisputable cause of the childhood leukemia clusters.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In the UK, the National Radiological Protection Board measured and assessed the doses received by the populations of Wales and Scotland. Through environmental monitoring, they compiled data on the levels of Chernobyl fallout in the air, on the ground, and in food, milk, and water. Based on this information, they estimated the average level of exposure for members of the population. Plugging these dosages into their models of radiation effects, they calculated that no measurable harm was expected in the UK from the fallout of Chernobyl. To confirm or refute this assessment, Dr. Chris Busby and Molly Scott Cato undertook an investigation of the accuracy of the risk estimates of the NRPB as they applied to infant leukemia. Drawing upon the post-Chernobyl data collected by the NRPB and applying to it risk estimates for radiation-induced infant leukemia based on ICRP models previously published by the NRPB, they compared the expected number of cases of infant leukemia to the known incidence of childhood leukemia in one-year-olds born in the 18 months after the accident. This investigation was published under the title of “<i>Increases in Leukemia in Infants in Wales and Scotland Following Chernobyl: Evidence for Errors in Statutory Risk Estimates</i>.” What Busby and Scott Cato discovered humiliated the pronouncements of the NRPB. The incidence of infant leukemia in the combined cohorts of Wales and Scotland exceeded that predicted by 3.8 times. According to the authors, “<i>Applying ICRP's risk factors to known levels of contamination from Chernobyl reveals 100 times less infant leukemia than actually found</i>” [emphasis added] [5]. (As this cohort ages, further incidences of leukemia may prove that the accepted risk factors are even further off the mark.) The authors examined an alternative explanation, that the leukemias did not result from fetal exposure in the womb but from preconception exposure to radiation by the fathers. Under this scenario, the accepted risk factors were in error by approximately 2000 times. Simply stated, the NRPB models were proven to be in error. They substantially underestimated the hazard of the low levels of Chernobyl fallout on the health of developing children in utero. As stated by the ECRR: </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>The committee accepts that the infant leukemia results represent unequivocal evidence that the ICRP risk model is in error by a factor of between 100-fold and 2000-fold for the type of exposure and dose, the latter figure allowing for a continued excess risk in the cohort being studied. The committee notes that it will be necessary to follow the cohort as it ages</i>” [6]. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Richard Bramhall of the Low Level Radiation Campaign analyzed the data on infant leukemia in Wales and Scotland after Chernobyl presented in the paper written by Busby and Scott Cato [7]. He made the following observation which further condemns the accepted models for radiation-induced childhood leukemia:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“I<i>n the case of infant leukemia, doses from Chernobyl should have produced far less than one additional case in the populations of Wales and Scotland. (To spare you the mental anguish of trying to imagine a fraction of a case of leukemia, I can tell you that all this means is that you'd have to investigate the cancer registrations for a population more than 50 times as big in order to expect even a single baby with leukemia caused by the radiation.)</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>But Busby and Scott Cato looked at the figures and found that the rate had jumped quite sharply — 14 babies were diagnosed in the two years following Chernobyl. The average in a two-year period before it was 4.2, so finding 14 meant there were 9 or 10 extra cases. </i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>We don't know exactly how the radioactivity made these babies ill.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Was it because it crossed their mothers' placentas?</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Or because it affected them after they were born?</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Or because the dose to their fathers' balls had mutated the sperm before they were even conceived?</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>There are different risk factors for these different types of exposure routes.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>After doing some simple arithmetic with the figures in Busby and Scott Cato's paper we can display the implied errors like this:</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b><i>If the damage was done</i></b><i> by the placenta-crossing dose, NRPB's prediction was about 72 times too small;</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b><i>if it was the postnatal effect</i></b><i>, the prediction was 132 times too small;</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b><i>and if it was the preconception dose</i></b><i> to the fathers' testes, NRPB was out by a whacking 2,390</i>”.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The Low Level Radiation Campaign [8] published an accompanying graph to visually depict the disparity between the established risk factors for infant leukemia and the actual incidence of the disease from the five separate studies of the post-Chernobyl environment. The vertical axis of the graph represents the percentage of increase in cases of infant leukemia in the 20 months following the accident compared to the period before April 26, 1986 and the period after January 1988. The horizontal axis represents the doses, in millisieverts, received by the exposed population. It is important to note that these doses were derived from environmental monitoring of cesium fallout. Cesium, which emits highly penetrating gamma rays, is relatively easy to detect and its deposition over wide areas can thus be easily mapped. Monitoring this radionuclide provided investigators with a streamline method for estimating dosages to the exposed populations. According to the LLRC, however, this methodology may actually be flawed when determining the health effects produced from other radionuclides in the environment:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>But the very fact that it [cesium] is so penetrating means that its energy deposition (in the form of ionizations) is spatially well distributed in tissue, so its health effects are likely to conform with the external irradiation models. It is, moreover, soluble and does not form particles. The Chernobyl reactor fire produced other isotopes (including strontium-90) as well as microscopic particles of reactor fuel which traveled across Europe and beyond, exposing everyone in the path of the cloud to inhalation and ingestion. There is no reason why the health effects should conform with expectations based on cesium deposition</i>.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The LLRC emphasizes that the doses, as shown in the graph, between 0.02 and 0.2 millisieverts represent levels below annual exposure to natural background radiation. The implication is that “dose” at this low level might not mean anything at all and that health detriment is produced by extremely low levels of internal contamination by radionuclides. Further, the infant leukemia data suggests that, far from being innocuous, natural background radiation may be the causative agent for some small fraction of human cancers. In the graph, the dotted line just above the horizontal axis represents the expected increase in infant leukemia according to currently accepted ICRP models based on exposure to external radiation. As the LLRC notes, the dotted line</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“.<i>..slopes up towards a point representing a 40% increase at a dose of 10 millisieverts (This is five times natural background, and the graph would have to be almost a meter wide to show it). The origin of this yardstick is cancer deaths in children after their mothers had been X-rayed during their pregnancy</i>.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The findings from Chernobyl flatly disprove the validity of this model. Doses much smaller than 10 millisieverts produced much greater increases in infant leukemia than were expected based on the yardstick mentioned in the quotation. Babies in Greece received a dose of only 0.2 millisieverts, and yet a 160% jump in the number of cases of infant leukemia was demonstrated there. Similarly, babies in Germany receiving a dose of 0.071 millisieverts showed an increased incidence of 48%. In Wales and Scotland, the doses were 0.08 millisieverts and the incidence of infant leukemia jumped over 200%. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Richard Bramhall of the Low Level Radiation Campaign has commented on the infant leukemia studies and compared the doses received from Chernobyl to those received by the residents of Seascale living near the Sellafield nuclear-fuel reprocessing facility. If the lower doses from Chernobyl produced elevated rates of infant leukemia, then this is indisputable evidence that the higher doses to the population from Sellafield pollution could have produced the cluster of infant leukemia in the vicinity of Seascale. Further, when the actual number of cases of infant leukemia is compared to that predicted by the currently accepted risk factors, the glaring inaccuracies of current models come sharply into focus. According to Bramhall:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>In the parts of the UK mainly affected by Chernobyl fallout, the dose wasabout 80 microSieverts (i.e. 1250 times smaller than at Seascale); two separate studies showed [for infant leukemia] a 3-fold excess (Scottish infants) and a 3.6 excess (Scottish and Welsh infants combined). The implicit error in conventional risk factors is roughly 720-fold. In Germany there was a 1.6-fold excess and dose was 71 microSv (1400 times smaller than at Seascale). Implied error 450-fold. In Greece, there was a 2.6-fold excess and dose was 280 microSv (350 times smaller than Seascale). Implied error 300-fold. In UK data obtained by CERRIE, there was a 1.4-fold excess and the dose was 40 microSv (2500 times smaller than Seascale). We believe that these findings stack up to undermine ICRP's credibility</i>.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Earlier in this chapter, it was mentioned that representatives of the Cult of Nuclearists vehemently deny that nuclear pollution from the Sellafield reprocessing facility is responsible for the cluster of childhood leukemia found in the nearby community of Seascale. Leukemia in the 0-14 year-old age group in Seascale shows a 12-fold excess compared with the rate of the disease for the UK as a whole. According to COMARE, on the basis of current models, the doses to the population were 300 times too small to be responsible for the observed incidence of leukemia. But look what the post-Chernobyl data has to say about this. It confirms that current models are incorrect to approximately this margin of error. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b>[1] </b>Gibson B.E.S., Eden O.B., Barrett A., Stiller C.A., Draper G.J. Leukemia in Young Children in Scotland. <i>Lancet</i>. 1988; 2(8611):630.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b>[2] </b>Petridou E., Trichopoulos D., Dessypris N., Flytzani V., Haidas S., Kalmanti M.K., Koliouskas D., Kosmidis H., Piperolou F., Tzortzatou F. Infant Leukemia After In Utero Exposure to Radiation From Chernobyl. <i>Nature</i>. 1996; 382:352-353.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[3] Mangano J.J. Childhood Leukemia in the US May Have Risen Due to Fallout From Chernobyl. <i>British Medical Journal</i>. 1997; 314:1200.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[4] Michaelis J., Kaletsch U., Burkart W., Grosche B. Infant Leukemia After the Chernobyl Accident. <i>Nature</i>. 1997; 387:246.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[5] Busby C, Scott Cato M. Increases in Leukemia in Infants in Wales and Scotland Following Chernobyl: Evidence for Errors in Statutory Risk Estimates. <i>Energy and Environment</i>. 2000; 11(2):127-139.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[6] European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). <i>Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk: the Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes. Regulators' Edition</i>. Brussels; 2003. www.euradcom.org.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[7] Bramhill R. Averaging -- ICRP”s Fatal Flaw. Adapted from a talk given to a Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance meeting in Chepstow, Wales, February 23, 2001. http://www.llrc.org.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[8] Low Level Radiation Campaign (LLRC). Infant Leukemia After Chernobyl. <i>Radioactive Times: The Journal of the Low Level Radiation Campaign</i>. 2005; 6(1):13.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-48648513873260714362010-10-04T09:00:00.002-04:002010-11-01T10:06:07.672-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-NINE<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b>SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-NINE: </b>Use the risk factors to structure the perception of the health consequences of a radiation release. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In Edgar Allan Poe’s short story, <i>The Masque of the Red Death</i>, all the influential people of a country assemble for a masquerade ball in the castle of a nobleman. Outside, a plague is ravaging the less fortunate population. Secure in their presumption that they are immune to the tribulations taking place beyond their walls, all are horrified to discover when they remove their masks, that Death has been an uninvited guest within their midst throughout the entire gathering. This, their final realization, marks the moment of their demise. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">For purposes of this discussion, we must ask what costume, today, is Death wearing? Death is disguised by the risk factors published by the radiation protection agencies. We fail to recognize Death in our midst because it is so craftily concealed. Before this discussion proceeds, a single point needs to be hammered home. When estimates are manufactured for the number of people injured by nuclear weapon testing, how are the figures computed? On the basis of the risk factors! When a radiation accident takes place, what is used to determine the likelihood of illness to those dwelling downwind? The risk factors! Before commercial nuclear power plants are licensed, what criteria are used to determine the amount of radionuclides that can be legally discharged and the likely health effects of these to the surrounding population? The risk factors! For people employed in the nuclear industry, how is potential hazard to their health estimated? The risk factors! When modeling different accident scenarios at radioactive waste repositories, how is health detriment of those potentially exposed determined? The risk factors! When computing the possible hazards of a breach of containment accident during transport of radioactive materials along highways or railroad lines, how are possible casualty figures derived? The risk factors! On what basis is the hazard to health estimated from incorporating low-level waste into consumer products? The risk factors! When cancer patients receive radiation therapy, how are their chances for another cancer being induced by their therapeutic dose of radiation calculated? The risk factors! How are hazards to our own troops or enemy civilians evaluated when designing and deploying uranium weapons? The risk factors! When estimating collateral injury to the surrounding population from the proposed deployment of nuclear bunker-buster bombs, what information is necessary for such calculations? The risk factors! How are the number of radiation deaths produced in the varying scenarios of nuclear war fighting during World War III determined? The risk factors! The risk factors legitimize the entire nuclear enterprise. Human beings tolerate technologies that cause radiation exposure solely on the basis of their belief that this exposure represents minimal risk. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "> </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Scam Number Thirty-Nine is the preeminent scam, the reason for being of all the other scams. It lies at the heart of all the mischief that has infiltrated and corrupted the science of radiation protection. By the elaborate swindle deconstructed within these pages, the Cult of Nuclearists has fabricated inaccurate risk factors and then used these inventions to veil its misdeeds before the public. To fully appreciate the insidious role played by the risk factors in blinding humanity to true radiation effects across populations, one must get a feel for the profound indeterminacy that accompanies a radiation release. Due to the nature of the phenomenon, the impact of vented radioactivity on public health is clouded in ambiguity. Once liberated, radioactive atoms invisibly migrate through the environment at the whim of ever-changing meteorological and geophysical forces. From their point of origin to their ultimate abode, no one knows their fate. Extensive environmental monitoring can provide a map of patterns of dispersal and potential avenues for contamination of the food chain, but this in itself will not divulge who was contaminated and to what extent. Those contaminated will never know they have absorbed radiation that may undermine their health. The most meticulous scrutiny will never disclose the fate of each radioactive atom as it courses through their bodies. When an atom undergoes radioactive decay, no one will witness the molecular consequences of the event or the possible genetic damage inflicted on a cell. When a cancer develops decades later, the victim will never realize that he or she was a casualty of a radiation accident. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">With the exception of incidents that produce acute radiation syndrome, radiation injury in the wake of a radiation release is delayed and invisible. Only years or decades after an exposure event do indications of injury begin appearing, if anyone is bothering to look for them, in the form of an increased incidence of naturally occurring diseases. In the aftermath of a Chernobyl-type accident, perhaps the first indications of harm to a population are a growth in the number of miscarriages, stillbirths and birth defects. Increased rates of leukemia among children who were in the womb during or immediately after the event may begin appearing during childhood or adolescence. Among those who were children at the time of the accident, the dietary absorption of radioiodines will increase the number of thyroid abnormalities and thyroid cancers diagnosed within a few years of exposure. The next disease that may be identifiable as radiation-induced is leukemia throughout the population, with rates beginning to climb perhaps as soon as five years after the event, and continuing to climb as the population ages. Increases in the frequency of other types of cancer may go unnoticed for decades due to their long latency periods.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The conundrum facing the epidemiologist is how to determine the rates of those illnesses in the population which are radiation-induced against the pool of identical illnesses that occur naturally or from other environmental toxins. Due to normal statistical fluctuations in the frequency of these diseases over time, trends are not easily identifiable, or if they are, may require the passage of decades for meaningful elucidation. In some instances, what further complicates assessing the health consequences of a radiation accident is the sparsity of accurate data. Particularly in underdeveloped countries, illnesses may be misdiagnosed, causes of death may not be properly identified or may go unrecorded, and statistics on morbidity and mortality may not be gathered or may remain incomplete. Not to be overlooked is the politically motivated corruption of accurate data sampling. As noted in Scam Number Twenty-One, cancer registries are susceptible to fraud, or as in the case of Ukraine after Chernobyl, Soviet authorities forbade doctors from including leukemia in their diagnoses. Finally, definitive and indisputable conclusions of radiation effects on populations are a rarity among epidemiological studies. Due to political clashes between pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear factions, studies angering one camp are routinely challenged and refuted by researchers of the opposing camp. Controversies inevitably erupt in the wake of studies that either underestimate or overestimate the number of radiation-induced casualties. As opposing camps fight to a standoff, consensus opinion is never achieved, and the public is left in bewilderment as to what really is the truth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Given the formidable array of forces that delay or prevent a clear-cut assessment of the public health consequences of a radiation release, how do human beings in the immediate aftermath of environmental contamination arrive at an understanding of what has taken place? What tools do they have at their disposal for rapidly interpreting the event’s impact? Public anxiety demands timely information. People are not going to wait patiently for decades to see if their health has been compromised. They want immediately to know how much radiation has been liberated into the environment, in what direction it dispersed, and if they should evacuate. They want to know about the safety of their food and water supply. They want to know who was exposed, what were their dosages, and what are the risks these dosages pose for initiating radiation-induced illnesses. How are answers to these pressing questions derived?</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">By this time, the answer to this fundamental question is self-evident: the risk factors! These are the lenses through which the ambiguities of a radiation emergency are brought into focus. They are the instrument used to structure the perception of a radiation release in the public mind.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">As the history of radiation accidents has repeatedly demonstrated, the first response of representatives of the Cult of Nuclearists to a radiation emergency is to downplay or completely discount any potential threat. By this response, they attempt to avert panic, discourage social unrest and preserve confidence in the Cult’s long-term nuclear agenda. To reinforce faith in the safety of nuclear technology, interpreters of the event — most often government spokesmen, apologists for the nuclear industry and media personalities — grab public attention and offer a sanitized version of the incident. Although radiation effects are profoundly difficult to discern and may take decades to decipher, these interpreters fabricate an instantaneously clear picture of what has transpired. This concoction, to attain credibility and be above suspicion, requires grounding on accepted scientific principles. This is where the radiation protection agencies enter into the scheme. Their science is recruited to legitimize the version of reality being invented. Elevated to the status of oracle, the risk factors are employed to divine the health consequences to the contaminated population. Following the protocols published by the radiation protection agencies, researchers mathematically model the radiation release. Based on estimates of the amount of radiation dispersed, the radionuclides involved, their chemical forms, prevailing weather patterns, dietary habits of the population, the number of people exposed and so forth, dosages to the exposed population are reconstructed. On the basis of these assigned dosages, the potential types of illness and their frequency can be predicted based on the established risk factors. Without having to wait for decades to investigate what actually happened, a picture can be painted within hours or days of what supposedly will likely happen. Needless to say, the correctness of these speculations is wholly dependent on the accuracy of the assigned dosages and the fidelity of the risk factors.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The devilment lying at the heart of this elaborate charade is the authority bestowed upon the risk factors to accurately predict radiation effects. Consecrated by the high priests of the radiation protection community, the risk factors have been elevated to inviolable law. They are credited with the power of prophecy, foretelling the limits of the health consequences of released radioactivity. This point is essential to grasp. By sleight of hand, the portrait of a radiation event is painted by the risk factors. This is the image that reaches the public’s awareness and shapes perception of the event. Distracted by this facsimile, the uninitiated fail to notice that the actual health toll remains undetermined or may be woefully out of sync with the whitewashed imitation.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The Cult of Nuclearists has built its castle upon the risk factors. To mollify concerns when radiation is released, the Cult of Nuclearists desperately requires an unassailable tool by which to paint a benign image of the event in the public consciousness. Groomed specifically for this purpose by the corrupted radiation protection agencies are the risk factors. These carefully crafted mathematical fictions are propaganda instruments designed to reassure a wary public that released radiation is no cause for alarm. They are the mask that disguises the plague unleashed upon the earth. The risk factors structure the perception that the guardians of radioactivity are adequately protecting the welfare of humanity. The public tolerates their mismanagement and mishandling of radioactive material based on their limited understanding of radiation effects and their trust in the accuracy of estimates of risk presented in the popular media. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">This mischievous method of damage control is easily seen in the way that the radiation protection agencies are attempting to sanitize the Chernobyl catastrophe. By their approach, a dose is fabricated for a defined population, the risk factors are applied to this dose, and presto, the health toll of the accident immediately materializes out of nothing. To quote the ECCR:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>"UNSCEAR 1993 gives the total committed effective dose from the Chernobyl accident to the world population as 600,000 person Sieverts. The ICRP risk factor of 0.05/Sv would predict 30,000 fatal cancers in the world from this; as UNSCEAR 2000 points out, such an increase would be statistically invisible."</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">As an exercise in epistemology, it is worth analyzing the meaning of this statement. UNSCEAR is not declaring that 30,000 fatal cancers will be produced from the accident at Chernobyl. What they are saying is something entirely different. They are saying something about their models, not reality. They are declaring that, according to their premises, the cancer fatalities that emerge at the other end of their equations is 30,000. BIG DEAL! We could start with different premises, apply other models, and arrive at different conclusions. In this manner, Gofman predicts 970,500 fatal cancers from external exposure to the single radioisotope cesium-137 released from Chernobyl. And the ECRR, employing its own models, predicts that over the next 50 years, in Belarus alone, an excess of 1,200,000 fatal cancers will occur, and worldwide, the total will reach 6,000,000. The conflict between different researchers is over models, not reality. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">So, how many fatal cancers will <b>REALLY</b> occur as a result of the Chernobyl accident? No one on the face of the Earth has a clue! </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Given this indeterminacy, the previous question needs to be reformulated: Who is in possession of the most trustworthy models for predicting radiation effects from Chernobyl? The Cult of Nuclearists ardently strives to convince the world that it is the ICRP, NCRP, NRPB, UNSCEAR, BEIR, and so forth. These are the organizations that have been sponsored and financed by the nuclear establishment and upon whom eminence and respectability have been conferred. Their version of reality is the one designed to be accepted by all inquirers. However, as we shall see in Exhibit F, when contaminated populations are investigated epidemiologically rather than mathematically, the rate of radiation-induced illness is greater than that forecast by the risk factors. This unfortunate intrusion of reality is the Achilles heel of the whole corrupted science of radiation effects and the slayer of the false models that have been intentionally crafted to underestimate the extent of injury suffered by humanity from nuclear pollution. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The risk factors have become so enthroned as the diviners of biological effects that they are frequently called upon to testify against observable health consequences that flatly contradict their accuracy. An excellent example is reported by Busby in Wings of Death. In the mid-1980s, the Committee of Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) concluded that radiation was not responsible for the confirmed leukemia cluster in the vicinity of the Sellafield nuclear installation first reported by Yorkshire TV. Despite the fact that the incidence of leukemia in the area was 10 times the national average, the committee insisted that radiation was not the causative agent. They justified their conclusion on the basis of the risk factors. Essentially, they said that given the presumed dosages, the observed leukemias could not possibly be radiation-induced because the risk factors did not predict them. In this instance, on the basis of the risk factors alone, radiation was absolved of the responsibility of contributing to the obvious illness in the population. The committee was forced into upholding this dubious conclusion by an embarrassing dilemma. Confronted with the leukemia cluster, they were cornered into having to entertain one of two reasonable but politically unacceptable explanations. One, the dosages to the population were greater than modelled, perhaps due to unreported ventings of radiation from the facility. To endorse this conclusion would have called into question Sellafield’s operating procedures. Two, the risk factors were in error. This determination would have compromised the credibility of the radiation protection agencies. To launder a potential threat to the credibility of the Cult of Nuclearists, the committee was left with no politically correct alternative other than using the risk factors to “prove” that the leukemia cluster was not caused by radiation exposure.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">This issue is far from being just an intellectual game. It has real world repercussions that impact on human health. For instance, when the radioactive plume from Chernobyl was circling the Earth, citizens in the UK and the US received no warning of possible contamination to their food supply. This cavalier attitude was justified on the basis that the assumed accumulated dosages would be too low and that the risk factors applied to these dosages predicted that no threat to health existed. Evidence later surfaced that this presumption was woefully in error. In Deadly Deceit, Gould and Goldman provide convincing evidence that Chernobyl fallout was responsible for increased infant mortality in the US and significant increases in the death rate of the very old and those suffering from infectious diseases whose immune systems had been previously compromised. As will be revealed in Exhibit F, indisputable evidence also exists of an increased incidence of childhood leukemia in the US and the UK from the Chernobyl fallout which has been deemed by officials to have produced dosages too low to warrant concern.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The devastation of depleted uranium on the health of veterans and enemy noncombatants is destined to expose the lies buried within the science of radiation effects. All the major defenses of DU weaponry penned to date have been based on the models upheld by the radiation protection agencies. Researchers calculate the amount of energy deposited in tissue by different quantities of internalized uranium. The derived doses are then “proven” to be of no consequence to health, an opinion based ultimately on the data from Hiroshima and the resulting risk factors developed by the radiation protection agencies. This methodology cleverly avoids one essential ingredient: It fails to include actual epidemiological studies of groups exposed to depleted uranium who subsequently developed illnesses. Here again, the risk factors are being used as a smokescreen to draw attention away from any possible connection between radiation exposure and real illnesses suffered by real people. This game is played to convince all inquirers that depleted uranium is harmless. Given the rules of the game, this is the inevitable and logical conclusion. But the rules are about to change. Once people awaken to the fact that the science of radiation effects has been intentionally corrupted, all conclusions as to the supposed harmlessness of low-level radiation in the environment will have to be reexamined.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“According to estimates of risk published by the radiation protection agencies, dosages to the population were too low to warrant concern!” Tirelessly, this refrain echoes around the world in the wake of every disclosed radiation release. Yes, we are told, mutagens and carcinogens have taken flight upon the winds, but no hazard exists, no one need be concerned. This carney game, played craftily for decades, is now an open book. The purpose of the Hiroshima Life Span Study is to define and delimit radiation effects in man. As this study matures, the data is continually massaged to produce conclusions acceptable to the Cult of Nuclearists. The types of illnesses observed in the Japanese study population and their frequency then become the basis for the risk factors developed by the radiation protection agencies. Studies are then sponsored by that Cult of Nuclearists designed to produce evidence that confirms the accuracy of the risk factors. Any investigators that produce results that call into question the veracity of the risk factors are vilified and marginalized; their work discredited and discounted for being outside the mainstream of “accepted” radiation science. Battle-lines form along any front that attempts to prove that more illness is produced in a population than that predicted by the risk factors. As long as the risk factors are upheld as an accurate depiction of reality, the swindle succeeds. When a new radiation event takes place, the tried and true damage control mechanism is activated. From the smorgasbord of scams rehearsed in this Exhibit, representatives of the Cult of Nuclearists pick and choose those most applicable to the situation. Artfully mixing together any number of the dosage scams, they contrive dosages for the exposed population that appear innocuous. By then applying the risk factors to these dosages, they “prove” that harm to public health was negligible or nonexistent. The hoax is artfully airtight. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">A simple test should suffice to prove the truth or falsity of this allegation. <b>If</b> the Hiroshima Life Span Study is in fact honest, and <b>if</b> its findings can be applied to instances of internal contamination by radionuclides, and <b>if</b> the models of radiation effects promulgated by the radiation protection agencies faithfully mirror reality, <b>then</b> the risk factors should accurately forecast, within the limits of acceptable statistical error, the incidence of cancer in contaminated populations. If this is the case, no significant discrepancy should arise between the number of cancers predicted by the ICRP models and the actual number uncovered by epidemiological investigation. However, if the risk factors are shown to be inaccurate, what then? What if greater numbers of casualties are produced then those calculated by the accepted models of the radiation protection community? If evidence exists to this effect, then the whole house of cards of the Cult of Nuclearists comes tumbling down. It will prove that the risk factors, rather than being a tool in the service of truth, are being used as an instrument of deception. </p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-11661367038605837232010-09-30T09:00:00.001-04:002010-09-30T09:00:01.877-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-EIGHT<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'"></p><p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b>SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-EIGHT: </b>Design epidemiological studies in such a way as to guarantee that the results will underestimate the risk to health from radiation in the environment. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">What knowledge exists about the medical effects of radiation on populations has been garnered from epidemiological studies. This research also has been used to validate the models of radiation effects upheld by the radiation protection agencies. Since nuclear/radiological weapons, commercial nuclear power and the biological impact of low-level radiation are such highly politicized subjects, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies are sometimes structured and implemented, either by intention or accident, to reflect the prejudices of the researchers conducting them. Biased studies pollute the knowledge base and are a propaganda device. Of interest here are the distortions of fact that can be insinuated into population studies in order to “prove” the correctness of ICRP models and thereby “verify” the minimal hazard predicted by the risk factors.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The ECRR has identified a number of common errors that have appeared in published epidemiological studies of radiation risk:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">1) Wrong Doses: Many of the dosage scams mentioned previously have become incorporated into studies of contaminated populations. When dosages are assessed inaccurately, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about risks. In most studies of contaminated populations, dosages are not actually measured in each member of the study group but estimated or, in the vernacular of radiation epidemiologists, “reconstructed”. This practice, based on numerous assumptions about the migration of radionuclides through the environment, is a simple means by which radiation studies can be subtly manipulated to deliver predetermined or politically acceptable results.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">A common tactic used by the AEC during the period of aboveground weapon testing was to formulate dosages to the population from fallout in terms of external radiation. Conveniently, this served to downplay the level of exposure to those people living downwind by ignoring the additional dosages caused by internal emitters. This error of ignoring the cumulative effects of all the radioisotopes involved has compromised the Hiroshima Life Span Study, studies of populations living downwind of nuclear weapon detonations and studies of Chernobyl. As a variation on this theme, population studies are invariably based on the currently accepted models of external radiation. In instances where internal emitters are taken into account, the contribution made from external radiation and internal radiation are usually combined to derive a single dose estimate which is treated as if it were completely delivered externally. If internal emitters pose an enhanced hazard, as this book argues it does, no reliable conclusions about the hazard posed by radionuclides in the environment can be produced by this methodology.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">2) Wrong Controls: To study radiation effects, the incidence of illness in an exposed population must be compared to that of a similar population that did not receive the exposure. If an inappropriate control group is selected for study, the health risks from radiation can be rendered woefully inaccurate. One way where this can occur is when the population chosen as the control group has been likewise exposed to radiation. When this occurs, the radiation-induced cancer rate in the study population will be made to appear lower than it actually is, perhaps even “nonsignificant,” due to the heightened incidence of radiation-induced cancer in the control group. This error is a central shortcoming of the Hiroshima Life Span study, where members of the control group received undetermined dosages from internal emitters. It has also crept into studies of the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands, of people living downwind of the Nevada Test Site and of populations contaminated by the fallout from Chernobyl. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">It is important to note that the entire human population has been exposed, both internally and externally, to radiation from weapon-test fallout, accidents, and routine ventings from nuclear installations. There is no uncontaminated subpopulation that can serve as a control group to test the impact of this pollution on the health of the human species. Internal contamination by novel fission products befouling the environment may be more hazardous than Natural Background Radiation but its effect is masked by this universal contamination. The presence of these radionuclides in the environment might well explain the rise in the incidence of cancer across the population since the middle of the last century. This lack of a suitable control group has important implications for interpreting of epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer causation. When the incidence of cancer in a study group exposed to the effluent of a radiation accident is compared to that of members of the general population, the frequency of radiation-induced cancer will end up appearing less than it in fact is, and the risk of cancer from radiation will be underestimated. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The ECRR notes that it may be inappropriate to select members of the general population as a control group if the study group does not itself reflect the general population. One example is the “war survivor effect” prejudicing the Life Span Study. Those in Hiroshima who survived a long war, the atomic bombing and the hardships that followed this holocaust became members of the study group in a project designed to determine radiation effects in humans. However, the survivors of this horrific ordeal might not have been representative of either the Japanese population or of the entire human race. The hardships of living through the war followed by the extreme trauma of the bombing, and survival through the subsequent five years before the onset of the study may have preferentially selected individuals with stronger immune systems or genetic resistance to certain types of radiation effects. As a consequence, their incidence of cancer may have been atypically low compared to members of the population at large. Similarly, employees in the nuclear industry may manifest a “healthy worker effect” which lowers their rates of cancer in comparison with equivalent age groups within the general population. Fit, employable individuals undergoing regular medical exams who selected themselves to work in the nuclear industry and were then selected again for employment may not represent a true cross-section of the general population. Such comparisons may generate spurious results about the risks to health from radiation exposure.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">3) Wrong Sample: It is not uncommon for groups that have been differentially exposed to radiation to be pooled together in a common study group. For instance, people living within a defined radius of a nuclear installation may be grouped together in an effort to detect the effect of living near the facility on rates of cancer. This method can mask the fact, for instance, that those people living downwind of the plant will have received higher doses than those living upwind. When the number of cancers recorded is compared to the size of the population under investigation, those living upwind will dilute the findings, lowering the cancer rate and lowering the apparent risk.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">4) Wrong Assumptions: This entire chapter has been devoted to proving that the current model of radiation effects is biased toward underestimating the risk to health from exposure to radiation. The assumption built into this model can profoundly influence the interpretation of data collected in epidemiological research. The ECRR provides a clear example. In studies of nuclear workers and the effects of Chernobyl in Europe, “the assumption of a linear no-threshold dose response has resulted in many clear observations of effect being discounted because high-dose groups may have lower cancer rates than intermediate-dose groups.” According to the LNT hypothesis, those in a population who received the highest dosages should manifest the greatest degree of radiation-induced illness. If the greatest number of casualties do not exist in the high-dose group, then radiation is discounted as the cause of any detected cancer increase across the population. This line of reasoning is based on models originally designed to understand the effects of external radiation. It may not be valid for low-level internal exposure. For instance, a study might reveal that the greatest incidence of birth defects or childhood leukemia occurred in the intermediate-dose group rather than the high dose group. Does this finding justify the conclusion that radiation was not the cause? Certainly not! Perhaps a greater number of fetuses were spontaneously aborted in the group suffering the greater exposure, thus lowering the incidence of disease in the children of members of this cohort. The expectation of observing a linear dose response can thus blind researchers into discovering that low-level internal exposure may carry with it an enhanced risk for radiation injury. In line with this observation is another which deserves mentioning. When speaking of the effects of Chernobyl on the rates of cancer in Europe, the ECRR makes the following point:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>In addition, epidemiological studies have been influenced by or countered with the predictions of the ICRP risk models for populations exposed to the doses resulting from the discharges. These predict very modest effects which would generally be difficult to establish against the large background cancer rates experienced by the study populations and therefore, when increases in cancer are seen in such populations they are ignored or at least not ascribed to exposures from Chernobyl</i>” [1].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Another incorrect assumption mentioned by the ECRR has been incorporated in studies of the rates of cancer in geographical areas of high Natural Background Radiation. To “prove” the harmlessness of low-level radiation, studies have been conducted comparing cancer rates between populations living amidst different levels of naturally occurring radiation. When the areas of high NBR are not found to demonstrate higher rates of cancer, the conclusion jumped to is that low-level radiation is not a hazard to health. One factor that is not taken into account is the selection over time of radiation resistance among members of a population exposed for generations to the elevated radiation in the environment. As noted by the ECRR: “Inducible radiation resistance has been demonstrated in animal studies yet no allowance has been made for this when comparing populations in Natural Background studies.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">As a third example, the ECRR notes that current models of radiation effects are based on the assumption that cancer is initiated directly from a single exposure event which induces genetic alterations. The genetic theory of cancer on which this is based fails to take into account other factors that may come into play in influencing the progression of a cancer. For instance, immune system stress, diet, or other environmental toxins may either aggravate or mitigate the effects of the initial aberration thereby affecting radiation-induced cancer rates within populations. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">5) Wrong Conclusions: The ECRR notes that it is quite common for the conclusions drawn in an epidemiological study to be out of sync with the data collected during the course of the study. Journal abstracts or the conclusions appearing at the end of research papers claiming no observed effect between radiation exposure and cancer incidence have been observed to contradict the information included in tables or text within the body of the papers.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">For a long and detailed examination of the types of errors that have corrupted important studies that purport to show that radiation exposure has little or no effect on public health, the reader is advised to consult chapter five, “Paradigm Deconstructed,” in Wings of Death.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk: the Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes. Regulators' Edition. Brussels; 2003. www.euradcom.org.</p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-37186087044914312032010-09-27T09:00:00.002-04:002010-09-28T00:33:35.705-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-SEVEN<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b>SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-SEVEN:</b> Block the dissemination of all information that raises questions as to the validity of the current estimates of risk from internal contamination by radionuclides. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Governments and the nuclear industry derive a tremendous boon from the flawed model of radiation effects as it applies to low-level internal contamination. It gives them license to contaminate populations with radionuclides and escape accountability for their deeds. Their minions, availing themselves of the types of scams elucidated within these pages, can demonstrate within the wake of even the most catastrophic releases that dosages to the exposed populations fall within the safety guidelines set by the radiation protection agencies, and thus, that the resulting risks to public health are relatively insignificant. To maintain this facade, the Cult of Nuclearists is heavily invested in creating the impression that the science of radiation effects is more advanced than it in fact is, and that a worldwide consensus exists in the understanding of how radiation affects human health. To give the impression that current models are impeccable, extreme pressure is brought to bear on dissidents who refuse to toe the line and who, in defiance of the status quo, voice unorthodox viewpoints. Routinely, these whistleblowers are marginalized and their work discredited. Among the tactics used to silence those promoting dissenting points of view: threats and intimidation, loss of employment, demotion, salary cuts, funding cuts, refusal of employers to allow publication of research, rejection of publication by the scientific journals and so forth. A common rationale for such retribution is that conclusions in defiance of current models are illegitimate because they fall outside the mainstream of accepted scientific thought. What escapes due consideration is the possibility that the mainstream itself is hopelessly polluted and in need of cleanup. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Given this tyrannical suppression of independent thought, it is not surprising that experts in the radiation sciences have been silenced when attempting to warn the world of the hazards of depleted uranium. A recent example came to light in February 2004, with the publication of an article in the UK’s Sunday Herald which reported that the World Health Organization had kept secret a report [1] warning that Iraq’s civilian population faced a long-term threat of increasing rates of cancer from inhaling DU dust from weapons fired by British and US forces. Dr. Keith Baverstock, who had been employed by WHO for 11 years as a senior advisor on radiation and health, authored the 2001 study in collaboration with Professor Carmel Mothersill of Canada’s McMaster University and Dr. Mike Thorne, a radiation consultant. Baverstock told the Sunday Herald: “<i>Our study suggests that the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq could pose a unique health hazard to the civilian population. There is increasing scientific evidence that the radioactivity and the chemical toxicity of DU could cause more damage to human cells than is assumed</i>.” As reported by the newspaper which had attained a copy of the research: </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>Baverstock’s study pointed out that Iraq’s arid climate meant that tiny particles of DU were likely to be blown around and inhaled by civilians for years to come. It warned that, when inside the body, their radiation and toxicity could trigger the growth of malignant tumors. The study suggested that the low-level radiation from DU could harm cells adjacent to those that are directly irradiated, a phenomenon known as “the bystander effect.” This undermines the stability of the body’s genetic system, and is thought by many scientists to be linked to cancers and possibly other illnesses</i>” [2].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Baverstock offered the following observation: </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>I believe our study was censored and suppressed by the WHO because they didn’t like its conclusions. Previous experience suggests that WHO officials were bowing to pressure from the IAEA, whose remit is to promote nuclear power. That is more than unfortunate, as publishing the study would have helped forewarn the authorities of the risks of using DU weapons in Iraq</i>.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The WHO was quick to dismiss these allegations as totally unfounded. “The IAEA role was very minor,” said Dr Mike Repacholi, the WHO coordinator of radiation and environmental health in Geneva. “The article was not approved for publication because parts of it did not reflect accurately what a WHO-convened group of international experts considered the best science in the area of depleted uranium,” he added.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">As an aside, the Sunday Herald article concluded by offering observations by Pekka Haavisto, chairman of the UN Environment Program’s Post-Conflict Assessment Unit in Geneva:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>Haavisto’s greatest worry is when buildings hit by DU shells have been repaired and reoccupied without having been properly cleaned up. Photographic evidence suggests that this is exactly what has happened to the Ministry of Planning building in Baghdad. </i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>He also highlighted evidence that DU from weapons had been collected and recycled as scrap in Iraq. “It could end up in a fork or a knife,” he warned.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>‘It is ridiculous to leave the material lying around and not to clear it up where adults are working and children are playing. If DU is not taken care of, instead of decreasing the risk you are increasing it. It is absolutely wrong</i>.’” </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The suppression of the Baverstock study is not an isolated phenomenon. Investigating the medical effects of depleted uranium can lead to termination of employment. After 19 years of service to the US government, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, Chief of Nuclear Medicine at the Veterans Administration hospital in Wilmington, Delaware, was fired after undertaking investigations into the medical effects of depleted uranium on sickened veterans from the first Gulf War. Although he had served in the Gulf himself, Durakovic was unaware until he returned to the US that depleted uranium munitions had been deployed in the Gulf. Says Durakovic:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>I only discovered indirectly in September 1991 that depleted uranium had been used on the battlefield. I was horrified. When scientists conduct experiments using this material, we dress like astronauts. Our soldiers had no protection. And this attack could have potentially exposed the entire population of the Gulf region. Soil samples from Iraq show radiation levels more than 17 times the acceptable level</i>” [3]. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Dr. Durakovic’s story of the obstacles he encountered while attempting to treat contaminated veterans is interesting and well worth repeating. It is a textbook case of the types of intrigue that can be waged against honest scientific investigation.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(66, 66, 66); min-height: 15px; "> </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>In 1991, 24 soldiers from the 144th Transportation and Supply Co., New Jersey, were referred to me by Ventnor Clinic in my capacity of Chief of Nuclear Medicine, VA Medical Facility, Wilmington, DE. All of the veterans were referred to me for the opinion and diagnostic assessment of their DU body burden. My expertise is in the internal contamination of radioisotopes and I was the only published researcher in the federal VA system with research on transuranic elements at the time these soldiers were referred to me. Although I personally served in Operation Desert Shield as Unit Commander, my expertise of internal contamination was never used because we were never informed of the intended use of DU prior to or during the war.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>The research on the effects of transuranic elements in the human system is not well known as prior accidents have dealt with many isotopes (Chernobyl) and the Persian Gulf War deals with one actinide, i.e., uranium.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>From January 1991 until August 1991, these soldiers were on a tour of active duty in Saudi Arabia and after the ground war started were located at the KKMC, King Khalid Military Camp, where it was their duty to unload battle-damaged M1A1 tanks, Bradleys, and M113 tanks destroyed by DU armor-piercing shells from friendly fire of helicopters, airplanes, and other tanks.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>The soldiers worked on these tanks. During this time, soldiers had constant contact with these vehicles. Those that were required to receive the vehicles actually lived very near them, ate lunch on top of them, and cooled themselves inside of them. They had been told not to let anyone photograph or take souvenirs from them so they kept the tanks close at hand.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>On March 10, 1991, a Battle Damage Assessment Team dressed in full radioprotective clothing arrived, stating that they were from Washington to assess the radioactivity of specific tanks. They reviewed the tanks for four days, fully dressed in the 90 degree temperatures.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>At the conclusion of the assessment, the soldier in charge of the crew required to move the equipment, was told that the tanks were “hot,” to mark them with the atomic symbol and not to let people go near them. The Assessment Team had detected .26 to 1.0 rad inside the tanks. [With an RBE (Relative Biological Effectiveness) factor of 10, the dose rate is 2.6 to 10.0 rem/year for the surrounding body tissue. In the US, the Code of Federal Regulations regarding energy specifies an annual limit of 0.17 rem/year and a specific limit of 0.5 rem/year for an individual in the general population.]</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>After that evaluation, the soldiers were told to cover the tanks with tarps and not to photograph them. The Team stated that the tanks were not dangerous to those required to work in their environment. One soldier was given an outdated dosimeter which began to detect radiation right away despite the fact that it was long past its expiration date.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>My diagnostic strategy consisted of their referral to the VAMC [Veterans Administration Medical Center] of Boston to the internationally known expert on low energy detection of internal contamination, Dr. Belton Burroughs who with Dr. David Slingerland performed whole body count of uranium-238 on several of the referred veterans. It was found by a rather insensitive and outdated whole body count that 14 of the 24 patients referred contained decay products of radioactive uranium. On the basis of this, more sensitive equipment, specifically a Germanim crystal, was applied for for the project which was then terminated. All work that was conducted on behalf of DU contamination was coordinated through the Persian Gulf Registry of the Wilmington VA hospital. All records were subsequently lost.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><b></b><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>The urine samples of these same patients were sent to the US Army Radiochemistry Lab in Aberdeen, Maryland. Again, some samples never reached the lab and the results of those that did were supposedly lost.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>According to my experimental research on lab animals and extensive review of the literature, uranium can hardly be detected by the external methods including whole body counting and urine analysis. Therefore I recommended that the veterans should be sent to the SANDIA National Labs in Albuquerque, NM which specializes in the pulmonary pathways of contamination with transuranic elements.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Furthermore, an objective analysis in the main site of uranium incorporation which is the skeletal system, should be performed by an autoradiographic analysis of the skeletal deposition of uranium by the bone necropsy specimens.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Neither of the above recommendations were followed because no one took the veterans' illnesses seriously. Two of the 14 soldiers have died since returning from the Persian Gulf. A recommendation for autopsy which should have included autoradiographic analysis of the skeletal deposition of uranium, was ignored.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>The 144th Transportation and Supply Company has since been scattered all around the United States, making it impossible for unified testing and analysis.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Due to the current proliferation of DU weaponry, the battlefields of the future will be unlike any battlefields in history. Since the effects of contamination by uranium cannot be directed or contained, uranium's chemical and radiological toxicity will create environments that are hostile not only to the health of enemy forces but of one's own forces as well.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>When released, DU aerosol particles are carried on the winds, their range as fallout virtually unlimited and as they migrate they contaminate air, soil, and water. So released, it is available for uptake by humans via inhalation, ingestion, or absorption. In such a toxic environment, fighting personnel will find themselves victims of their own weapons as well as those of the enemy. Due to the delayed health effects from internal contamination of uranium, injury and death will not always be immediate to the battle, but will remain lingering threats to “survivors” of the battle for years and decades into the future. The battle field will remain a killing zone long after the cessation of hostilities. Environmental contamination will linger for centuries posing an ongoing health threat to the civilians who reclaim the land and subsequent generations</i>” [4].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "> </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In one interview, Durakovic offered an opinion as to way the US government was actively engaged in hiding the effects of depleted uranium:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>Was there a reason officials didn't want information on DU victims of the Gulf War to become public? According to Dr Durakovic there are two main reasons - and they both involve money. By the year 2000 the bill to clean up waste uranium from the US nuclear industry would have amounted to more than $200 billion. So a lot of cash could be saved if the uranium was recycled in the arms industry. And of course there is the issue of compensation. The US Government would have to pay out billions if it could be conclusively proven that DU-coated weapons were causing illness in returned American troops</i>” [3].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(66, 66, 66); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In February 1997, Dr. Durakovic, on behalf of Gulf War veterans, wrote a letter to President Clinton asking for an inquiry into DU contamination. Two months later, he was fired. In an interview on the radio show Democracy Now, Durakovic spoke of his termination:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>I was fired in the year 1997. Because after the Persian Gulf War I, I was approached by the officials of the different departments of the US government who asked me to stop my work on the depleted uranium, which I obviously could not agree with, because I was mandated by the government of the US to take care of my patients, and I was the head of Nuclear Medicine Department of the V.A. Hospital in Wilmington, Delaware. So when I discovered a high percentage of contamination with the DU in Gulf War I veterans, every effort was made to stop my work. Which I obviously couldn't. I'm a medical doctor, and my responsibility is for the well-being of my patients. So, in 1997, I was fired</i>” [5].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Dr. Durakovic has offered a sobering thought in regard to the misapplication of uranium for military purposes:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>Uranium is dangerous, it does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all generations who follow</i>” [6].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The Cult of Nuclearists will use any means to silence its critics of the currently accepted model of radiation effects. Free minds and unbiased intellectual inquiry are its most potent enemies, and it is these that must be silenced. Its raging intolerance was recently in evidence on a seemingly inconsequential battlefield, the meeting table of CERRIE, the Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters. In 2001, Michael Meacher, then Environment Minister in the UK, established CERRIE. Due to the controversial nature of its subject matter, CERRIE was structured along novel lines for a panel offering scientific advice to policymakers. Members of the committee were selected from three different camps. Some came from the National Radiation Protection Board and British Nuclear Fuels, a government-owned company which produces nuclear fuel, runs reactors, generates and sells electricity and reprocesses spent reactor fuel. Other members of the committee represented the Green movement or were people whose scientific views challenged those of the NRPB. The remainder were supposedly neutral academics. The mandate of the committee was to undertake a review of the health risks posed by internal emitters and produce a final report which adequately presented the views of all parties. Topics for which a consensus was reached were to be identified. For subjects on which differences of opinion were irreconcilable, the reasons for the disagreements were to be elucidated in accessible language and suggestions were to be made for avenues of future research which might help resolve the conflicting points of view. All committee members were to agree to the final report, acknowledging that it faithfully included the full breadth of the committee’s deliberations and that it accurately presented all opposing arguments. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Typifying the titanic struggle between those who endorse technologies that liberate ionizing radiation into the environment and those who oppose them, CERRIE failed to fulfill the directive with which it was charged of producing a document agreed upon by all of its members. The working coalition split along ideological lines, and the final report exhibited obvious bias in favor of the reigning orthodoxy. In flagrant violation of the reason for which it was created, CERRIE authored a paper that failed to present a full and fair presentation of all points of view. Disagreements among committee members were in many cases mentioned only in passing, and no space was allotted to adequately explain to the reader the underlying reasons for the differences in scientific opinion. On the important subject of post-Chernobyl infant leukemia, the final report [7] did an excellent job of whitewashing the evidence of major errors in the risk factors published by the ICRP. Those who felt their points of view were not accurately reflected in the document published a separate minority report which contains the information suppressed by the majority [8].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The CERRIE debacle is mentioned here for only one reason. As the committee’s deliberations drew to a close, representatives of the Cult of Nuclearists interjected a novel method of intimidation into the proceedings with the intent of controlling the final report and stifling free and open discussion that the current model of radiation effects is flawed. At the committee’s last meeting, the Chairman produced a letter written by lawyers within the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The letter warned that if the final report contained any libels or “<i>negligent misstatements on factual matters</i>,” liability could potentially fall on everyone connected with the report: the committee members, the government departments, the printers and the distributors. In a blatant threat to the livelihood of each member of the committee, the letter indicated that each member individually would be liable for damages if the government were sued by anyone on the basis of these unspecified negligent misstatements. As to why the committee failed to produce a unified report, the probable explanation was revealed in a Sunday Times article by Mark Gould and Jonathan Leake entitled “Government Gags Experts Over Nuclear Plant Risks” [9]. According to this article, the 12 members of CERRIE each received a letter warning them that they could be sued for defamation if they included within their final documents the contents of what eventually became the minority report. This harassment produced the desired results. The “official” CERRIE document gives no indication that serious questions exist as to the accuracy of the current model of radiation effects. Successfully marginalized, the separately published minority report will undoubtedly receive little exposure.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The tactics used by elements within the British government to subvert CERRIE provides strong evidence that a new Inquisition is evolving to persecute heretics who preach against the state-sponsored doctrine. Anyone proposing ideas at variance with what is promoted as true by those in power may be brought to trial for libel and fined or imprisoned. This tolls the death knell for unbiased scientific inquiry — a cornerstone of Western civilization for the last four hundred years. To declare and support with evidence that the Hiroshima Life Span Study is flawed science, or that the ICRP publishes inaccurate risk factors, or that Sellafield is inducing leukemia in children will no longer be tolerated as a valid alternate interpretation of what is going on in the world. These pronouncements will instead be judged as “negligent misstatements on factual matters” and their authors will be criminalized.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Baverstock K., Mothersill C., Thorne M. Radiological Toxicity of DU. (Repressed WHO Document). November 5, 2001. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">http://www.css-romande.ch/actions/uranium/doc/du_baverstock_who.doc.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] Edwards R. WHO ‘Suppressed’ Scientific Study Into Depleted Uranium Cancer Fears in Iraq. <i> Sunday Herald Online</i>. February 22, 2004. http://www.sundayherald.com/40096.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[3] Arbuthnot F. Asaf Durakovic: A Respected Scientist Fighting on Behalf of American Gulf War Veterans. <i>New Internationalist</i>. September 1998. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[4] Durakovic A. Statement of Dr. Asaf Durakovic, Chief of Nuclear Medicine, on the Medical Implications of Depleted Uranium. <i>International Action Organization</i>. http://www.interactorg.com/Dr.%20Asaf%20Durakovic%20Bio.htm</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[5] Democracy Now. Broadcast Exclusive: U.S. Soldiers Contaminated With Depleted Uranium Speak Out--A special investigation by Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez of the New York Daily News. Monday, April 5th, 2004. http://www.democracynow.org/static/uranium.shtml</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[6] Catalinotto J. VA Medical Expert Exposes Pentagon Cover-Up. <i>Workers World Newspaper</i>. August 14, 1997. http://www.workers.org/ww/1997/coverup0814.html</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[7] CERRIE Majority Report. Report of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters. London. 2004. www.cerrie.org.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[8] CERRIE Minority Report. <i>Minority Report of the UK Department of Health Department of Environment (DEFRA) Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters (CERRIE)</i>. Aberystwyth: Sosiumi Press; 2005.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[9] Gould M., Leake J. Government Gags Experts Over Nuclear Plant Risks. <i>Sunday Times</i>. August 1, 2004.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-55615632413576863312010-09-23T09:00:00.002-04:002010-09-23T09:00:06.886-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-SIX<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b>SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-SIX: </b>Violate people’s innate process of evaluating and assuming risk in their daily lives by imposing highly risky technology upon them and then falsely underrate the risks that accompany that technology.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In 1953, President Eisenhower initiated the Atoms for Peace Program. A major unstated goal of this initiative was to assuage the terror that had settled into the hearts of a large segment of the population as a result of the development of nuclear weapons. These monstrosities did tremendous violence to people’s sense of personal security and trust in the uninterrupted continuity of life. The possibility of instantaneous demise by forces beyond one’s control was constantly on peoples’ minds. Images of brutal victimization were deeply disturbing to the psychological equilibrium of many. Responding to this unease, the government crafted a propaganda campaign to transform the menacing atom into the beneficent atom. This well-orchestrated crusade was intended to pave the way for the public’s embrace of nuclear power. However, despite the best efforts of government PR, the majority of the population remained wary of the new technology. In people’s minds, nuclear power was incestuously intertwined with nuclear weapons, and the possibility of radiation-induced disease, regardless of how remote, was terrifying. This mindset, an obstacle to the plans of the empowered, became an area of academic interest and was studied by experts in the field of risk analysis.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">According to the website of Argonne National Laboratory, risk analysis can be defined as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>The systematic study of uncertainties and potential harm that may be encountered in such areas as the environment, business, engineering, and public policy. Risk denotes a potential negative impact to an asset or some characteristic of value that may arise from some process or future event. Risk analysis seeks to (1) identify the probability of loss, or risk, faced by an institution or business unit; (2) understand how and when risks arise; and (3) estimate the impact of adverse outcomes. Once evaluated, risks can be managed by implementing actions to mitigate or control them</i>.” </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Basically, risk analysis is a study of systems. After defining the successful operation of a system, efforts are made to identify the factors that might disrupt the operation of the system, the consequences of this disruption and ways to minimize the likelihood that such disruptions might occur. An adjunct to this study, one relevant to the nascent nuclear industry, was the study of the likelihood of events that would lead to the release of radiation into the environment and what risks such releases might pose to the health of the surrounding population. When the infinitesimally small projections of risk predicted by the nuclear industry failed to quell opposition to nuclear power, social psychologists began investigating risk assessment: how do human beings evaluate risks in their daily lives, and how do they prioritize which risks they are more or less willing to expose themselves to in exchange for the benefits derived?</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">This field of inquiry delivered novel insights into human behavior. It revealed that all modern human beings share similar criteria for evaluating potential hazards. These patterns of thought act as filters that color people’s perception as to what risks are acceptable or unacceptable. The accompanying table summarizes these perception factors.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b>Risk Perception</b></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span style="text-decoration: underline"><b>Acceptable</b></span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span> <span style="text-decoration: underline"><b>Unacceptable</b></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Voluntary<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Involuntary</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Individual Control<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Others Control</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Clear Benefits<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Unclear Benefits</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Trustworthy Sources<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Untrustworthy Sources</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Ethically Neutral<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Ethically Objectionable</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Natural<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Artificial</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Familiar<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Exotic</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">No Historical Associations<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Memorable Associations</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Less Dread<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>High Dread</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Visible<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Undetectable</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Immediate Effect<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Delayed Effect</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Known, Understood<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Uncertainty, Variability</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Little Media Attention<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>High Media Attention</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Copyright 2002 Phil Rutherford. www.philrutherford.com</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">To illustrate the utility of this material, a simple example will suffice. If asked, a majority of people will say that they feel a lot safer driving their car than flying in an airplane. They cling to this belief even after being apprised of the fact that driving is statistically much more hazardous than flying, and the likelihood of being in a fatal accident on the highway greatly exceeds that of being in one while airborne. That people feel safer in the more dangerous situation is not so enigmatic when the thinking behind such an assessment is understood. People know that driving a car is a risky venture. But while driving, they feel in control of their vehicle and are in a familiar situation. They are on terra firma rather than up above the clouds. This not only produces less dread, but it seems to offer more options in the event that the situation turns unpredictable. Further, car accidents are rather humdrum whereas fiery air crashes make front page news. And bumping into another car and being forced off the round is, on reflection, less fear-inducing than being trapped in a terrifying descent that will surely lead to a fiery crash that burns hundreds of bodies beyond recognition. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The vehement opposition to nuclear power is no mystery once the mechanisms of risk perception are understood. Nuclear power has been imposed on populations throughout the world without recourse to referenda. Due to the complex nature of the technology, others are in control of it, and this increases feelings of vulnerability. The benefits are unclear, given that other methods of generating electricity are available, and the safe disposal of radioactive waste is an unsolvable dilemma. Originating from government and big business, and with a long history of cover-ups, nuclear power is perceived as coming from an untrustworthy source. Being intertwined with the production of nuclear and radiological weapons, the technology is perceived as ethically objectionable. Being extremely high-tech, it is viewed as artificial and exotic. It has memorable associations with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The idea of a catastrophic nuclear accident instills extreme dread. Released radiation is undetectable and health effects from exposure are delayed, uncertain, and variable. And reportage in the media of accidents, shutdowns, protests, cost overruns and so forth has furthered people’s suspicions of the technology. In a nutshell, the majority of people, due to their inborn psychological processes that come into play when assessing risks, perceive nuclear power as hazardous and unacceptable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The nuclear industry found itself behind the eight ball as the process of risk assessment began to be delineated. In response, they devised a brilliant gambit to woo public opinion and make nuclear power appear less risky. The PR strategy they adopted went something like this: The study of risk perception provides concrete evidence that people can be irrational when assessing risks in their daily lives. When assessing alternatives, they give themselves over to emotion and make choices based on fear that are not in their best interest. When a number of people do this simultaneously, they develop unwise social policy that is not for the common good. To prove this, let’s apply statistical analysis to the host of risks people confront daily. When we do this, we discover that nuclear power is less risky than a whole host of risks that people voluntarily assume without hesitation.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">This appeal to rationality over what is painted as spontaneous, unreflective prejudice is a highly seductive argument. And it was supported with a number of interesting, and sometimes humorous, observations. For instance, Mettler and Moseley in their book Medical Effects of Ionizing Radiation provide information on how various conditions are statistically associated with lifespan shortening. For instance, a male who remains unmarried can expect for his life to be shortened, on average, by 3,500 days. A male cigarette smoker will lose approximately 2,250 days from his life. Being 30 percent overweight will reduce lifespan by 1,300 days. Having cancer robs its victims, on average, of 980 days, and a stroke diminishes life span by 700 days. Compared with these life-shortening factors, radiation appears downright innocuous. Natural background radiation, according to BEIR 1972, shortens life by eight days, medical x-rays by six days, and reactor accidents between 0.02 and 2.0 days.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Following a different track, Medical Effects of Ionizing Radiation [1] reports the risks confronted in daily life that increase the chance of death by one chance in a million. These include the following: </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span style="text-decoration: underline"><b>Activity</b></span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span><span style="text-decoration: underline"><b>Cause of Death</b></span></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Smoking 1 cigarette<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Cancer, heart disease</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Drinking 1/2 liter of wine<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Cirrhosis of the liver</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Living 2 days in New York or Boston<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Air Pollution</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Rock climbing for 1 1/2 minute<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Accident</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Traveling 6 minutes in a canoe<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Accident</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Traveling 10 miles by bicycle<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Accident</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Traveling 30-60 miles by car<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Accident</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Flying 1000 miles by jet<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Accident</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Flying 6000 miles by jet<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Cancer caused by cosmic radiation</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Living 2 months in Denver<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Cancer caused by cosmic radiation</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Being a man age 60 for 20 minutes<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Illness</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Eating 40 tsp of peanut butter<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Liver cancer caused by alfatoxin B</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Eating 100 charcoal-broiled steaks<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Cancer from benzopyrene</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Living 5 years at site boundary of a <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Cancer caused by radiation</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> typical nuclear power plant in the open<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Living 150 years within 20 miles of a<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Cancer caused by radiation</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> nuclear power plant</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Risk of accident by living within 5 miles <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></span>Cancer caused by radiation</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> of a nuclear reactor for 50 years</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">This data is intended by the nuclear establishment to awaken people to their inherent foolishness, which by implication is the basis for their resistance to nuclear power. The peanut butter eaters and the bicycle riders are silly to object to nuclear power. In the course of their daily lives, they choose activities that carry similar or greater risks than those posed by nuclear power. The routine pleasures of life put people in jeopardy. If they saw clearly, they could not possibly find fault with nuclear power.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">This line of reasoning leads to a disturbing conclusion: basically, people are dummies. They don’t understand themselves, and they don’t understand the world they live in. They must be rescued from their follies by science and rationality. An elite body of enlightened policy makers must arise to lead humanity out of ignorance to a new golden age. This perspective is typified in an article that appeared in the Washington Post, entitled “Let’s Get Real About Risk ” It was written by Daivd Ropeik, director of risk communication at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Although not mentioning nuclear power directly, it could easily be used in its defense. The author begins by illustrating how much human effort is misdirected:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>Hundreds of thousands of Americans will die this year, deaths that can be prevented. Millions will get sick with preventable illnesses. Billions of dollars and countless hours of human effort will be wasted unnecessarily — all because we are afraid of the wrong things. </i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>In a frenzy of fear we are pouring millions this summer into protecting ourselves from the West Nile virus, and spending only a fraction of that sum on public education encouraging people to wash their hands, which would eliminate far more disease transmission than killing every mosquito in America. </i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Public and private spending on the cleanup of hazardous waste in America is estimated at $30 billion a year. Hazardous waste is a real problem, but the number of people whose health is at risk because of it is actually quite low. Compare that $30 billion with only $500 million a year on programs to reduce smoking, one of the leading preventable causes of death in America</i>”.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">After illustrating the folly in current decision-making, the cause of this folly is diagnosed: fear.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>We could make decisions that are more rational and informed. In many areas, science can identify the physical hazards, tell us how many people are likely to be affected by each one, what various mitigations will cost and how effective we can expect them to be. We can rank risks and remedies and put things in perspective. But we don't. Instead, we make policy based more on fear than fact. </i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Let's be blunt. This irrational response kills people. In a world of finite resources, we can only protect ourselves from so many things. If we overspend on risks such as pesticides or asbestos, which are real but of relatively low magnitude, we have less to spend on greater threats such as bacterial food poisoning or fossil fuel emissions. As a result, thousands of the people exposed to those higher risks will die. </i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>The usual suspects blamed for bad policy are politics, greed, the media, even the open, manipulatable nature of democracy itself. True, these are all factors in a process that often becomes a battle between competing private agendas rather than an informed search for policies that will serve the greatest common good. But the principal underlying cause of wasteful choices that seek protection from the wrong bogeymen is fear</i>.” </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Ropeik then identifies how irrational fear, when embraced by large groups of people, can lead to adoption of irrational public policy:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>But society, with limited resources, must be more rational than that. When individual fears become group fears, and when those groups, organized or not, become big enough or visible enough to put pressure on the government to provide protection from less dangerous threats, we can end up with policies that leave a lot of people in the way of harm from higher risks that we're doing less about</i>.” </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">For the greater good, the solution to this dilemma is deference to the wisdom of a body of independent experts for the rational assessment of societal risks. Ropeik proposes the creation of a nongovernmental agency to “provide us with credible, trustworthy guidance on risks.” His Risk Analysis Institute would rank hazards according to their likelihood and consequences, and oversee cost-benefit analysis to outline possible solutions and maximize resources to protect the greatest number of people. To assure the objectivity of the institute in promoting rational policymaking, the utopian ideal is presented that funding would have no strings attached, and that the “scientific work would have to be carried out by professionals who are chosen for their education and training, their expertise and reputations for integrity, neutrality and open-mindedness, not for who their political friends are.”</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Without question, there is tremendous merit in the idea of injecting rationality and objectivity into the process of risk assessment in order to create effective social policies. However, in the hands of an empowered clique such as the Cult of Nuclearists, risk analysis has been transformed, yet again, into a mesmerizing display of smoke and mirrors. As such, it has become a tool to confound the better judgment of people and do violence to their deep-seated impulse to arrange their lives for the maximum degree of safety, security, and tranquility. The attempt to manipulate the perception of the risks posed by nuclear power is readily understood within the context of how this technology initially evolved. Nuclear weapons were imposed on society by government without any form of democratic debate. As the implications of Hiroshima and Nagasaki burrowed deeply into the collective consciousness, people responded appropriately to these weapons from their inborn processes of risk assessment, and by all criteria, judged them to be unacceptable. However, they lacked the political strength to demand limits to the technology or the foresight to realize that, left to its own devices, the Cult of Nuclearists would assemble before everyone’s eyes the arsenal of Armageddon. For a large sector of humanity, the normal process of managing risk was forever upset. They were victimized and traumatized by this reconfiguration of their familiar landscape. Impotent to change this external menace, people’s psychology was forced to undergo modification. They had to integrate into their lives increased feelings of dread and insecurity, fear for the future welfare of their children, anxiety about the precarious fragility of all that made life worth living. People had for the first time in history to face the horrible possibility that the continuity of life into the future might be irrevocably interrupted. When nuclear power appeared on the landscape, these same feelings became associated with the threat of the accidental release of radiation. By the way people normally go about assessing risk, this attitude was not unjustified.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The crux of the problem of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors is that the Cult of Nuclearists has always prized these technologies above the psychological well-being of the people of the Earth. They introduced a technology that by all measures was inappropriate to human happiness and safety and remained unmoved by the average person’s response to this technology, i.e., that it was unacceptably risky. Rather than respect this instinctive judgment and work to create a new world order more friendly to the inhabitants of the Earth, the Cult of Nuclearists advanced its own agenda. To this end, they fabricated elaborate deceptions to beguile people’s natural inclinations. This was the motivating impulse for much of the lying and deceit revealed within these pages. When the process of human risk perception began to be clarified, proponents of nuclear weapons and reactors manufactured a strategic response for the purpose of demonstrating how misguided human beings can be when relying upon their native instincts for assessing risk. A new social-psychological paradigm was promoted, centered upon the idea that humans are essentially irrational when assessing certain types of risk. To save them from their folly and guide them to seeing the world in its “true” light, social scientists needed to present the risks of daily life in the cold logic of statistical analysis. By this method, humanity could be freed from its “irrational” fears, limited funds could be apportioned more wisely for addressing “real” hazards, more lives could be saved and the greatest good could be achieved for the greatest number.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">At the risk of offending the reader, there is no word in the English language that comes close to characterizing this line of reasoning other than “mind-fuck.” It is a cheap trick designed to belittle and invalidate humanity’s collective perception of the nuclear hazard. Rather than admit to the inappropriateness of their technology, inappropriate to the pervasive human desire for safety, security, and a sense of well-being, the Cult of Nuclearists is attempting to beguile humans into accepting that they, the people themselves, are inappropriate to the technology. According to their argument, human nature as it applies to risk assessment is imprisoning the species in fear and shortsightedness, thus holding society back from progress. People are repelled by nuclear technology only because they don’t see the world aright. The cure for this pervasive nuclear phobia is reeducation by the enlightened perspective of “objectivity.” Once this is accomplished, people will awaken to the realization that nuclear power presents no greater risk to their welfare than a short trip in a canoe or a brief ride on a bicycle. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">This argument is hogwash. It is based on the fallacy that the perspective of the social scientist and that of the risk-taker are freely interchangeable. Social scientists use statistical analysis as one window on life in their attempt to discern patterns in human behavior. They objectify life in order to study it. They abstract from all the nuances that are involved in individuals formulating preferences of one course of action over another in order to draw certain generalizations about population dynamics. The perspective of the risk-taker, the one who is at risk, is entirely different. For this person, the assessment of risk is a multifaceted process which takes into account past history, knowledge of the world, expectations, preferences, aspirations, intuitions, physical sensations, appetites, emotions, desires, and so forth. If making choices were an entirely rational process and if knowledge of statistics were sufficient to alter behavior, no one would smoke, no one would be overweight and everyone would wear a seat belt. Obviously, this is not the case.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">For the moment, let’s assume that the foregoing statistics are accurate and that there is no difference in the risk to life-shortening between eating 40 teaspoons of peanut butter and living for five years at the perimeter of a nuclear power plant. Knowledge of this fact is not sufficient to change most people’s attitude or behavior. Peanut-butter eaters will continue to eat peanut butter with abandon and real estate values around nuclear power plants will remain in a slump. Why? Because personal risk assessment involves more than simply selecting the objectively safest alternative. It involves the very subjective process of creating within oneself a sense of security and safety. All of us are gamblers in the casino of life. We are constantly exposed to a vast matrix of risks, any one of which could ruin or end our lives. To manage this, we push many risks out of our awareness. Others that are more within our control, we may choose to address so as to reduce the hazard they may produce in our life. We choose to better our odds of avoiding certain types of catastrophe by electing to wear seat belts, stop smoking, or go on a diet. However, these efforts offer no complete assurance that we will not die in a car accident, contract lung cancer, or suffer a heart attack. Constant vulnerability to chance and the unexpected is the reality of life. The psychological cushion to this state of precariousness is the sense of security derived from one’s personal process of risk assessment and management regardless of how accurate it may be objectively.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">If statistical knowledge of relative risk lacks the power to supplant most people’s inborn processes of risk assessment, what alternative remains for those intent on creating social policy at odds with the public’s perceptions? The only option is to circumvent these perceptions by ignoring and overriding them. This is the ultimate purpose of the proposed Risk Analysis Institute. “Experts” are to be enlisted to apply their “superior” wisdom and purported “objectivity” to contravene what is characterized as the passions and ignorance of the masses. Sidestepping the annoying pitfalls of having to deal with public opinion, these experts will work directly with policy makers and lawmakers to create a society reflecting their own values and interests. Undisguised, this is social engineering of a new world order by an elite class not accountable to the people who will have to live under the social policies imposed upon them without consensus. The Risk Analysis Institute is a utopian ideal fraught with peril for humanity. This is most clearly illustrated by a living embodiment of such an organization, the ICRP. To all external appearances, this body of experts provides lawmakers throughout the world with objective information on radiation risk. But as we have revealed, behind their facade of purported objectivity, this organization is a whore of the Cult of Nuclearists, bolstering and legitimizing its misdeeds while ruining the health of untold numbers of victims.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The safety of commercial nuclear power plants is a subject besmeared with obfuscation. Consequently, a legitimate avenue of investigation is to question how the statistics of relative risk listed above were derived. If they are based on the “presumed” dosages to the population from the “assumed” levels of radioactive effluents routinely vented into the environment, and if the risk factors of the ICRP are then applied to these dosages, it should be apparent by this point in the discourse that the hazard to health will be greatly understated. As we shall explore in the following chapter, if the statistics of risk are based on the casualty data recorded in the US Radiation Accident Registry, the conclusions reached as to the hazards of nuclear power plants will be nothing less than a mockery to intelligence. Not everyone in the population is equally at risk from discharges of radioactive pollutants from nuclear installations. If the total amount of radiation released into the environment is treated as if it were distributed to the entire population, the presumed risk is vastly underrated. It would be more accurate to examine the risk incurred by those individuals living immediately downwind of nuclear power plants. As will be revealed in Exhibit F, this type of investigation will reveal elevated risks of breast cancer to people living downwind compared to those living upwind of these facilities. Inclusion of this data in comparisons of relative risks would forever tarnish the myth of the harmlessness of nuclear power.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Statistics can be easily manipulated to create this or that false impression. For instance, statistical analysis may be used to demonstrate the low risk of life-shortening posed by nuclear weapons, the improbability of another Chernobyl-type accident, or the minuscule hazard posed by the planet’s accumulated radioactive waste. But such fine number-crunching would be brought to naught by the single improbable occurrence of a nuclear war that decimated 90 percent of the population of the Earth. The safety record of commercial nuclear reactors can be touted ad infinitum, but the low-probability event of a simultaneous breach of containment and loss of coolant to a reactor core would contaminate the entire population of a large metropolis. Stored nuclear waste has yet to cause catastrophic loss of life, but the safety record of today may fail to account for hazards facing an unsuspecting humanity thousands of years in the future. Mathematical probabilities may predict that nuclear accidents are far-fetched and unlikely, but far-fetched and unlikely things happen all the time. The question is not how improbable the risk, but whether or not we can afford to have such a risk in our midst at all. Is the technology worth the risk of the mass casualties that seem so implausible? Rather than go to the statistical tables for answers, we should travel to Belarus and ask people there if another Chernobyl is worth the risk. We should travel to Hiroshima and ask the survivors what they think of America’s defense policy. We should ask sick veterans returning from Iraq whether they think the ICRP’s risk factors for inhaled uranium are accurate.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Contrary to the beliefs of the pundits within the Cult of Nuclearists, the people of the Earth are not dummies. We recognize the lies for what they are. We are acutely aware that we are living on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. We have witnessed calamitous radiation accidents, and there is nothing that can convince us that these will not happen yet again. Where before we used to protect our children from discovering about the birds and bees, today the horrific secret to be kept from tender ears is that their lives can be incinerated in a microsecond by some deluded idiot. We long to live in a world where we can ride bikes and go canoeing and eat peanut butter sandwiches without being burdened by the thought of having our world ruined by radioactive contamination. We recognize that the Cult of Nuclearists and their policies are an embedded cancer in the body politic. Excising them from our midst may be treacherous because such an operation may kill the host as well. But the people do not have unlimited patience with threat, injustice and deception. Let us hope that Cult of Nuclearists will quantify that risk as well.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Mettler F.A., Moseley R.D. <i>Medical Effects of Ionizing Radiation</i>. Orlando: Grune and Stratton Inc.; 1985.</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] Ropeik D. Let’s Get Real About Risk. <i>Washington Post</i>. August 6, 2000. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A41017-2000Aug5&notFound=true </p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-75874818028601396752010-09-20T09:00:00.000-04:002010-09-20T19:03:11.834-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-FIVE<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b>SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-FIVE: </b>When promoting the benefits of nuclear technology to the layman, rely on half-truths and incomplete information to disguise costs to the environment which ultimately become risks to health.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The Cult of Nuclearists is dedicated to fulfilling its vision of the centralized control of electricity production through nuclear power. Having botched this plan the first time around with poor reactor design, exorbitant cost overruns, harrowing accidents and the massive loss of public support, they have been patiently waiting in the wings for an opportune moment to resume their campaign. Recent concerns over global warming and greenhouse gas emissions from coal-burning power plants have served as a pretext for touting nuclear fission as a promising “green” energy source. Since former vice-president Al Gore began stumping for an international commitment to combat global warming, a nuclear renaissance has blossomed. Orders for new nuclear power plants are in the works in numerous countries throughout the world. Admittedly, commercial nuclear reactors do not discharge greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And it’s just possible that next-generation reactor design may indeed guarantee the impossibility of catastrophic core meltdown. Nonetheless, nuclear power will never be green or clean.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">When nuclear power is hyped as the solution to global warming, many important facts go quietly unmentioned. For starters, worldwide production of electricity releases only nine percent of the annual emissions of human-generated greenhouse gases. Although a nine-percent reduction would be significant, this goal could not be achieved even if all the coal-burning facilities in the world were shut down and replaced by nuclear ones. The reason for this is that uranium mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and separation; reactor-fuel fabrication; the building and decommissioning of nuclear power plants, and the storage of radioactive waste all require huge amounts of energy which is generated by the burning of fossil fuels. Thus, contrary to nuclear industry propaganda, nuclear power is responsible for emitting large quantities of greenhouse gases. Dr. Helen Caldicott has cited examples of this atmospheric pollution in her article “Nuclear Power Is The Problem, Not A Solution’:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50 per cent of global warming.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93 per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide</i>” [1]. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Any short-term benefit to be derived from nuclear power in reducing CO2 emissions will quickly disappear as high-quality uranium ore reserves become depleted. This is made clear in the treatise “Can Nuclear Power Provide Energy For The Future; Would It Solve the CO2-Emission Problem?”:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>If the known uranium resources were used to exhaustion the total electrical energy produced would only amount to the present-day worldwide electrical energy use in three years.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>If all of the contributions are taken into account [i.e., burning of fossil fuels throughout the uranium fuel cycle], a nuclear plant causes the emission of about one-third of the CO2 produced by a gas-burning plant. But this relatively favorable ratio only holds as long as there are rich uranium ores available. When these are exhausted, the use of leaner ores will lead to the production of more CO2 by the operation of a nuclear plant than by a gas-burning plant. In the long run, nuclear power is therefore not a solution to the CO2 emission problem.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>The reason for this little-recognized problem of nuclear energy is that it costs energy from other sources (principally produced by burning fossil fuels) to produce nuclear energy. More disturbing is that many of these energy costs will have to be paid generations after a nuclear power station has stopped producing electricity. These are thus energy debts: debts incurred during its production lifetime, which our yet unborn descendants will have to pay</i>” [2].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In the process of generating electricity for immediate consumption, commercial nuclear power plants produce massive quantities of radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for millennia. The energy debt borne by the future will be paid by the greenhouse gas emissions produced to handle this radioactive waste. Currently, there are more than 80,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste stored on site at the nation’s 103 nuclear power plants, in either indoor wet pools or outdoor dry casks. An additional 33 tonnes are produced annually at a typical 1000-megawatt facility. Fossil fuel consumption will eventually be required to transport this dangerous dross to permanent waste repositories. According to current plans proposed by the Department of Energy, tens of thousands of shipments by truck, train, and barge will be required to transport irradiated nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste through 45 states and the District of Columbia to the sequestration facility being readied at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The construction of this facility required the burning of fossil fuels. Future facilities will likewise result in greenhouse gas emissions. The long-term maintenance and monitoring of these facilities, for the incomprehensible tens of millennia that will be required, will also require ongoing fuel consumption. A third source of the energy debt bequeathed to the future that will be paid by fossil-fuel emissions is the energy expended to dismantle each nuclear facility at the end of its life-cycle. During the course of a reactor’s operation, the reactor vessel, piping and valves, and construction materials making up the containment building will have been made radioactive through neutron activation. This huge mass of radioactive debris will require disassembly, removal and burial — once again, all provided by fossil fuels.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Moreover, due to its high lethality, radioactive waste presents an attractive target to terrorists. Since 9/11, the once remote possibility of an attack on a nuclear facility has become more real. Any accident or terrorist attack resulting in a breach of containment of the reactor vessel, an interruption in core cooling, or the liberation of stored radioactive waste would produce an unimaginable catastrophe. Using Chernobyl as the template, what can be imagined is an environmental catastrophe, an epidemic of radiation-induced diseases, the forced relocation of large segments of the population, major economic disruption and so forth. Regardless of how clean the technology is, even one such event would negate any derived benefit of boiling water by nuclear fission to generate steam.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Shortsighted human beings fail to learn lessons from history. Wars break out. Social disruption engulfs whole societies. Economies collapse. In the event of these remote but not unimaginable misfortunes, the radioactive waste scattered around the country may be neglected or abandoned. Interruption in the guarding of this nuclear detritus or its proper cooling and storage may lead to environmental releases that would create uninhabitable zones for hundreds of human generations. Anyone unwittingly entering one of these areas in the remote future will be vulnerable to radiation-induced disease and death. This is a possible legacy of the “clean” technology being ballyhooed today.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">When nuclear power is promoted as a clean technology, scant mention is made of the biologically significant quantities of radionuclides routinely liberated into the environment at each reactor site. Gaseous effluents contain fission-created or neutron-activated noble gases, iodine-131, particulates, and tritium. Liquid effluents include fission/activation products, dissolved and entrained gases, and tritium (Harris and Miller). This radioactivity is not credited with producing illness in the population despite numerous cases of cancer clusters in the proximity of nuclear installations. The operators of commercial nuclear power plants repeatedly assure the public that they operate within the safety guidelines issued by the federal government and that their emissions are strictly regulated. But how do members of the public really know what is being dumped into the environment from nuclear installations? The following will illustrate that radioactive pollution contaminates the environment to a greater extent than is admitted, that doses to the population are consequently higher than acknowledged and that the risks and incidence of radiation-induced cancer are greater than anyone cares to admit.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Beginning in 1990, citizens independent of the nuclear industry established the C-10 Radiological Monitoring Network in proximity to the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire. Within the 10-Mile Emergency Planning Zone in southern New Hampshire and northeastern Massachusetts, 25 monitoring stations were set up, mounted on the homes of volunteers. Each station included a beta/gamma detector, a gamma-only detector and a weather station. These instruments continually fed data into a computer for later retrieval. The data was periodically collected and analyzed in the Network’s Newburyport office. Early on the morning of November 29, 1995, three stations southwest of Seabrook registered the passage of a radioactive cloud. The beta/gamma detector readings jumped as high as eight times normal background levels and remained there for several hours. The gamma-only detectors recorded levels 15 times normal background. The weather stations measured wind blowing steadily from the northeast, strongly suggesting the source of the cloud was Seabrook Station. According to a report of the incident, </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>We occasionally register elevated readings (though never before as high as those on November 29) at one or more C-10/RMN stations, and follow up by checking with plant spokespeople or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) on-site inspector. Usually we have an answer in 2 or 3 days, and it often turns out that the high readings coincide with various “evolutions” within the reactor complex. This time our inquiries went unanswered for weeks. Only after we announced that we were going to the press did Seabrook's spokespeople get back to us.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Their story was that the plant had indeed been venting radioactive material at the time of our high readings. They claimed that the material was tritium — a form of heavy hydrogen — which had been vented at rates so low that our sensors should not have picked it up. Furthermore, they acknowledged that the plant's Wide Range Gas Monitor had been inoperative since about 30 minutes before the venting began, and that “periodic sampling” of the outflow was performed as a back-up.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>There were two problems with this. The first was with the specific radioisotope involved. Tritium does not emit gamma photons, but the highest C-10/RMN sensor response was from our gamma-only detectors, indicating that the cloud could not have consisted of tritium alone. The second problem was with the rate at which Seabrook admitted venting. We have our own computer model for simulating the dispersion of radioactive clouds. It's based on the same mathematics and references as the models used by the nuclear industry and the NRC, and was developed with the assistance of several scientists. Using this computer model, which accounts for factors of weather and plant construction, we found that the rate at which Seabrook admitted venting could not have caused a cloud of the magnitude we observed. Instead, we found that a release rate about 50,000 times greater than Seabrook admitted was required to reproduce our cloud</i>” [3].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In response to the press conference that eventually took place, the Citizens’ Radiological Monitoring Network came under heavy fire. Lobbyists for Seabrook worked to have state funding of the organization rescinded. Public relations personnel tried to discredit the Network in the press, attacking their data and instrumentation and offering a number of alternative explanations for the high radiation readings. What was the truth? As in many other such confrontations, the issue was wrestled into ambiguity so that potential outrage was smothered and the public’s concerns pacified. This gambit is another scam in its own right, a proven method of quelling opposition and of disarming a wary citizenry. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Before moving on, it is important to mention the benefits bestowed on the commercial nuclear industry from inaccurate models of risk. Nuclear power plants are licensed to release radioisotopes into the environment based on current models of radiation effects and the assumption that the permitted levels will not create illness in the population. Because risk factors have been inaccurately assessed, nuclear facilities have been given latitude to legally discharge hazardous levels of radioisotopes, while simultaneously covering up the price paid in the eroded health of unsuspecting citizens. Here is a case in point provided by Rosalie Bertell:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>If it is decided that fatal cancer incidence rate should be the biological endpoint on which the regulations are based, and I do not accept this as the best indicators of problems, then the radiation industry needs to conform to the same standards of injury as is used for regulating the chemical industry.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>The State of Minnesota, in the USA, decided that a nuclear waste dump should not be able to cause more than one cancer (fatal of nonfatal) over the lifetime (70 years) of an exposed person. This is the standard which the State used for chemical polluters. Based on this, a criteria of no exposure of the public above 0.0005 mSv per year was derived by the State Department of Health. This Standard is being enforced in that State, although it is ten thousand times lower than the current permissible dose to the public per year under US Federal Law, namely 5 mSv per year.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>In Ontario, the Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards (ACES) expressed astonishment that the nuclear industry was permitting itself to pollute the drinking water with up to 40,000 Bq of tritium per liter, under the 5 mSv per year federal radiation dose limit for members of the public. When the ICRP reduced the recommendation to 1 mSv per year, the industry agreed to lower the permissible level of tritium in water to 7,000 Bq per liter. When the ACES used the industry risk estimates for calculating the expected number of fatal cancers considered to be “permissible” under this Standard, they called for an immediate reduction in permissible levels to 100 Bq per liter, with a further reduction to 20 Bq per liter within five years. This was based of the standard setting used for toxic chemicals. This means the radiation protection guide line allows 350 times more fatal cancers than chemical standards would allow.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>While I understand mathematically why the nuclear industry, dealing with a mixture of radionuclides sets such unreasonably high permissible values, I see also that these high values are used for public relations reasons to assure the trusting public when there is a spill or abnormal incident at a reactor. Stating that the exposure was less than 10% of the permissible dose, sounds reassuring! Yet if one knew that the permissible dose was 350 times too high based on cancer deaths caused, 10% would be seen as 35 times too high. It is in the interest of the nuclear industry, hiding behind ICRP, to carry on the subterfuge that “permissible” implies ‘no harm</i>’” [4].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Caldicott H. Nuclear Power Is The Problem, Not A Solution. T<i>he Weekend Australian</i>. April 13, 2005. http://www.helencaldicott.com/articles.htm#050413</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] van Leeuwen, Jan-Willem Storm, Smith P. Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance. http://www.elstatconsultant.nl/.</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[3] Miller S. Citizens’ Radiological Monitoring Network Detects Radioactive Cloud Downwind of Seabrook Station. <i>Synthesis/Regeneration</i>. Fall 1996. Issue 11 (The Political Economy of Nuclear Power). http://www.greens.org/s-r/11/11-21.html</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[4] Bertell R. Limitations of the ICRP Recommendations for Worker and Public Protection from Ionizing Radiation. For Presentation at the STOA Workshop: Survey and Evaluation of Criticism of Basic Safety Standards for the Protection of Workers and the Public against Ionizing Radiation. Brussels: European Parliament, February 5, 1998a. http://ccnr.org/radiation_standards.html</p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-4557792460778269562010-09-16T09:00:00.000-04:002010-09-16T09:00:10.421-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-FOUR<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b>SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-FOUR: </b>Compromise your position as a respected scientific organization and voice of authority to advance a veiled political agenda and skew the debate over the risks to health of low-dose exposure.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Health physicists are experts in the field of occupational and environmental radiation safety. Over and above any other group of professionals, they should provide unbiased, objective information to the public on the effects to health from radiation exposure. If political intrigue compromises their impartiality, the layman is set adrift without a compass, unable to evaluate in the midst of a radiation emergency what information is trustworthy and potentially lifesaving. The Health Physics Society, the organization that represents the profession, thus did a disservice to the field of health physics and to the public when, in January 1996, its Scientific and Public Issues committee published a position paper entitled “Radiation Risk in Perspective” [1]. The paper addressed the risk to health from exposure to radiation below five to 10 rem. Their position was reaffirmed in 2001 and underwent minor alterations in 2004. The paper is remarkable for the way it exploits uncertainty in matters of science and produces an authoritative, decisive, unconditional position bearing momentous political benefits for the nuclear industry. This was not lost on members of the profession. In the Society’s newsletter of May 1996, one member pointed out that the position sounded “more political than scientific” and another wrote in predicting that the statement would “harm the credibility of the [Society] as a radiation protection organization” [2]. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The argument set forth in the position paper starts out with a debunking of the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis. It reiterates the familiar refrain, that current radiation protection standards and practices have come to rely on the premises of the LNTH only because “insurmountable intrinsic and methodological difficulties exist for determining if the health effects that are demonstrated at high radiation doses are also present at low doses.” The argument then goes on to assert that evidence exists that this model is an oversimplification, that it is not applicable for a number of specific cancers, and that heritable genetic damage has yet to be observed in human studies. Further, the role played in the induction of cancers and genetic mutations by such biological mechanisms as DNA repair, bystander effect, and adaptive response “are not well understood and are not accounted for by the linear, no-threshold model.” </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Having established the unreliability of the LNTH, the paper then mentions the limitations of the current knowledge base:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>Radiogenic health effects (primarily cancer) have been demonstrated in humans through epidemiological studies only at doses exceeding 5–10 rem delivered at high dose rates. Below this dose, estimation of adverse health effect remains speculative.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Epidemiological studies have not demonstrated adverse health effects in individuals exposed to small doses (less than 10 rem) delivered in a period of many years.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Below 5-10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent</i>” [1]. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The political punch line is then delivered as if it is the only reasonable deduction to be made from the above observations:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“I<i>n view of the above, the Society has concluded that estimates of risk should be limited to individuals receiving a dose of 5 rem in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem in addition to natural background. In making risk estimates, specific organ doses and age-adjusted and gender-adjusted organ risk factors should be used. Below these doses, risk estimates should not be used. Expressions of risk should only be qualitative, that is, a range based on the uncertainties in estimating risk (NCRP 1997) </i><b><i>emphasizing the inability to detect any increased health detriment (that is, zero health effects is a probable outcome)</i></b><i> [emphasis added]</i>”.<b> </b></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The policy paper concludes by stating the implications of its position on the assessment of risk as it pertains to radiation protection:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“(<i>a) The possibility that health effects might occur at small doses should not be entirely discounted. The Health Physics Society also recognizes the practical advantages of the linear, no-threshold hypothesis to the practice of radiation protection. Nonetheless, risk assessment at low doses should focus on establishing a range of health outcomes in the dose range of interest and acknowledge the possibility of zero health effects. </i><b><i>These assessments can be used to inform decision-making with respect to cleanup of sites contaminated with radioactive material, disposition of slightly radioactive material, transport of radioactive material, etc. </i></b><i>[emphasis added]. </i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>(b) Dose (the sum of individual doses in a defined exposed population expressed as person-rem) has been a useful index for quantifying dose in large populations and in comparing the magnitude of exposures from different radiation sources. However, collective dose may aggregate information excessively, for example, a large dose to a small number of people is not equivalent to a small dose to many people, even if the collective doses are the same. Thus, for populations in which almost all individuals are estimated to receive a lifetime dose of less than 10 rem above background, collective dose is a highly speculative and uncertain measure of risk and should not be used for the purpose of estimating population health risks</i>”. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">For the uninitiated, the following interpretation is provided: The Health Physics Society decrees that science has yet to produce unequivocal epidemiological evidence on the effects to health of low-dose exposure. It will ignore the fact that this is perhaps symptomatic of the limits of epidemiology or of the way epidemiology has so far been applied to studying the problem. Further, the Society will ignore the fact that evidence of low-dose effects has not been produced because science currently lacks other means besides epidemiological ones for measuring the biological consequences to populations from releases of radiation into the environment. Rather, we are going to declare that low-dose effects are unobservable, which we take to mean inconsequential or nonexistent. Consequently, consistency demands that we abandon all models that provide a quantitative estimate of what might be happening to the health of populations from low-dose exposure. The profession of health physics advocates that it is illegitimate to posit that because “x” amount of radiation is released amidst a population, that “y” amount of health detriment will result within the dose limits mentioned. Estimating the likelihood of an individual developing cancer or the number of cancers expected throughout the population is an invalid and fruitless exercise. Policy makers need only be advised of the range of possible health outcomes in the dose range of interest. What can this possibly mean other than zero health effects? (Recalling Exhibit B and the dubious mainstream practice of averaging energy over masses of tissue, the reader might notice how the official party line is reaffirmed by the Health Physics Society, that risk estimates are only bona fide if they are based on organ doses. This position effectively discredits all epidemiological studies, as exemplified by the studies of Gould and Goldman, that demonstrate a cancer risk from low-dose exposure but which do not have available organ dose estimates. This is a very tricky and sophisticated ruse, repeatedly pulled out and dusted off to prevent useful types of information from gaining “scientific” credibility. This point will be elucidated further in the next chapter, The Chicanery of the US Radiation Accident Registry.) </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The political motivations of those who crafted the Health Physics Society policy statement are all too transparent. They manifest their political bias by ignoring convincing evidence that demonstrate health detriment following low-dose exposure. By fiat, the Health Physics Society has usurped the scientific method. It has decreed that uncertainty in low-dose effects warrants the abandonment of all tools that enable us to come to terms with the possible public health impact of our deeds. Risk factors for low-dose exposure are invalid. Risk estimates are impermissible. Population effects are not to be predicted. Such conclusions free us from constraint and give us permission to fly blind. In one fell swoop, the Health Physics Society has decreed that we need not fret over how many people are being sickened by depleted uranium weaponry, that many sites contaminated by radioactivity need not be cleaned up, that caution may be abandoned in the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Emissions from nuclear installations and commercial nuclear power plants are without hazard. We can resume nuclear testing without concern. These are outdated issues. Decision-makers can be freed of such petty concerns because we haven’t figured out how to measure the effects and a possibility exists that there aren’t any at all. The regulatory handcuffs can be taken off the nuclear industry. And think of the money we’ll save. Dismissing the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis gives absolution to the Cult of Nuclearists. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Although his critics will abhor it, the words of John Gofman will prove to be the conscience of this whole nasty business:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b>“I<i>t is true, of course, that radiation-induced cancers in a population from very low doses will rarely if ever be detectable epidemiologically, because of the signal-to-noise ratio. But it does not follow (from the lack of direct observation) that the cancers are therefore unreal, hypothetical, speculative, theoretical, nonexistent, or imaginary. No rational person will deny that one of the most commonplace (and important) functions of science is to let people know what is really happening when direct observation is impossible</i></b><i> [emphasis added]</i>” [3].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Health Physics Society. Radiation Risk in Perspective. August, 2004. www.hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf.</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] Fairlie I., Resnikoff M. No Dose Too Low. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 1997; 53:7. http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1997/nd97/nd96fairlie.html.</p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[3] Gofman J.W. <i>Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure: An Independent Analysis</i>. San Francisco: Committee for Nuclear Responsibility; 1990. www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 14px; "><br /></p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9062782276467782415.post-80869450191003087472010-09-13T09:00:00.000-04:002010-09-13T23:00:13.520-04:00The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-THREE<p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; color: rgb(45, 45, 45); ">What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book <i>A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science</i>.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><b></b><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><b>SCAM NUMBER THIRTY-THREE: </b>Cloud thinking on the biological effects of human-generated low-level radiation with the claim that populations living in areas of high Natural Background Radiation are no more at risk from radiation-induced injury than people living in areas of low Natural Background Radiation.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Those who claim that emissions of radiation into the environment are harmless hold in their hand one seemingly unbeatable trump card. If low doses of radiation are hazardous, they argue, then people living in areas of high Natural Background Radiation should suffer from higher rates of cancer than people living in areas where NBR is low. The central importance of this argument is highlighted by Chris Busby in his book Wings of Death: </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>Finally, despite considerable evidence of low-level radiation effects from man-made pollutants, including cancer clusters near nuclear installations such as Sellafield, there has never been a plausible theory of how such effects can be produced at levels below those we are exposed to from Natural Background Radiation. This is the rock on which the nuclear castle is built: no progress in the crucial debate can be made without addressing the problem that cancer rates in populations exposed to widely different background radiation levels do not differ significantly</i>” [1].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In previous sections of this chapter, various aspects of this highly important issue have been addressed. We have noted that likening the effects of Natural Background Radiation, which contributes one hit per year to the nucleus of each cell in the body, to man-made hot particles, which can be responsible for repetitive hits to the nuclei of a small volume of cells, is a false analogy. We have further explored how man-made radioactive pollutants differ from Natural Background Radiation in their ability to exploit vulnerabilities in biological systems. Busby’s Second Event theory and the Petkau Effect are examples of how low doses of certain types of internal emitters can cause harm to cells in ways that NBR cannot. What remains to be addressed are the epidemiological studies themselves. What evidence has led proponents of nuclear pollution to the conclusion that the risk of cancer is the same for people living in areas with different levels of Natural Background Radiation? </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The ECRR cites 10 major epidemiological studies that have shaped current understanding of the consequences to health from living in areas of high NBR. Contrary to the claims of the Cult of Nuclearists, seven of these studies demonstrated increased incidence of chromosome defects in the study population. The remaining three studies didn’t investigate this type of aberration. In addition, five of the studies revealed elevated rates of cancer. A study in Japan revealed increases in stomach and liver cancer. Of two studies in Iowa, one uncovered a 24% increase in bone cancer and the other demonstrated a 68% increase in lung cancer. A study in Brittany revealed a 132% increase in stomach cancer. Finally, a study from Scotland testified to a 60% higher rate of leukemia. Despite this evidence of increased cancer risk in areas of high Natural Background Radiation, the ECRR is cautious in interpreting the results.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>For a number of reasons, it is uncertain how the results of these studies can inform discussion about risk from radiation exposure. First, for many of these studies, the populations suffer stresses associated with living in the Third World where cancer is not a major cause of death owing to earlier competing causes and the generally shorter lifespan. In addition, population natural selection for radiation resistance over a long period may be expected to confound any attempt to find a suitable control group: thus the repair efficiency for cancer-inducing lesions in genes would be expected higher in the exposed populations than the controls. In addition, the considerable amount of evidence which shows that different populations have different genetic susceptibility to cancer of different sites makes it impossible to draw any universally applicable conclusions from background radiation studies</i>” [2}.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">The ECRR expresses skepticism that definitive conclusions can be reached on the effects of low-dose radiation from the comparison of people living in areas of high and low Natural Background Radiation. The reasons for this are as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">1) Disadvantaged populations occupy many of the areas of high NBR. Competing causes of death may claim lives prior to the advent of radiation-induced cancer. This would have the effect of lowering the cancer rate in a population and making high levels of NBR appear less hazardous.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">2) Accurate health data is not available in many areas of high NBR. Thus, the true rates of cancer in the population are not ascertainable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">3) Valid epidemiological studies are hampered by an inability to find genetically comparable populations to serve as suitable control groups.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">4) Over generations, increased radiation resistance will have been bred into members of a population exposed to high NBR due to natural selection. Consequently, cancer rates in these areas would be lower.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">5) Global fallout from weapon testing must be factored into any consideration of the health effects of Natural Background Radiation. Different geographical locations have been contaminated by different levels of fallout. This complicates any attempt to discern the part played by NBR on cancer rates.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">6) Due to the low levels of radiation being studied and the low cancer rates predicted for these dosages, the determination of cancer rates due to NBR relative to other possible causes is highly unlikely.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">In the southern Indian state of Kerala, a population of several thousand people resides on a strip of land 10 km by 1 km that has some of the highest levels of natural radioactivity of any place on Earth. This heightened radioactivity is caused by an abundance in the soil of the mineral monazite, which contains 10% thorium phosphate. As a consequence, the population receives an exposure to NBR that is two times the world average. In the article Can ICRP Be Trusted to Set Radiation Exposure Standards?, Rosalie Bertell speaks about Kerala and offers some important insights that challenge the nuclear industry’s claim that high levels of NBR are not hazardous to health:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>Recently the BEIR Reports have used atomic bomb data to support their theory that humans have undetectable genetic damage from the atomic bombs. As early as 1957, the World Health Organization called together a Committee to study the genetic effects of radiation and to recommend protection of the human gene pool. In the publication by this committee, Kerala, India, was identified as the best place to study the genetic effects of chronic radiation exposure over several generations. To date, the nuclear establishment has not undertaken a serious study of this population, indicating their lack of concern for genetic damage. In one study, undertaken for another purpose, the authors noted that the exposed population of Kerala had an abnormally high rate of Down’s Syndrome. Researchers also found significantly high levels of broken chromosomes in the exposed group. In 1988, with the help of Indian researchers, I agreed to act as scientific advisor to a study of the people of Kerala. Researchers found that they were the first group to interview and examine the population, although the nuclear industry often uses Kerala as its example to ”prove” that low-level radiation is harmless.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>We now have measurements of the background radiation at grid points all through the contaminated area, detailed information on about 32,000 exposed households and matched control households not living on contaminated sand, and information on 92,000 pregnancies. Our preliminary findings are that the rate of Down’s Syndrome is 3 to 4 times higher in families living on the radioactive sand than for control families. Other problems which were more than doubled for the radiation-exposed group were congenital blindness and deafness, epilepsy, malformation of long bones, childlessness (couples who wanted to have children but could not), and various kinds and degrees of mental retardation. In the communities living on the contaminated soil, every one of the so-called sentinel mutations, rare genetic damage, was found. This was not true for the matched controls</i>” [3]. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">There are radiobiologists who do not believe in the necessity of a threshold dose for the onset of radiation injury and who recognize Natural Background Radiation as the source for a small percentage of the cancers suffered by the global population. From their point of view, the random hits from NBR occasionally spawn a cancer that escapes immune system surveillance. The inescapable conclusion is that some small number of cancers are the inevitable price paid by humanity for simply dwelling on planet Earth. From this perspective, any additional radiation liberated into the environment increases background levels and contributes to an increase in the cancer rate. Recent evidence for this concern was presented in the magazine New Scientist in an article entitled “Background Radiation Enough to Trigger Cancer” [4]. The article reviewed research conducted by Keith Baverstock of the World Health Organization’s European Center for Environment and Health, in Bonn, and Paivi Kurttio of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, in Helsinki. Investigating the incidence of papillary thyroid cancer among the children of Europe as a result of the accident at Chernobyl and from medical x-rays, the researchers determined that the nine milligrays of natural radiation absorbed by the average child’s thyroid during the first nine years of life would cause one or two cancers per million children each year. This predicted rate matches the incidence of the disease of children under the age of 15 in Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. This study followed an earlier one conducted by Mark Little, a medical statistician at Imperial College in London. Using data from the A-bomb survivors, Little calculated that between six and sixteen percent of the cases of papillary thyroid cancer were caused by Natural Background Radiation. The cause(s) of the remaining cases was never determined. </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Plenty of studies have been done that implicate exposure to background levels of radiation with increased incidence of cancer. Those who claim no such evidence exist are liars. In the article, “Inconsistencies and Open Questions Regarding Low-Dose Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation”, Nussbaum and Kohnlein provide the following information: </p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">“<i>A Birmingham team of scientists was able to correlate the very large database on the geographical distribution of childhood cancers in Great Britain of the OSCC [Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancer] with accurate measurements of terrestrial gamma-ray dose rates over a 100 km grid covering England, Scotland and Wales (Knox et al.). The terrestrial doses for that area vary by up to a factor of five, between about 15 nGy/hr and 80 nGy/hr (0.013-0.070 cGy annually). This study suggests that “background radiation might be an element of the causal chain of the majority of childhood cancers” (Knox et al.). It is noteworthy that a simple regression analysis of childhood cancers found a negative correlation with dose, in qualitative agreement with the above-mentioned studies with inadequate controls for confounding factors that continue to be cited in support of radiation hormesis. When confounding socioeconomic factors, identified as being strongly correlated with childhood cancer mortality, were included in the OSCC analysis, the association with background dose turned significantly positive.</i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><i><br /></i></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; "><i>Consistent with the British OSCC results, a recent US study also found a significant association between childhood cancer incidence and a variation in annual external background gamma-ray dose rate by nearly a factor of two (0.05-0.092 cGy per year) over an area within a radius of approximately 10 miles from the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. On the basis of risk factors derived from the A-bomb survivor study, no detectable trend in cancer among children should have been found from variations in background exposures of such small magnitude. This study, however, found a 50% increase in risk of cancer for children under 15 years with every 0.01 cGy increase in estimated annual background gamma-ray dose (Hatch and Susser). As in the British background study above, the high sensitivity to radiation is most likely related to exposures during the earliest fetal stages of development</i>” [5].</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">Bibliography</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[1] Busby C. <i>Wings of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human Health</i>. Aberystwyth, Wales: Green Audit Books, Green Audit (Wales) Ltd; 1995.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[2] European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). <i>Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk: the Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes</i>. Regulators' Edition. Brussels; 2003. www.euradcom.org.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[3] Bertell R. Can ICRP Be Trusted to Set Radiation Exposure Standards? Osaka Symposim; August 13, 1995. http://www.iicph.org/docs/can_icrp_be_trusted.htm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[4] Edwards R. Background Radiation Enough to Trigger Cancer. New Scientist. January 11, 2003. 177:2377. http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg17723770.200</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; ">[5] Nussbaum R.H., Kohnlein W. Inconsistencies and Open Questions Regarding Low-Dose Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation. <i>Environmental Health Perspectives</i>. 1994; 102(8):656-667.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Lucida Grande'; min-height: 15px; "><br /></p>Paul Zimmermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02638940588937097876noreply@blogger.com