Dear Bugs,
I am terribly sorry to hear about your cancer! Wow! That was one
amazingly large "baseball"! I am so happy to hear that they were able
to remove it! Hoping your recovery is swift.
Yes, I have located the cancer statistics for TN. The various reports
are located here:
http://health. state.tn. us/TCR/Reports/ reports.htmPlease tell us your thoughts - and how we can help you, okay?
Best wishes to you during your recovery process,
Cathy
--- In
AmericanDUST@ yahoogroups. com, "bugs" <brawny@...> wrote:
>
> Cathy,do you still have the chart showing the radition levels in
Tn,for each county? I lost mine when my computer crashed.
> I had a cancer tumor taken out of my colon 2 weeks ago that
was the
size of a baseball and 7 inches long.. they removed 12 inches of my
colon..
> Thanks
> bugs
> Radiation Science That Will Never Make TIME or Newsweek
>
>
> The following is a September 9 newsletter from the Low
Level Radiation Campaign www.llrc.org .
>
> What is unique (and righteous) about this small group of
non-compromised scientists is that they study and discuss in depth
*all* radioactive pollution, regardless of the source... be it
nuclear power plants, Uranium weapons production and manufacturing
plants, military or national weapons laboratory operations,
outdoor "testing" and firing.
>
> In other words, the Low Level Radiation Campaign
www.llrc.org goes the full distance. These scientists go courageously
where others do not (dare not?) go. So let's all do whatever we can
to help support this organization' s efforts. The Low Level
Radiation
Campaign depends on donations in order to keep operating. And even if
we don't have a few bucks to throw their way, we can certainly
forward this newsletter along!
>
> Why is the research of the Low Level Radiation Campaign so
important? The deliberate radioactive contamination of the US - and
the rest of the world - is only growing over time. Radiological
effects on the human body are cumulative and will be passed along to
future generations, both in our genes and in our environment. Thus,
continued studies are necessary in order to know the long-term
implications of these damages to our health.
>
> Granted, on a personal level, for those of us in middle age
and later years, this might not seem that important. But to our kids
and grand kids, nieces and nephews, and all of their kids on down the
line? This rampant, continued onslaught of radioactive pollution now
on
the up-swing with the "Nukuler Resurgence" being pushed upon us,
along with the manufacture of more Uranium Wars in a growing number
of countries... is most certain to impact our descendants in a huge -
and most tragically unfortunate - way.
>
> The invisible radioactive contamination of the US is
certainly Uncle Sam's (and our allies') "best kept dirty secret." Our
federal government has had a more-than-curious, pathological Love
Affair with the widespread, liberal use of radionuclides as an
environmental contaminant.
>
> How long are we going to maintain the role of helpless
victim, begging our own government to "Please stop radioactively
poisoning us and deliberately contaminating our kids' air, water, and
soil, Uncle Sam?" Certainly, if a greater number of people find out
what's going on... those in power will be unable to
> ignore us all!
>
> Beyond the
immorality of bombarding our environment (and
lungs) with radioactive gasses, nor is this pollution justified on a
legal basis. Actions such as toxic, radioactive outdoor "testing" are
a violation of basic human rights of US citizens under international
law.
http://axisoflogic. com/artman/ publish/article_ 26286.shtml>
> As I see it? The least we can do is spread the word - and
let everyone else know that the continuous bombardment of chemically
toxic and radioactive emissions into our air, water, and soil is
simply NOT Okay!
>
> With gratitude for all you do - and best wishes to all,
>
> Cathy Garger
> www.mytown.ca/ garger
>
> New Scientist report on Uranium risks compromises ICRP
> ICRP model in trouble
>
> A New Scientist report on Uranium
toxicity reveals a
massive gap in the scientific modelling of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). There are massive
implications for all aspects of nuclear policy and Uranium weaponry.
>
>
>
> "Secondary Photoelectron effect"
>
>
>
> The dangers of Uranium may have little to do with its
inherent radioactivity. The Low Level Radiation Campaign's Dr. Chris
Busby has proposed that genetic damage is caused by the interaction
of natural gamma and other radiation fields with Uranium or any
element of high atomic number. The impact of the gamma causes
localised showers of ionisations close to particles and even single
atoms of elements of high atomic number. Research by Busby in
conjunction with Pr. Ewald Schnug, a colleague at Germany's Federal
Agricultural Research Centre, is about to be published [see
footnote].
>
>
>
> All elements absorb gamma radiation and re-emit its energy
in the form of secondary photo-electrons. Their ability to do this
varies with the fourth power of the atomic number of the element;
Uranium absorbs gamma rays 585365 times more effectively than water
does. The shower of localised ionisations caused by the secondary
photo-electrons creates a mechanism for genetic damage which is
ignored by the conventional model of radiation risk. (The arithmetic
is in LLRC's journal Radioactive Times April 2008 page 8.
www.llrc.org/ rat/subrat/ rat72.pdf)
>
>
>
> In 2003 Busby reported this "Secondary Photoelectron
effect" to the British Government's Committee Examining Radiation
Risk of Internal Emitters (CERRIE). It was one of the many important
topics omitted by the CERRIE Majority Report. Subsequently Busby
published two papers [see footnote] and described
the effect to the
UK Ministry of Defence Depleted Uranium Oversight Board and CoRWM
(Committee on Radioactive Waste Management).
>
>
>
> Heavy metal poisoning
>
>
>
> The New Scientist has discussed the Secondary Photoelectron
effect only in relation to Depleted Uranium, although it has far
wider relevance. It has potential to explain why heavy metals are
toxic. Heavy metal toxicity exists despite wide differences in
chemistry; until now no-one has understood the reason.
>
>
>
> Uranium DNA affinity
>
>
>
> Uranium itself has a high affinity for the phosphates in
the DNA molecule and it is known that, at small total body burdens of
Uranium, a very high proportion of it will be on the DNA. Meditated
by the Secondary Photoelectron effect, Uranium focuses the energy of
natural gamma radiation onto DNA. This
has the potential to explain
observed high risks of genetic diseases associated with nuclear
facilities and events like Chernobyl which are ignored by the ICRP
and sneered at by the pro-nuclear International Atomic Energy Agency
and the World Health Organisation (which has to defer to IAEA in
matters of radiation and health).
>
>
>
> Policy implications
>
>
>
> The mining, processing, use and disposal of Uranium must
now be seen as creating health hazards far greater than predicted by
the ICRP's out of date modelling. There are extremely important
policy implications for nuclear power, disposal of radioactive waste,
and nuclear weapons (including depleted Uranium and new generations
of weapons containing other types of Uranium).
>
>
>
> As LLRC has said since 1992, the effects of other types of
radioactive pollution have
probably been underestimated too, but it
now seems that Uranium is the dominant problem.
>
>
>
> New light on Busby's "Second Event theory"
>
>
>
> In the last 20 years Chris Busby has proposed his "Second
Event theory" as a possible explanation of how radioactive elements
that decay more than once (Strontium 90 is an example) may have a
greater effect on genetic mutation. A first radioactive
disintegration that hits a cell without killing it forces the cell to
repair itself. If a second disintegration hits the same cell during
the repair process, which takes a few hours, it may cause a mutation
that the cell cannot repair. This is all in Wings of Death
>
> (
http://www.llrc. org/wings/ wingspage. htm)
>
>
>
> Supporters of nuclear power have
attacked the theory, not
least because they said radiation could not initiate the repair
process in cells, but in the New Scientist article the ICRP's Hans-
Georg Menzel accepts that "double hits of energy are known to be the
most damaging to cells." The Majority Report of CERRIE denied this in
2004 after long arguments. See the Minority Report
(
http://www.llrc. org/wobblyscienc e/subtopic/ cerrie.htm) for the true
state of the debate on the Second Event theory.
>
>
>
> The Secondary Photoelectron effect is now seen to be
another case of the general Second Event theory, describing how
sequences of radiation events can be concentrated into very localised
cellular targets. These considerations make nonsense of the
conventional model of radiation biology, which views radiation in
terms of
average energy transfer across large volumes of tissue. The
old concept of "dose" is now useful only for those exposure regimes
where the radiation truly is well-averaged. The regulation of
radioactivity in the environment is about to enter a new phase in
which "ionisation density" will be the vital parameter.
>
>
>
> Compton scattering
>
>
>
> In the New Scientist article Mark Hill of Oxford University
is reported as saying that Compton scattering would reduce the
importance of the secondary photo-electron effect. However, Hill only
discusses high energy gamma; the low energy part of the natural gamma
spectrum will create relatively high ionisation densities with a
correspondingly enhanced probability of causing double hits to DNA.
>
> The New Scientist article in full is only accessible to
subscribers
>
> but it is free on
http://www.nuwinfo. se/tickell200809 03newscientist. html >
> and
http://www.pharmacy choice.com/ News/article. cfm?Article_ID=93531
>
>
>
> The Low Level Radiation Campaign plays a key role in all
this. LLRC funds much of Dr. Busby's research. It was LLRC's
publicity material that alerted Professor Schnug to Dr. Busby's
existence, and our office put them in touch with each other. It was
our journal Radioactive Times that alerted New Scientist to the
imminent publication of Busby and Schnug's new paper.
>
>
>
> LLRC does all this and much more on a microscopic budget,
but we need money. Please consider a donation.
http://www.llrc. org/donation. htm tells you how you can give money —
cheques, Standing Orders, transfers, and Paypal (you don't need to
have a Paypal account of your own)
>
> Clicking on this link takes you to our Paypal account,
which is a safe way to send money and costs you nothing.You can do
this even if you don't have a Paypal account - when the payments page
opens, scroll down to find where you can pay with plastic.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
----
>
> 1. "Advanced Biochemical and Biophysical Aspects of Uranium
Contamination" . Chris Busby and Ewald Schnug: Institute of Plant
Nutrition and Soil Science, Federal Agricultural Research Centre
(FAL), Bundesallee 50, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany in "Loads and
Fate of Fertilizer Derived Uranium", pp. xx-xx Edited by L.J. De Kok
& E. Schnug © 2007 Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands
>
> 2 Busby C (2005) Depleted Uranium weapons, Metal
Particles, and Radiation Dose European Journal of Biology and
Bioelectromagnetics Vol 1 No 1 p 82-93 www.ebab.eu. com
>
> 3. Busby C (2005) Does Uranium Contamination amplify
natural background radiation dose to DNA?
>
> European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics Vol 1
No 2 p 120-131 www.ebab.eu. com
>
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Offline 
Send Email