[ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality
HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Tue Jul 8 10:08:19 CDT 2008
Friday I will be touring Palo Verde with Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.
I hope they will let me use my Palm Rad (counter) to compare readings there with ambient in my office (~0.015mR/hr) and seat (~0.084, to give me exposure more like a denverite, from thorium welding rods under the pillow).
Then I would like to confront that Utah physician with his lack of information about amount of exposure I measure at a nuclear plant and the potential benefit (hormesis) he would withhold - longevity and cancer data.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Roger Helbig" <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
> This has been posted to a major anti-nuclear list; I expect
> that the doctor is not exactly providing 100% factual
> information despite using his MD to back it up -
> From: theroyprocess at cox.net
> Over a decade ago, I remember a local New Times newspaper expose' of
> whistleblowers at
> Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant. They said that the schematic
> blueprints of the wire they
> used did not match, and more!
> All machinery breaks down in time. Nuclear power plants too. Do you
> want to bet your life
> on a machine? There is no escape from invisible radiation. Words will
> not make you less
> dead! You need a Geiger counter to reveal radiation.
> Nuclear mortality
> Public Forum Letter
> Salt Lake Tribune
> Article Last Updated:07/05/2008 11:40:45 AM MDT
> Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish that
> when large populations are exposed to any part of the nuclear fuel
> cycle - from the mining and milling of uranium to the operation of
> nuclear reactors and the ultimate storage of nuclear waste - there are
> tragic health consequences: increased rates of spontaneous abortions,
> premature births, low birth weight, overall infant mortality, impaired
> intelligence and cancers of all types in both adults and children.
> These studies repudiate the recent nuclear industry cheerleading by
> Kent Johnson and Clinton Wolfe ("Fear of nuclear power" and "Dismayed
> at fuss," Forum, June 28). Furthermore, many of the cancers and other
> debilitating diseases caused by nuclear radiation show up decades
> after exposure, or in future generations, making it likely that these
> studies underestimate the causal relationship.
> A recent study of large numbers of people in many different
> countries who lived near 136 nuclear reactors revealed higher
> mortality rates in children and specifically higher rates of childhood
> leukemia. Eighty percent of cancer is environmentally caused, and this
> year 12,500 children in the United States will be diagnosed with
> cancer. This information alone should end the debate about whether to
> build more nuclear plants.
> Proponents of more nuclear plants should be asked which of their
> family members they would sacrifice for "clean, safe nuclear power."
> Brian Moench
> President, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment
> Salt Lake City
> for more about this anesthesiologist turned entrepreneur
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
More information about the RadSafe