[ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality

[HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net]

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.

Howard Long  

-------------- 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 
> 
> Comment: 
> 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. 
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com:80/opinion/ci_9794768 
> 
> ________________________________ 
> 
> 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 
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/21/in.your.face/ 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/