[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
BOUNCE radsafe@"list.vanderbilt.edu": Message too long (>20000 chars)
>From radsafe-owner Thu May 30 14:14:47 2002
Received: from sps41.aecl.ca ([209.167.89.141])
by list.vanderbilt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20793
for <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>; Thu, 30 May 2002 14:14:46 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by sps41.aecl.ca with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
id <L5NSDD4Z>; Thu, 30 May 2002 15:14:44 -0400
Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F70220FC78@sps13.candu.aecl.ca>
From: "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca>
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: Letter in Press
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:14:41 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2080B.F2575A8E"
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2080B.F2575A8E
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Thanks Jim.
Has anyone else heard of Peter Fong's report(s) before ?
.....especially reference 2 of K. L. Cheng's Letter to the editor of the
Microchemical Journal, "Low dosage of radiation health benefit," posted by
Jim.
That reference is "The ultimate experiment proving the beneficial effects of
low level nuclear weapon test. BAPS 42 (1997), p. 1811." by P. Fong.
What exactly is "BAPS 42" if I may ask ? (....something published by the APS
presumably ?)
Fong's claim of reduced cancer rates following US bomb tests is certainly
startling -- but has it been published in any peer-reviewed trade journal ?
Thanks.
Jaro
........ I copied the following from Fong's site
http://www.peterfongbooks.com :
Cancer Death Rates of all States of U.S. in all Past 50 Years Related to
Natural and Artificial Nuclear Radiation
Peter Fong
Physics Department, Emory University
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
Abstract
Cancer death rates of 50 States of U.S. in all the past 50 years are
analyzed according to natural and artificial nuclear radiation. Figure 3
(shown below) shows their dependence on altitudes of the States (perennial
natural radiation)-the higher the lower deaths. The 8 mountain States
average is that a doubling of natural radiation 100 mrem/yr reduces the
cancer death rate 25%. Figure 4 shows their dependence on distances from
Nevada, the site of airborne nuclear weapons tests in 1950s (one-shot
artificial nuclear radiation of 30 mrem/yr for the test years). Nevada
showed a reduction of 25% of cancer death rate after the first 4 years and
continued for more than a decade. Alaska and Hawaii show no effect. The
other States show reduction related to distance and peculiar features timed
with the bomb explosion. The national average is 24.3% cancer rate reduction
for 100 mrem/yr of bomb radiation, in perfect agreement with natural
radiation.
Figure 3 shows the cancer death rates per 100,000 population in the U.S.
over the past 50 years. The thick brown curve on the top represents the
national average. The thick yellow curve in the middle is the 8 mountain
states average, which is about 25% lower than the national average,
indicating a 25% reduction of cancer deaths over the 50 years in the high
altitude region, where the natural background radiation is 100 mrem/yr
higher than the normal 100. The 8 thin color curves show the 8 mountain
states separately, which spread out in parallel from the yellow average
according to their altitudes-higher states having lower cancer. An analysis
shows the cancer reduction is exactly proportional to radiation.
Figure 3-Cancer death rate per 100,000 population of the States of U.S.
analyzed according to their altitudes (perennial natural radiation). The
altitudes of the States in foot unit given in the figure are the population
weighted averages of the municipalities of the States accurate to 4 figures.
Correlation does not prove causation. Hundreds of evidences were denied,
including the above one, in policy decisions. An experiment corresponds to
the above study would require the exposure of the entire population of the
U.S. to a good amount of radiation, which is impossible. However, exactly
such an experiment has been done, albeit serendipitously, in the airborne
nuclear weapons tests in early 1950s. It increased the background radiation
level about 30% (30 mrem/yr added to normal 100 ).
The experiment was carried out without protest from the activists and
without recognition from the scientists. The results were not kept as
scientific data but were kept serendipitously by health workers for their
routines. An excellent chance of making important discovery was buried in
the mountains of government statistics. It took one more serendipity for
stupid me to bump into the gold mine by accident (the whole world was even
more stupid not to learn it). The result is the lower curve in Figure 4
(shown below), which is nothing but the same as the top curve of Figure 3,
only analyzed in the bomb test light. The great surprise coming out of it is
that the nuclear weapon tests, though increased the radiation level, did not
increase cancer deaths but instead reduced it by 418,000 for the entire U.S.
during the test period, verifying the correlation study conclusion
quantitatively but proved it by experiment.
Figure 4-Cancer dearth rate per 100,000 population of the States of U.S.
analyzed according to their distances from the bomb test site Nevada
(one-shot nuclear bomb test radiation).
Experts dismissed it, considering it still as a correlation. It took me 5
years to find out it really is an experiment. The test bombs were set off in
Nevada at "controllable" space and time. Besides studying the entire U. S.
as a whole as in the lower curve of Figure 4, there are 50 States of U.S.,
each can be studied as an independent observer with its own peculiar, unique
space-time parameters and resulting in 50 independent experiments. No
experiment can be more comprehensive and it is the ultimate because it
includes the entire population, willingly or not, without choice and without
advance knowledge of cancer reduction, eliminating the necessity of placebo
control experiment to guarantee the sample is not skewed.
In the upper part of Figure 4 are shown the results of 10 States so studied,
from the nearest Nevada to the distant Hawaii. The analysis is similar to
Figure 3, which separates the U.S. total to States with different altitudes
which are not "controllable" (correlation study), but now separates in
States with different distances to bomb tests, which are "controllable"
(Experiment). The curves differ drastically, which can nail down the
cause-effect relation conclusively. Nevada stands out drastically. In 4
years after the start of the tests, cancer rate dropped 25%, better than
cancer hospitals. Cancer being "incurable" by any, this must be due to
something beyond all, i.e., the new radiation from the bombs. The reduction
of cancers in Nevada continued for 2 decades. The far away states Hawaii and
Alaska show no effect of the bomb tests. The other 8 contiguous States all
show effect of the bomb tests, more or less, according to distances from the
bomb test site. The hallmark teeth-bites on the curves timed with the tests
are everywhere and speak loudly for the test effect on cancer reduction.
These curves prove bomb radiation can reduce cancer; the national average is
24.3% reduction for 100 mrem/yr bomb dose, which agrees extremely well with
the reduction rate of natural radiation from Figure 4. Since no other study
can possibly surpass this data base of 250 million persons in 50 years, the
conclusion of 24.3% reduction of cancer death rate for 100 mrem/yr increase
of nuclear radiation here obtained should be considered to be the ultimate.
The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was promulgated in 1959, ten years after the
start of the massive tests in Nevada, in response to the world opinion on
nuclear radiation hazard. The beneficial effect was totally unexpected.
Starting 1960 nuclear tests went underground and in two decades 3 times more
radiation was generated but buried underground. If it were in the air it
would have saved 1.5 million lives from cancer death. It is the most
grotesque irony of the test ban treaty which grows out of a highly inspired
humanistic ideal. Even more grotesque is that this is just the beginning of
a series that characterize the 20th century one that is the age of wisdom
and also the age of foolishness.
Later we will show that nuclear radiation not only helps cancer but also all
old-age degenerative diseases, including the major killers of heart disease
and stroke, and thus will extend life span. Indeed 29 million people in
Kerala, India have life expectancy 10.7 years longer than one billion
Indians due to nuclear radiation from thorium mine. Currently nuclear plant
is considered as a scourge; people stay away as if a plague. In the future
it would be a benefactor; people would frock to live near a nuclear plant
and ask for release of more radiation so that they can live ten years
longer. The nuclear hysteria is the utmost stupidity of the 20th century,
not to mention the economic losses, environmental degradation, and
international crisis because of the abandon of nuclear power.
References
1 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 50 volumes from 1948 to 1998.
=============================
Peter Fong, Professor of Physics at Emory University, is the author of seven
books, Elementary Quantum Mechanics, Foundations of Thermodynamics,
Statistical Theory of Nuclear Fission, Perspectives in Sinology, Physical
Science Energy and our Environment, and about one hundred publications in
nuclear physics, astrophysics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, molecular
biology, geophysical sciences, philosophy, history and social studies. He is
best known in the world scientific community for his statistical theory of
nuclear fission. He is also a freelance columnist contributing to The New
York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, the San Francisco Chronicle, The
Atlanta Journal and the Atlanta Constitution.
His latest two books encompass all the knowledge and wisdom to solve the
vital problems and to fill the void of the lost souls. Readers of Steven
Pinkes' two best sellers, How the Brain Works and The Language Instinct,
would be particularly interested in picking up what le left off -- he stated
that no one knows how the brain works and a conclusion about the brain is
convincing only if many kinds of evidence converge on it. Indeed, not just
many, but all.
Contact the Author
Mailing Address:
Professor Peter Fong
Physics Department
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322
Phone: (404) 727-4087
Fax: (404) 727-0873
E-mail: PeterFong@PeterFongBooks.com
Web: www.PeterFongBooks.com
================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Muckerheide [mailto:jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu]
Sent: Thursday May 30, 2002 10:53 AM
To: rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Letter in Press
Friends, FYI.
Regards, Jim
============
Microchemical Journal
Letter to the editor
Low dosage of radiation health benefit
K. L. Cheng
Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri¯Kansas City, Kansas City, MO
64110, USA
Available online 6 March 2002.
Article Outline
<SNIP>
With fascination I have read the book, Radiation Hormesis [1]. Recently, the
work of Professor Peter Fong of Emory University on the same subject has
attracted my attention [2 and 3].
<SNIP>
2. P. Fong , The ultimate experiment proving the beneficial effects of low
level nuclear weapon test. BAPS 42 (1997), p. 1811.
3. P. Fong, Greenhouse warming, nuclear hazards, and the future of America,
www.peterfongbooks.com, 2001.
<SNIP>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2080B.F2575A8E
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dutf-8">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2655.35">
<TITLE>RE: Letter in Press</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks Jim.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Has anyone else heard of Peter Fong's report(s) =
before ?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>.....especially reference 2 of K. L. Cheng's Letter =
to the editor of the Microchemical Journal, "Low dosage of =
radiation health benefit," posted by Jim.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>That reference is "The ultimate experiment =
proving the beneficial effects of low level nuclear weapon test. BAPS =
42 (1997), p. 1811." by P. Fong. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What exactly is "BAPS 42" if I may ask ? =
(....something published by the APS presumably ?)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Fong's claim of reduced cancer rates following US =
bomb tests is certainly startling -- but has it been published in any =
peer-reviewed trade journal ?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thanks.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jaro </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>........ I copied the following from Fong's site <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.peterfongbooks.com"; =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.peterfongbooks.com</A> :</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cancer Death Rates of all States of U.S. in all Past =
50 Years Related to Natural and Artificial Nuclear Radiation</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Peter Fong</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Physics Department, Emory University</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Atlanta, Georgia 30322</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Abstract</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cancer death rates of 50 States of U.S. in all the =
past 50 years are analyzed according to natural and artificial nuclear =
radiation. Figure 3 (shown below) shows their dependence on altitudes =
of the States (perennial natural radiation)-the higher the lower =
deaths. The 8 mountain States average is that a doubling of natural =
radiation 100 mrem/yr reduces the cancer death rate 25%. Figure 4 shows =
their dependence on distances from Nevada, the site of airborne nuclear =
weapons tests in 1950s (one-shot artificial nuclear radiation of 30 =
mrem/yr for the test years). Nevada showed a reduction of 25% of cancer =
death rate after the first 4 years and continued for more than a =
decade. Alaska and Hawaii show no effect. The other States show =
reduction related to distance and peculiar features timed with the bomb =
explosion. The national average is 24.3% cancer rate reduction for 100 =
mrem/yr of bomb radiation, in perfect agreement with natural =
radiation.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Figure 3 shows the cancer death rates per 100,000 =
population in the U.S. over the past 50 years. The thick brown curve on =
the top represents the national average. The thick yellow curve in the =
middle is the 8 mountain states average, which is about 25% lower than =
the national average, indicating a 25% reduction of cancer deaths over =
the 50 years in the high altitude region, where the natural background =
radiation is 100 mrem/yr higher than the normal 100. The 8 thin color =
curves show the 8 mountain states separately, which spread out in =
parallel from the yellow average according to their altitudes-higher =
states having lower cancer. An analysis shows the cancer reduction is =
exactly proportional to radiation.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Figure 3-Cancer death rate per 100,000 population of =
the States of U.S. analyzed according to their altitudes (perennial =
natural radiation). The altitudes of the States in foot unit given in =
the figure are the population weighted averages of the municipalities =
of the States accurate to 4 figures. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Correlation does not prove causation. Hundreds of =
evidences were denied, including the above one, in policy decisions. An =
experiment corresponds to the above study would require the exposure of =
the entire population of the U.S. to a good amount of radiation, which =
is impossible. However, exactly such an experiment has been done, =
albeit serendipitously, in the airborne nuclear weapons tests in early =
1950s. It increased the background radiation level about 30% (30 =
mrem/yr added to normal 100 ).</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The experiment was carried out without protest from =
the activists and without recognition from the scientists. The results =
were not kept as scientific data but were kept serendipitously by =
health workers for their routines. An excellent chance of making =
important discovery was buried in the mountains of government =
statistics. It took one more serendipity for stupid me to bump into the =
gold mine by accident (the whole world was even more stupid not to =
learn it). The result is the lower curve in Figure 4 (shown below), =
which is nothing but the same as the top curve of Figure 3, only =
analyzed in the bomb test light. The great surprise coming out of it is =
that the nuclear weapon tests, though increased the radiation level, =
did not increase cancer deaths but instead reduced it by 418,000 for =
the entire U.S. during the test period, verifying the correlation study =
conclusion quantitatively but proved it by experiment. </FONT></P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Figure 4-Cancer dearth rate per 100,000 population of =
the States of U.S. analyzed according to their distances from the bomb =
test site Nevada (one-shot nuclear bomb test radiation).</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Experts dismissed it, considering it still as a =
correlation. It took me 5 years to find out it really is an experiment. =
The test bombs were set off in Nevada at "controllable" space =
and time. Besides studying the entire U. S. as a whole as in the lower =
curve of Figure 4, there are 50 States of U.S., each can be studied as =
an independent observer with its own peculiar, unique space-time =
parameters and resulting in 50 independent experiments. No experiment =
can be more comprehensive and it is the ultimate because it includes =
the entire population, willingly or not, without choice and without =
advance knowledge of cancer reduction, eliminating the necessity of =
placebo control experiment to guarantee the sample is not skewed. =
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>In the upper part of Figure 4 are shown the results =
of 10 States so studied, from the nearest Nevada to the distant Hawaii. =
The analysis is similar to Figure 3, which separates the U.S. total to =
States with different altitudes which are not "controllable" =
(correlation study), but now separates in States with different =
distances to bomb tests, which are "controllable" =
(Experiment). The curves differ drastically, which can nail down the =
cause-effect relation conclusively. Nevada stands out drastically. In 4 =
years after the start of the tests, cancer rate dropped 25%, better =
than cancer hospitals. Cancer being "incurable" by any, this =
must be due to something beyond all, i.e., the new radiation from the =
bombs. The reduction of cancers in Nevada continued for 2 decades. The =
far away states Hawaii and Alaska show no effect of the bomb tests. The =
other 8 contiguous States all show effect of the bomb tests, more or =
less, according to distances from the bomb test site. The hallmark =
teeth-bites on the curves timed with the tests are everywhere and speak =
loudly for the test effect on cancer reduction. These curves prove bomb =
radiation can reduce cancer; the national average is 24.3% reduction =
for 100 mrem/yr bomb dose, which agrees extremely well with the =
reduction rate of natural radiation from Figure 4. Since no other study =
can possibly surpass this data base of 250 million persons in 50 years, =
the conclusion of 24.3% reduction of cancer death rate for 100 mrem/yr =
increase of nuclear radiation here obtained should be considered to be =
the ultimate. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was promulgated in 1959, =
ten years after the start of the massive tests in Nevada, in response =
to the world opinion on nuclear radiation hazard. The beneficial effect =
was totally unexpected. Starting 1960 nuclear tests went underground and=
in two decades 3 times more radiation was generated but buried =
underground. If it were in the air it would have saved 1.5 million =
lives from cancer death. It is the most grotesque irony of the test ban =
treaty which grows out of a highly inspired humanistic ideal. Even more =
grotesque is that this is just the beginning of a series that =
characterize the 20th century one that is the age of wisdom and also =
the age of foolishness.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Later we will show that nuclear radiation not only =
helps cancer but also all old-age degenerative diseases, including the =
major killers of heart disease and stroke, and thus will extend life =
span. Indeed 29 million people in Kerala, India have life expectancy =
10.7 years longer than one billion Indians due to nuclear radiation =
from thorium mine. Currently nuclear plant is considered as a scourge; =
people stay away as if a plague. In the future it would be a =
benefactor; people would frock to live near a nuclear plant and ask for =
release of more radiation so that they can live ten years longer. The =
nuclear hysteria is the utmost stupidity of the 20th century, not to =
mention the economic losses, environmental degradation, and =
international crisis because of the abandon of nuclear =
power.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>References</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>1 Statistical Abstract of the United States, =
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 50 volumes from 1948 to =
1998.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Peter Fong, Professor of Physics at Emory University, =
is the author of seven books, Elementary Quantum Mechanics, Foundations =
of Thermodynamics, Statistical Theory of Nuclear Fission, Perspectives =
in Sinology, Physical Science Energy and our Environment, and about one =
hundred publications in nuclear physics, astrophysics, thermodynamics, =
quantum mechanics, molecular biology, geophysical sciences, philosophy, =
history and social studies. He is best known in the world scientific =
community for his statistical theory of nuclear fission. He is also a =
freelance columnist contributing to The New York Times, The Christian =
Science Monitor, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Atlanta Journal and =
the Atlanta Constitution.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>His latest two books encompass all the knowledge and =
wisdom to solve the vital problems and to fill the void of the lost =
souls. Readers of Steven Pinkes' two best sellers, How the Brain Works =
and The Language Instinct, would be particularly interested in picking =
up what le left off -- he stated that no one knows how the brain works =
and a conclusion about the brain is convincing only if many kinds of =
evidence converge on it. Indeed, not just many, but =
all.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Contact the Author</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Mailing Address: </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Professor Peter Fong</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Physics Department </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Emory University</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Atlanta, GA 30322 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Phone: (404) 727-4087 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Fax: (404) =
727-0873 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>E-mail: =
PeterFong@PeterFongBooks.com </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Web: =
www.PeterFongBooks.com</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Jim Muckerheide [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu";>mailto:jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.e=
du</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Thursday May 30, 2002 10:53 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu; =
radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Letter in Press</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Friends, FYI. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Regards, Jim</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Microchemical Journal </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Letter to the editor </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Low dosage of radiation health benefit </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>K. L. Cheng </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Department of Chemistry, University of =
Missouri=C2=AFKansas City, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Available online 6 March 2002. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Article Outline</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2><SNIP></FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>With fascination I have read the book, Radiation =
Hormesis [1]. Recently, the work of Professor Peter Fong of Emory =
University on the same subject has attracted my attention [2 and 3]. =
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2><SNIP></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>2. P. Fong , The ultimate experiment proving the =
beneficial effects of low level nuclear weapon test. BAPS 42 (1997), p. =
1811. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>3. P. Fong, Greenhouse warming, nuclear hazards, and =
the future of America, www.peterfongbooks.com, 2001. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2><SNIP></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2080B.F2575A8E--