Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Methane Hydrate Club] Digest Number 547

Expand Messages
  • leo sullivan
    Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:52:20 -0000 From: XK SAZ ... No one on the outside was harmed ? OMG. No one on the outside was harmed - -
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 25 12:34 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:52:20 -0000
      From: "XK SAZ" <swezlex1@...>
      >
      > That's not a fair comparison. Chernobyl had no reactor building, and
      > technicians were conducting what were referred to as "unauthorized
      > experiments." BTW, that's a fantastic website.
      >
      > I'm not saying that nuclear energy is perfect. You mention the safety
      > record, but even in the worst nuclear power plant accident to happen
      > in the US, Three Mile Island, nobody on the outside was harmed.


      "No one on the outside was harmed"
      ?
      OMG.
      "No one on the outside was harmed" - -
      Well, that _is_ what "they" say...

      A government's insistence on this desirable outcome can not make simply
      this so.
      I almost always have a great respect for the unorthodox, innovative,
      insightful science I find in Methane Hydrate Club -
      - but I will not, and no one should go along with the convenient idea
      that accidental radiation releases are somehow insignificant hazards
      and therefore as good as "clean", because "official" [often also
      conflict-of-interest corporation-paid] scientists can get away with
      insisting it is so, while simply feigning to ignore any contradictory
      evidence.
      Convenience is not wholly the same as science;
      Human cancers and stillbirths continue to constitute fairly _permanent_
      harm.

      On the Web:
      __________________________________________________________
      http://www.tmia.com/accident/whatswrong.html

      "What’s Wrong With the NRC’s 2004 Fact Sheet on the TMI Accident?"
      The NRC acknowledged that 12 people are expected to die as a direct
      result of normal operation and releases for each commercial nuclear
      reactor that is granted a license extension of 20 years.


      __________________________________________________________
      ______ http://www.efmr.org/
      ______ http://www.efmr.org/Xtra/Sci_for_Sale_PM.pdf
      ______ http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0211/msg00025.html

      "Science for Sale: TMI and the University of Pittsburgh" --- by Eric
      Joseph Epstein; TMI Alert


      __________________________________________________________
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/aftermath.htm

      Study Links Radiation Releases to Cancer Rates February 24, 1997
      A report by researchers at the University of North Carolina in Chapel
      Hill concludes that increases in lung cancer and leukemia near the
      Three Mile Island nuclear plant suggest a much greater release of
      radiation during the 1979 accident than had been believed.

      __________________________________________________________
      http://hometown.aol.com/jacksha1/myhomepage/jpsintegrity01.html

      THE COVERUP OF THREE MILE ISLAND / To Protect the Civilian Nuclear
      Industry

      "In May, 1983, my father-in-law, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, told me
      that at the time of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident, a
      full report was commissioned by President Jimmy Carter. He [my
      father-in-law] said that the report, if published in its entirety,
      would have destroyed the civilian nuclear power industry because the
      accident at Three Mile Island was infinitely more dangerous than was
      ever made public. he told me that he had used his enormous personal
      influence with President Carter to persuade him to publish the report
      only in a highly "diluted" form. The President himself had originally
      wished the full report to be made public.

      In November, 1985, my father-in-law told me that he had come to deeply
      regret his action in persuading President Carter to suppress the most
      alarming aspects of that report.

      __________________________________________________________
      http://hometown.aol.com/jacksha1/myhomepage/jpsintegrity01.html

      Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 10:22:53 -0400 From: "Paul M. Blanch"
      Subject: TMI cover-up

      << Dr. Bertell:
      ... I am a prominent whistleblower who uncovered major corruption
      within the NRC and my employer Northeast Utilities. As a result of
      events I uncovered at Millstone, Northeast Utilities was almost
      bankrupted, and the NRC extremely embarrassed.

      I was one of the expert witnesses at the TMI litigation and agree with
      you there was a major cover-up of vital information. The presidential
      commissions, the NRC and the DOE are all aware of this cover-up. As an
      expert witness, I had access to the all the original records.

      I have documented evidence, which I have given to the NRC, that the
      primary containment was breached shortly after the hydrogen explosion
      that occurred on March 30, 1979. This breach occurred at a time when
      the radioactivity in the containment was close to its peak. Preliminary
      estimates indicate that as many as 40 million curies may have been
      released during the following hours. The NRC and the licensee estimated
      the maximum of 10 million curies of releases.

      Not one of the studies ever even questioned the data that was readily
      available as it could have alarmed members of the general public.
      -Contact me if you have any questions.... >>

      __________________________________________________________
      http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/99/tmi_forum.htm

      College Park, Md.: I was in Harrisburg during the meltdown. The local
      news media told us nothing. What information we could get on the
      serious nature of the accident came from the national television news
      in the evening. It has been a continuous stream of lies and evasion,
      from the beginning to the present.

      __________________________________________________________
      http://www.tmia.com/PressP2.html#cont

      <20th Anniversary of the TMI Accident> document
      "The [Pennsylvania] Health Department's official cancer study was
      released in the fall of 1985
      claiming they found no in-creases in incidences of cancer within a 20
      mile radius of TMI caused by
      the accident. Shortly thereafter, the Sunday Patriot-News exposed the
      Health Department's
      obfuscation and their contrived results. The Pa. Department of Health
      had "included 28,610 people"who lived beyond the five mile radius of
      the plant and another 122,000 people who live farther than 10 miles
      from the plant were included in the population of those living within
      10 miles, which substantially diluted any cancer rates. Neither the
      government nor the nuclear industry admits that a human, an animal, or
      even a flower has been harmed as a result of the Three Mile Island
      accident.

      Columbia's American Journal of Public Health article of June 1991,
      actually shows there was more than a doubling of all observed new
      cancers after the accident at TMI - including lymphoma, leukemia, lung,
      colon and the hormonal category of breast, endometrium, ovary, prostate
      and testis. For leukemia and lung cancers in the 6-12 km distance, the
      number observed was almost four times greater and in the 0-6 km
      distance colon cancer was exactly four times greater. Their paper on
      cancer in proximity to the plant finds "a statistically significant
      relationship between incidence rates after the accident and residential
      proximity to the plant."

      __________________________________________________________
      http://www.tmia.com/PressP2.html#cont

      As of 1999, the 20th anniversary of TMI:
      ---public records show GPU and the nuclear industry has paid out at
      least $50 million to plaintiffs from TMI-related suits brought against
      them.

      ---In 1985, Met-Ed's insurance pool paid more than $3.9 million dollars
      for out-of-court settlements of personal injury lawsuits, many
      involving children. The largest settlement, over one million dollars,
      was for a child born with Down's Syndrome. State law requires certain
      legal matters involving children to be made public; had it not been for
      the children's settlements, we may never have learned of this or other
      cases settled because stipulations incorporated into the settlement
      agreements prohibited plaintiffs from discussing their settlements.
      Funds from the $560 billion dollars Price-Anderson Act insurance pool
      paid these settlements. More cases are pending, such as the actions
      filed by a group of veterinarians and by the tourism industry, but
      these matters must await the outcome of the personal injury cases. Any
      moneys left over may then be applied to settle the remaining cases.

      ---there are pending personal injury lawsuits for over 2,000 plaintiffs
      which are in appeal of a Summary Judgment filed by defendants
      Metropolitan -Edison, et al."

      TMI-Alert says they are getting away with murder in:
      " Three Mile Island's Health Effects: Two Decades of Deceit "

      _________________$$$$$$$$$$$$$$__________________
      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$_____________________$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
      _________________$$$$$$$$$$$$$$__________________

      "Question Authority" is always good advice [when you can get away with
      it].
      Of course this approach promotes controversy no bureaucrat wants; yet
      data is as easily disappeared in General Electric's America as union
      organizers are in Mexico.
      Anyone concerned can the find facts 'behind the news' which contradict
      the 'news stories'
      our government encourages as needed.

      The US nuclear industry and it's lap dog the US NRC has worked
      brilliantly to convey this idea that "No one on the outside was
      harmed..." at TMI.
      Well, I guess fetuses are still not legal "anyones" but...
      The number of still births in the regions around TMI and Chernobyl both
      have risen astoundingly and continue to be significant 25 years later.
      Please acquaint yourself with the controversy before you swallow this
      military-industrial corporate government propaganda.


      __________________________________________________________
      http://www.tmia.com/PressP2.html#cont

      "There is no doubt adverse health effects occurred as a result of the
      accident at Three Mile Island. A recently published study by Dr. Steve
      Wing of the University of North Carolina has verified increased cancer
      incidence around TMI. Wing also states in his re-analysis of the
      Columbia University study, that Columbia found positive results but
      interpreted them as negative. In fact, studies conducted by Columbia
      and the Pennsylvania Department of Health have shown increases in
      adverse pregnancy outcomes as well as cancers, despite their
      conclusions to the contrary.

      "We have found that official studies pertaining to the TMI nuclear
      accident are intentionally misleading reports funded in whole or in
      part by state and federal governments, Met-Ed/GPU, and the nuclear
      industry. Even Columbia University's Study was paid via the TMI Public
      Health Fund and needed approval by federal Judge Sylvia Rambo and
      Met-Ed's lawyers. Their "official scientists" will tell you TMI did not
      cause adverse pregnancy outcomes or cancer increases because "not
      enough radiation escaped." They might tell you there were increases in
      some health effects caused by stress; smoking, drinking or taking
      tranquilizers; population increases; or due to radon or some other
      environmental problem. The fact is their scientists falsely concluded
      radiation doses were too low to cause any harm, and thereby, completely
      exonerated TMI as the cause.

      "The facts are that people of Three Mile Island have suffered adverse
      health effects. Some of us have died. More will in the future as a
      result of the radioactive releases from the accident."

      Thank you;

      LeOSullivan
      Berkeley California
      hilarleo@...
    • David
      Forgive me, Leo, but most of what I saw in what you presented consists of the typical anti-nuclear propaganda and hysteria. It s pseudo-science at best, and
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 25 7:38 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Forgive me, Leo, but most of what I saw in what you presented consists
        of the typical anti-nuclear propaganda and hysteria. It's
        pseudo-science at best, and frankly, I ain't buyin' it.
      • XK SAZ
        What do you think these people who live close to the plants are faking cancer? Do you think they evacuated everyone just for the fun of it? Do you think that
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 27 9:29 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          What do you think these people who live close to the plants are faking cancer?
          Do you think they evacuated everyone just for the fun of it?
          Do you think that radiation poisoning gives you cancer or do you not "buy" that either?
          What is there not to believe?
          Some jobs within plants give such a high dosage of radiation that they will only allow
          people to work on them for a couple hrs, then they've hit their limit.

          --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
          > Forgive me, Leo, but most of what I saw in what you presented consists
          > of the typical anti-nuclear propaganda and hysteria. It's
          > pseudo-science at best, and frankly, I ain't buyin' it.
        • David
          ... faking cancer? No. Neither have I seen a study that irrefutibly creates a causal link between the two. How do you know there might not be some other
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 27 4:31 PM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "XK SAZ" <swezlex1@y...> wrote:
            > What do you think these people who live close to the plants are
            faking cancer?

            No. Neither have I seen a study that irrefutibly creates a causal
            link between the two. How do you know there might not be some other
            environmental factor responsible?

            > Do you think they evacuated everyone just for the fun of it?

            Of course not. Evacuation would be a normal action in case of a
            nuclear power plant accident. It would be done as a precaution. No
            surprises there.

            > Do you think that radiation poisoning gives you cancer or do you not
            "buy" that either?

            Sure it does. So do a lot of other things.

            > Some jobs within plants give such a high dosage of radiation that
            they will only allow
            > people to work on them for a couple hrs, then they've hit their limit.
            >

            I understand that. It's a safety precaution. What's your point?
          • Steve Dodd
            ... Changing the topic a bit, this, but I m beginning to believe the cancers are result of some level of environmental irritation combined with a severe
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 28 4:21 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:31:29PM -0000, David wrote:
              > --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "XK SAZ" <swezlex1@y...> wrote:

              > > Do you think that radiation poisoning gives you cancer or do you not
              > > "buy" that either?
              >
              > Sure it does. So do a lot of other things.

              Changing the topic a bit, this, but I'm beginning to believe the cancers
              are result of some level of environmental "irritation" combined with a
              severe inhibition of the immune system and other bodily repair
              processes, an inhibition which seems to constitute a pandemic in the
              Western world, at least.

              Did you read about the professor who's just been fired for daring to
              suggest that there actually is a safe level of sun exposure, and that we
              shouldn't all spend the rest of lives living behind UV-filtering glass?

              > > Some jobs within plants give such a high dosage of radiation that
              > > they will only allow people to work on them for a couple hrs, then
              > > they've hit their limit.

              > I understand that. It's a safety precaution. What's your point?

              Nuclear power plants could probably be pretty safe if run competently.
              The question is, how do you ensure such management?

              --
              Home+FOAF: http://www.loth.org.uk/ OpenPGP: 201A57B6
              Original portions © 2004 Steve Dodd
              Appreciated this message?: http://www.loth.org.uk/tipjar/

              "When the people fear the 'government,' that is tyranny.
              When the 'government' fears the people, that is liberty."
              - Thomas Jefferson
            • David
              ... It is possible. However, consider the fact that people in the western world are living longer now than ever before. Given that, people are living long
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 28 4:05 PM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                > Changing the topic a bit, this, but I'm beginning to believe the cancers
                > are result of some level of environmental "irritation" combined with a
                > severe inhibition of the immune system and other bodily repair
                > processes, an inhibition which seems to constitute a pandemic in the
                > Western world, at least.
                >

                It is possible. However, consider the fact that people in the western
                world are living longer now than ever before. Given that, people are
                living long enough to develop things like cancer, Alzheimer's, and
                other age-related diseases that they didn't live long enough to
                encounter before. At one time, people died of things like pneumonia
                and polio while in the prime of life. Now, they live long enough to
                die from some form of cancer in their old age. Does that mean that
                cancer is becoming more common? Maybe, but there's a good reason for
                it. That obviously doesn't relate directly to Three Mile Island, but
                the next time you hear somebody say that incidents of cancer and
                Alzheimer's are on the rise, consider all of the factors involved.

                > Did you read about the professor who's just been fired for daring to
                > suggest that there actually is a safe level of sun exposure, and that we
                > shouldn't all spend the rest of lives living behind UV-filtering glass?
                >

                I didn't hear about it but it doesn't surprise me.

                > Nuclear power plants could probably be pretty safe if run competently.
                > The question is, how do you ensure such management?
                >

                I think the fact that the incidence of serious nuclear accidents in
                the western world is very low is a good indicator that the system, for
                the most part, is working.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.