Re: [Methane Hydrate Club] Digest Number 547
- View SourceDate: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:52:20 -0000
From: "XK SAZ" <swezlex1@...>
>"No one on the outside was harmed"
> 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" - -
Well, that _is_ what "they" say...
A government's insistence on this desirable outcome can not make simply
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
Convenience is not wholly the same as science;
Human cancers and stillbirths continue to constitute fairly _permanent_
On the Web:
"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.
"Science for Sale: TMI and the University of Pittsburgh" --- by Eric
Joseph Epstein; TMI Alert
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.
THE COVERUP OF THREE MILE ISLAND / To Protect the Civilian Nuclear
"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.
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.... >>
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.
<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
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
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."
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
---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
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.
"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."
- View SourceForgive 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.
- View SourceWhat 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "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.
- View Source--- In email@example.com, "XK SAZ" <swezlex1@y...> wrote:
> What do you think these people who live close to the plants arefaking 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
> 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 thatthey 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?
- View SourceOn Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:31:29PM -0000, David wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "XK SAZ" <swezlex1@y...> wrote:Changing the topic a bit, this, but I'm beginning to believe the cancers
> > 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.
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 thatNuclear power plants could probably be pretty safe if run competently.
> > 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?
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
- View Source
> Changing the topic a bit, this, but I'm beginning to believe the cancersIt is possible. However, consider the fact that people in the western
> 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.
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 toI didn't hear about it but it doesn't surprise me.
> 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?
> Nuclear power plants could probably be pretty safe if run competently.I think the fact that the incidence of serious nuclear accidents in
> The question is, how do you ensure such management?
the western world is very low is a good indicator that the system, for
the most part, is working.