Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (97077)	5/1/2003 2:22:26 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

Are you always so selective in what you quote? It is a good thing that this thread is public and keeps the history. Here is my post before the article you are nit picking on and IT IS my first post to you on the topic. I am including it in its entirety. The bold sections are to improve your readings: UW, no cheap shots on my part. I have no interest in taking shots of any sort against anyone, unless they happen to be wrong. What I told you was directly out of the B&W training films that I have seen. You pointing out that radiation is a major hazard (which I agree with) does not change the fact that in the 50s it was downplayed to the public. You will have a better time convincing me that little was known about radiation hazard in those days, but you'd have to back that up. If you trust the government, then you will believe as their knowledge improved, so did their warnings to the public in subsequent decades. If you don't trust them, then you will believe they changed their story because alternative sources of info made it unfeasible for them to lie as much. Message 18886275

To: unclewest who wrote (97077)	5/1/2003 2:28:17 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

> The org, mentioned in your link, that you think did a government study is named "The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research". They have a website... Yes I know and I checked them out before I posted the article and that is why I did not emphasize the 80,000 figure. Don't you think if I had been as indiscriminate as you think I would have harped on the 80,000 number. But you are dead wrong on the what I said. The article says that The newspaper USA Today reported that it had seen portions of the study, the government’s first effort to assess the effects of nuclear detonations on the entire country. In other words, it is not IEER who reports the 15,000 figure. Here it is again:RADIOACTIVE fallout from nuclear weapons tests caused at least 15,000 fatal cancers in America in the past half century, according to reports of a government study. At least read the whole thing before you argue it.

To: unclewest who wrote (97077)	5/1/2003 7:25:39 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Oh look here is the USA Today article that you implied never was...or are you now going to accuse them of being part of a conspiracy to destroy America? It also includes some interesting cross links to related footage. Let's see how you counter that. usatoday.com Fallout likely caused 15,000 deaths By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY AP file Soldiers watch a nuclear bomb test in Nevada in 1952. Access denied Study withheld because of 'internal reviews' WASHINGTON — Radioactive fallout from Cold War nuclear weapons tests across the globe probably caused at least 15,000 cancer deaths in U.S. residents born after 1951, according to data from an unreleased federal study. The study, coupled with findings from previous government investigations, suggests that 20,000 non-fatal cancers — and possibly many more — also can be tied to fallout from aboveground weapons tests. The study shows that far more fallout than previously known reached the USA from nuclear tests in the former Soviet Union and on several Pacific islands used for U.S. and British exercises. It also finds that fallout from scores of U.S. trials at the Nevada Test Site spread substantial amounts of radioactivity across broad swaths of the country. When fallout from all tests, domestic and foreign, is taken together, no U.S. resident born after 1951 escaped exposure, the study says. The study is the government's first effort to assess the nationwide effects of all forms of radiation from the hundreds of aboveground nuclear blasts detonated worldwide before such testing was banned in 1963. The cancer estimates add a new human toll to the Cold War and raise profound public policy questions, including whether the government should do cancer screenings in high-fallout areas. USA TODAY obtained portions of the study, which was supposed to be finished more than a year ago. "There should be no more waiting," says Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who pushed the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct the study in 1998. "People are still waiting for real communication on their exposure risks and steps they can take." The study's estimates of radiation dispersal are based on complex computer analyses of weather patterns, population trends and other data that can help gauge public exposure to fallout from aboveground nuclear tests. The cancer figures are a general nationwide estimate — there is no way to link specific cases to fallout. The study does not assess cancer risks in other countries. The data show that global fallout blanketed much of the USA, with heavy pockets in Iowa, Tennessee, California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Fallout from the Nevada tests settled more in the mountain and Midwest states, including Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri. The study measures exposure to an array of fallout elements based on county of residence, birth date and factors such as consumption of foods that absorb fallout. It concludes that about 22,000 cancers, half of them fatal, probably occurred from external exposure to radioactive fallout. Those could include everything from melanoma to breast cancer. The study attributes thousands of additional cancers to internal radiation exposure, such as inhalation or eating tainted food. Those cancers include at least 550 fatal leukemias and about 2,500 thyroid cancer deaths. Nuclear weapons powers "owe the world a real accounting of what they did to its health," says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "The U.S. has been the only honest country so far."