May not be a "war" in the traditional sense but it is a "war" [link to www.oism.org]




[link to www.garynull.com]

the dark underbelly of so-called "experts", to demonstrate the negligence of continuing with nuclear with the limited insight we hold-
[link to www.ccnr.org]


"What exactly was Gofman's "controversial" conclusion? Simply this: that the biological effects of radiation (in terms of increased occurrences of cancer, leukemia, and genetic damage) are linearly related to the accumulated dose of radiation received, regardless of whether it's a big dose administered all at once or a small dose administered over a long period of time. (Even before his work, the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the U.S. Federal Radiation Council had stated clearly that it is unsound to count on any protection against cancer and leukemia from slow delivery of radiation.)

This observation agrees with the theoretical supposition, that if a cell is alive and able to reproduce after exposure to radiation, but with damaged DNA or RNA instructions, its descendants may become manifested as cancerous growths many years after the original exposure. The probability of a cell being damaged in such a way is presumably proportional to the dose of radiation, regardless of how it is delivered. Thus uranium miners have consistently displayed almost three times the incidence of lung cancer than the rest of the population, although the onset of cancer may be delayed from 10 to 20 years after initial exposure -- often, indeed, after the men have retired or taken up some other form of employment. [5]

If Gofman is right, then there is no such thing as a "safe" threshold level below which no damage is done, To argue that there's a "background level" of radiation anyway, so it's all right to expose people to radiation as long as it doesn't exceed the background level, is sheer sophistry of the worst kind.


It amounts to saying that it is "acceptable" to have twice as many people die from cancer, leukemia, and genetically-related diseases than would have died from natural irradiation.


Gofman figured that if the U.S. population were exposed to this dose (the dose the Atomic Energy Control Board considers "acceptable" here in Canada is three times larger!) there would be at least 32,000 additional deaths every year from cancers and leukemias, over and above the spontaneous rate of incidence of these illnesses, and a much higher number of deaths from genetic causes. [6]

The extent of genetic damage as a result of radiation exposure, though known to be great, is still a mystery.

Since the defective genes will be passed on through successive generations, the full effects will not be known for a long time -- another "time-lag" effect, but on an even larger scale.


Even such non-cumulative radionuclides as carbon-14 and tritium are potentially very dangerous in this respect.


Being chemically identical to ordinary carbon and hydrogen , these isotopes can be built right into any type of living tissue, including DNA molecules, where they can wreak genetic havoc.


Tritium may prove to be a major biological hazard. The advent of thermonuclear plants would make the tritium problem very severe indeed.

One of the problems with tritium is that it is very hard to control -- it leaks out of aluminum and stainless steel fuel canisters, and it passes most valves and seals.

Incidentally, the Canadian reactor produces not only more high-level waste than its U.S, counterpart, but also very much more tritium.

It is well known, of course, that the traditional radioactive pollutants are genetically very dangerous too.


Strontium-90 (a chemical relative of calcium) accumulates in bone tissue, for example; but when it disintegrates it produces yttrium-90, which tends to lodge in the gonads, where it can cause damage to eggs or spermatozoa. [7]"
[link to www.ccnr.org]