Nuclear Exodus: Pandora's Promise Was a Lie - Must see documentary. | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 44672508 Germany 11/15/2013 02:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Citizenperth User ID: 49108311 Australia 11/15/2013 02:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | yes but not in a yoda voice ... GRIN..... BTW, i posted but am a different time frame... i'm glad someone else put this up... it's long, but well worth it..... [edit], or i found it through you OP?... either way... a good watch for anyone that's interested.... Last Edited by CitizenPerth™ on 11/15/2013 02:25 AM It's life as we know it, but only just. [link to citizenperth.wordpress.com] sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 50006593 United States 11/15/2013 02:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 49955806 United States 11/15/2013 02:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1506083 Canada 11/15/2013 02:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [edit], or i found it through you OP?... either way... a good watch for anyone that's interested.... Quoting: Citizenperth Thanks Citizenperth, one more asset to a list of truth exposing tools to help awaken the sleeping masses. Your threads are always top-notch info, thought you'd like this documentary. Now if we can only go back in time and stop mad scientists from smashing the atom and get our planet back. It's a train-wreck now, can't believe this is happening it's like mad science fiction but sadly reality. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 47854458 United States 11/15/2013 02:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It is actually factually correct. I know this is not popular here, but we have nuclear power and it is safe and clean. Coat cranks out more radioactive particles into the atmosphere each year than what Fukushima, by far, and kills many more people. The UN recently estimated that in China alone, coal plants are significantly shortening the life span of over a 100,000,000 people. So you fantasy of a nuc free world is killing people. Won't happen. People would rather be warm and breath clean air, than cold and get black lung. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 44672508 Germany 11/15/2013 03:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I saw Pandora's Promise. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47854458 It is actually factually correct. I know this is not popular here, but we have nuclear power and it is safe and clean. Coat cranks out more radioactive particles into the atmosphere each year than what Fukushima, by far, and kills many more people. The UN recently estimated that in China alone, coal plants are significantly shortening the life span of over a 100,000,000 people. So you fantasy of a nuc free world is killing people. Won't happen. People would rather be warm and breath clean air, than cold and get black lung. it s not "clean" energy, if the by-products it creates are higly toxic and radiating for a million years... and that after the shutdown of a plant, you have to cool the cores for another five years in order to cool them enough to not start a chemical fire that will be unextinguishable... clean , my ass |
YouAreDreaming (OP) User ID: 1506083 Canada 11/15/2013 03:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I saw Pandora's Promise. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47854458 It is actually factually correct. I know this is not popular here, but we have nuclear power and it is safe and clean. Coat cranks out more radioactive particles into the atmosphere each year than what Fukushima, by far, and kills many more people. The UN recently estimated that in China alone, coal plants are significantly shortening the life span of over a 100,000,000 people. So you fantasy of a nuc free world is killing people. Won't happen. People would rather be warm and breath clean air, than cold and get black lung. Great now you can watch this video and scratch your head over all the people shown in that video dying because of your clean nuclear energy. Gotta love the lies. Fact vs propaganda vs reality. |
YouAreDreaming (OP) User ID: 1506083 Canada 11/15/2013 03:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.medicalnewstoday.com] According to French researchers, the incidence of cancer is expected to increase by more than 75% by the year 2030 in developed countries, and over 90% in developing nations. The study is published Online First in the Lancet Oncology. "Cancer is already the leading cause of death in many high-income countries and is set to become a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the next decades in every region of the world; this study serves as an important reference point in drawing attention to the need for global action to reduce the increasing burden of cancer." -- And I expect those numbers to be even higher. I remember when Terry Fox had cancer and it was one of those diseases back then you hardly knew anything about. It was no where near the epidemic plague that it is today. Our chances are almost 50% that we will have cancer in our lifetime. That's 1 in 2 people will develop cancer. My x-wife just had cancer removed. My brother and father both had a type of skin cancer. My cousin had a large portion of her tounge removed. My grandfather had it. My great grandmother died from it. My x-wife's mother died from it. My friends wife's parents are both dying from terminal cancer. I know not one person who has AIDS or has died of it, but cancer... it's everywhere now. Terry Fox certainly did run; but now we are all running the risks of this disease and I feel with out doubt that the nuclear energy unleashed on humanity throughout the ages is the number one cause of Cancer period. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 49955806 United States 11/15/2013 03:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 49213559 Canada 11/15/2013 03:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
TruthBard User ID: 49955806 United States 11/15/2013 03:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | cancer is DIRECTLY from the "food" you eat. Period. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 49213559 Quit being a fear monger, seriously. Cupcakes for cancer anyone? Don't forget the "sodas." meh. "FOOD." NO. Actually the leading cause of cancer is cigarettes and second hand smoke. You see, if nuclear radiation were really that bad for you, the government would tell you. The government REALLY cares about you, think about all the time and effort they take to educate you about cigarettes. So if you get cancer, blame your neighbor and his stinky cigarette habit. Not the nuclear industry. Cigarettes are not a smoke screen to mask the cancer caused by other industries. Oh no. That would be preposterous. Last Edited by TruthBard on 11/15/2013 03:33 AM |
YouAreDreaming (OP) User ID: 1506083 Canada 11/15/2013 03:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | cancer is DIRECTLY from the "food" you eat. Period. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 49213559 Quit being a fear monger, seriously. Cupcakes for cancer anyone? Don't forget the "sodas." meh. "FOOD." Educate yourself. Not that I won't disagree that cancer is also caused by other additives et al but come on... tobacco is cancerous because of the pulonium. [link to en.wikipedia.org] Up to 10% of invasive cancers are related to radiation exposure, including both ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation.[1] Additionally, the vast majority of non-invasive cancers are non-melanoma skin cancers caused by non-ionizing ultraviolet radiation. Ultraviolet's position on the electromagnetic spectrum is on the boundary between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radio frequency radiation from mobile phones, electric power transmission, and other similar sources have been described as a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, but the link remains unproven Nuclear accidents can have dramatic consequences to their surroundings, but their global impact on cancer is less than that of natural and medical exposures. The most severe nuclear accident is probably the Chernobyl disaster. In addition to conventional fatalities and acute radiation syndrome fatalities, nine children died of thyroid cancer), and it is estimated that there may be up to 4,000 excess cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[46][47] Of the 100 million curies (4 exabecquerels) of radioactive material, the short lived radioactive isotopes such as 131I Chernobyl released were initially the most dangerous. Due to their short half-lives of 5 and 8 days they have now decayed, leaving the more long-lived 137Cs (with a half-life of 30.07 years) and 90Sr (with a half-life of 28.78 years) as main dangers. ----- If you watch the video you will find the number of people affected by cancer in Chernobyl to be far higher than what is on Wiki and the cover-up and lies of the IAEA and those protecting big nuclear for profit over our health. Radiation, especially hot-particles are killer causes of cancer period and there is a lot of that floating around now than there was say 80 years ago? Or is that factually incorrect and all this new radioactive isotopes which we are all now exposed to simply too safe and clean to worry about. Can't be the cause? Look at how cancer spiked 20 years after they stopped nuclear testing and just connect the dots. Not hard to see the link unless you are totally stupid or in denial. |
Citizenperth User ID: 49108311 Australia 11/15/2013 03:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | cancer is DIRECTLY from the "food" you eat. Period. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 49213559 Quit being a fear monger, seriously. Cupcakes for cancer anyone? Don't forget the "sodas." meh. "FOOD." NO. Actually the leading cause of cancer is cigarettes and second hand smoke. You see, if nuclear radiation were really that bad for you, the government would tell you. The government REALLY cares about you, think about all the time and effort they take to educate you about cigarettes. So if you get cancer, blame your neighbor and his stinky cigarette habit. Not the nuclear industry. I see what you did there... It's life as we know it, but only just. [link to citizenperth.wordpress.com] sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie |
LadyK74 User ID: 19330420 United States 11/15/2013 03:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
NotaNonviolentNegro User ID: 43920905 United States 11/15/2013 03:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | how about Thorium? Not a Nonviolent Negro Thread: I called it! UPDATE-How can we let them get away with this SHIT! |
TruthBard User ID: 49955806 United States 11/15/2013 03:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to fairewinds.org] According to questions we have received, proponents claim that thorium reactors produce less waste and its half-life is “only” a few hundred years rather than thousands. That still means hundreds of years of waste. However, contrary to proponent’s claims If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium-232 is very long lived (half-life: 14 billion years) and its decay products will build up over time in the spent fuel. This will make the spent fuel quite radiotoxic, in addition to all the fission products in it. It should also be noted that inhalation of a unit of radioactivity of thorium-232 or thorium-228 (which is also present as a decay product of thorium-232) produces a far higher dose, especially to certain organs, than the inhalation of uranium containing the same amount of radioactivity. For instance, the bone surface dose from breathing an amount (mass) of insoluble thorium is about 200 times that of breathing the same mass of uranium. 1 And there is still no geologic repository for the waste in the USA and most of the world, and even if there was, the encapsulation process designed to hold the waste has recently been shown to last only 100 years. On the question of safety, here is how the Union of Concerned Scientists in its Statement on Thorium Fueled Reactors, answers: Some people believe that liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which would use a high-temperature liquid fuel made of molten salt, would be significantly safer than current-generation reactors. However, such reactors have major flaws. There are serious safety issues associated with the retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not clear these problems can be effectively resolved. Such reactors also present proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they involve the continuous separation, or “reprocessing,” of the fuel to remove fission products and to efficiently produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of the used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the remains of the very small “Molten Salt Reactor Experiment” that operated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically challenging cleanup problem that Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been cleaned up. 2 Another claim thorium proponents make is that a thorium reactor is nearer to closing the nuclear fuel cycle. In an interview discussing that topic, Arnie Gundersen said, The French, and actually the Japanese bought into this. No one has really what we call closed the nuclear fuel cycle. The Japanese tried for years and spent trillions of yen or hundreds of billions of dollars in trying to reprocess fuel and it failed every time. My point is if we had spent that money on alternative energy sources, we would be much more likely to have a solution right at hand that is really cheap. And instead we put all our money on the wrong horse in this race.3 Following a review, even the U. S. Department of Energy has concluded placed Thorium Reactors in the same category as all other nuclear power reactors. The choice between uranium-based fuel and thorium-based fuel is seen basically as one of preference, with no fundamental difference in addressing the nuclear power issues [of waste management, proliferation risk, safety, security, economics, and sustainability]. Since no infrastructure currently exists in the U.S. for thorium-based fuels, and the processing of thorium-based fuels is at a lower level of technical maturity when compared to processing of uranium-based fuels, costs and RD&D [research, development and deployment] requirements for using thorium are anticipated to be higher. 4 Thorium 232 is not fissile, that means it can’t split and create power. Thorium 232 needs a uranium reactor to get it started by sending out neutrons that the thorium 232 can absorb. When that happens, the thorium 232 changes to U233, which is fissile. So behind every thorium reactor there still is uranium and plutonium that must be disposed of. |
TruthBard User ID: 49955806 United States 11/15/2013 03:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1278422 Netherlands 11/15/2013 03:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Citizenperth User ID: 49108311 Australia 11/15/2013 03:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to fairewinds.org] According to questions we have received, proponents claim that thorium reactors produce less waste and its half-life is “only” a few hundred years rather than thousands. That still means hundreds of years of waste. However, contrary to proponent’s claims If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium-232 is very long lived (half-life: 14 billion years) and its decay products will build up over time in the spent fuel. This will make the spent fuel quite radiotoxic, in addition to all the fission products in it. It should also be noted that inhalation of a unit of radioactivity of thorium-232 or thorium-228 (which is also present as a decay product of thorium-232) produces a far higher dose, especially to certain organs, than the inhalation of uranium containing the same amount of radioactivity. For instance, the bone surface dose from breathing an amount (mass) of insoluble thorium is about 200 times that of breathing the same mass of uranium. 1 And there is still no geologic repository for the waste in the USA and most of the world, and even if there was, the encapsulation process designed to hold the waste has recently been shown to last only 100 years. On the question of safety, here is how the Union of Concerned Scientists in its Statement on Thorium Fueled Reactors, answers: Some people believe that liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which would use a high-temperature liquid fuel made of molten salt, would be significantly safer than current-generation reactors. However, such reactors have major flaws. There are serious safety issues associated with the retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not clear these problems can be effectively resolved. Such reactors also present proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they involve the continuous separation, or “reprocessing,” of the fuel to remove fission products and to efficiently produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of the used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the remains of the very small “Molten Salt Reactor Experiment” that operated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically challenging cleanup problem that Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been cleaned up. 2 Another claim thorium proponents make is that a thorium reactor is nearer to closing the nuclear fuel cycle. In an interview discussing that topic, Arnie Gundersen said, The French, and actually the Japanese bought into this. No one has really what we call closed the nuclear fuel cycle. The Japanese tried for years and spent trillions of yen or hundreds of billions of dollars in trying to reprocess fuel and it failed every time. My point is if we had spent that money on alternative energy sources, we would be much more likely to have a solution right at hand that is really cheap. And instead we put all our money on the wrong horse in this race.3 Following a review, even the U. S. Department of Energy has concluded placed Thorium Reactors in the same category as all other nuclear power reactors. The choice between uranium-based fuel and thorium-based fuel is seen basically as one of preference, with no fundamental difference in addressing the nuclear power issues [of waste management, proliferation risk, safety, security, economics, and sustainability]. Since no infrastructure currently exists in the U.S. for thorium-based fuels, and the processing of thorium-based fuels is at a lower level of technical maturity when compared to processing of uranium-based fuels, costs and RD&D [research, development and deployment] requirements for using thorium are anticipated to be higher. 4 Thorium 232 is not fissile, that means it can’t split and create power. Thorium 232 needs a uranium reactor to get it started by sending out neutrons that the thorium 232 can absorb. When that happens, the thorium 232 changes to U233, which is fissile. So behind every thorium reactor there still is uranium and plutonium that must be disposed of. thanks for that.. almost as sneaky as the rhetoric behind fast-breeders..... It's life as we know it, but only just. [link to citizenperth.wordpress.com] sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie |
TruthBard User ID: 49955806 United States 11/15/2013 03:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
NotaNonviolentNegro User ID: 43920905 United States 11/15/2013 03:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to fairewinds.org] According to questions we have received, proponents claim that thorium reactors produce less waste and its half-life is “only” a few hundred years rather than thousands. That still means hundreds of years of waste. However, contrary to proponent’s claims If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium-232 is very long lived (half-life: 14 billion years) and its decay products will build up over time in the spent fuel. This will make the spent fuel quite radiotoxic, in addition to all the fission products in it. It should also be noted that inhalation of a unit of radioactivity of thorium-232 or thorium-228 (which is also present as a decay product of thorium-232) produces a far higher dose, especially to certain organs, than the inhalation of uranium containing the same amount of radioactivity. For instance, the bone surface dose from breathing an amount (mass) of insoluble thorium is about 200 times that of breathing the same mass of uranium. 1 And there is still no geologic repository for the waste in the USA and most of the world, and even if there was, the encapsulation process designed to hold the waste has recently been shown to last only 100 years. On the question of safety, here is how the Union of Concerned Scientists in its Statement on Thorium Fueled Reactors, answers: Some people believe that liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which would use a high-temperature liquid fuel made of molten salt, would be significantly safer than current-generation reactors. However, such reactors have major flaws. There are serious safety issues associated with the retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not clear these problems can be effectively resolved. Such reactors also present proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they involve the continuous separation, or “reprocessing,” of the fuel to remove fission products and to efficiently produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of the used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the remains of the very small “Molten Salt Reactor Experiment” that operated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically challenging cleanup problem that Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been cleaned up. 2 Another claim thorium proponents make is that a thorium reactor is nearer to closing the nuclear fuel cycle. In an interview discussing that topic, Arnie Gundersen said, The French, and actually the Japanese bought into this. No one has really what we call closed the nuclear fuel cycle. The Japanese tried for years and spent trillions of yen or hundreds of billions of dollars in trying to reprocess fuel and it failed every time. My point is if we had spent that money on alternative energy sources, we would be much more likely to have a solution right at hand that is really cheap. And instead we put all our money on the wrong horse in this race.3 Following a review, even the U. S. Department of Energy has concluded placed Thorium Reactors in the same category as all other nuclear power reactors. The choice between uranium-based fuel and thorium-based fuel is seen basically as one of preference, with no fundamental difference in addressing the nuclear power issues [of waste management, proliferation risk, safety, security, economics, and sustainability]. Since no infrastructure currently exists in the U.S. for thorium-based fuels, and the processing of thorium-based fuels is at a lower level of technical maturity when compared to processing of uranium-based fuels, costs and RD&D [research, development and deployment] requirements for using thorium are anticipated to be higher. 4 Thorium 232 is not fissile, that means it can’t split and create power. Thorium 232 needs a uranium reactor to get it started by sending out neutrons that the thorium 232 can absorb. When that happens, the thorium 232 changes to U233, which is fissile. So behind every thorium reactor there still is uranium and plutonium that must be disposed of. i HEARD THE CHINESE STOLE THE PLANS AND BUYING ALL THE RARE EATH And starting build reactors! sorry for caps I heard we can run our cars for a 100 years wit this stuff! and there plenty of it Last Edited by NotaNonviolentNegro on 11/15/2013 03:56 AM Not a Nonviolent Negro Thread: I called it! UPDATE-How can we let them get away with this SHIT! |
NotaNonviolentNegro User ID: 43920905 United States 11/15/2013 03:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Not a Nonviolent Negro Thread: I called it! UPDATE-How can we let them get away with this SHIT! |
TruthBard User ID: 49955806 United States 11/15/2013 03:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | i HEARD THE CHINESE STOLE THE PLANS AND BUYING ALL THE RARE EATH And starting build reactors! sorry for caps I heard we can run our cars for a 100 years wit this stuff! and there plenty of it Quoting: NotaNonviolentNegro hmmm if hollywood has taught me anything its that the chinese love stealing various plans and technology for nefarious purposes |
Citizenperth User ID: 49108311 Australia 11/15/2013 04:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | cool... thorium man can drive it then...... It's life as we know it, but only just. [link to citizenperth.wordpress.com] sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 49989795 Japan 11/15/2013 04:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.medicalnewstoday.com] Quoting: YouAreDreaming According to French researchers, the incidence of cancer is expected to increase by more than 75% by the year 2030 in developed countries, and over 90% in developing nations. The study is published Online First in the Lancet Oncology. "Cancer is already the leading cause of death in many high-income countries and is set to become a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the next decades in every region of the world; this study serves as an important reference point in drawing attention to the need for global action to reduce the increasing burden of cancer." -- And I expect those numbers to be even higher. I remember when Terry Fox had cancer and it was one of those diseases back then you hardly knew anything about. It was no where near the epidemic plague that it is today. Our chances are almost 50% that we will have cancer in our lifetime. That's 1 in 2 people will develop cancer. My x-wife just had cancer removed. My brother and father both had a type of skin cancer. My cousin had a large portion of her tounge removed. My grandfather had it. My great grandmother died from it. My x-wife's mother died from it. My friends wife's parents are both dying from terminal cancer. I know not one person who has AIDS or has died of it, but cancer... it's everywhere now. Terry Fox certainly did run; but now we are all running the risks of this disease and I feel with out doubt that the nuclear energy unleashed on humanity throughout the ages is the number one cause of Cancer period. Cancer kills more people because it is one of the very few ailments that cannot be cured or managed long-term. years ago people used to die from typhus, mumps, syphilis, smallpox, rubella, etc etc...the list goes on...humanity (at least in the developed world) has basically cured or found ways to prevent all of these. This leaves a greater "window of opportunity" for dying by cancer or heart disease: the two big unsolvabkes left. So now you die of cancer at age 75 instead of dying of whooping cough at age 60. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 19514744 Australia 11/15/2013 04:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Citizenperth User ID: 49108311 Australia 11/15/2013 04:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.medicalnewstoday.com] Quoting: YouAreDreaming According to French researchers, the incidence of cancer is expected to increase by more than 75% by the year 2030 in developed countries, and over 90% in developing nations. The study is published Online First in the Lancet Oncology. "Cancer is already the leading cause of death in many high-income countries and is set to become a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the next decades in every region of the world; this study serves as an important reference point in drawing attention to the need for global action to reduce the increasing burden of cancer." -- And I expect those numbers to be even higher. I remember when Terry Fox had cancer and it was one of those diseases back then you hardly knew anything about. It was no where near the epidemic plague that it is today. Our chances are almost 50% that we will have cancer in our lifetime. That's 1 in 2 people will develop cancer. My x-wife just had cancer removed. My brother and father both had a type of skin cancer. My cousin had a large portion of her tounge removed. My grandfather had it. My great grandmother died from it. My x-wife's mother died from it. My friends wife's parents are both dying from terminal cancer. I know not one person who has AIDS or has died of it, but cancer... it's everywhere now. Terry Fox certainly did run; but now we are all running the risks of this disease and I feel with out doubt that the nuclear energy unleashed on humanity throughout the ages is the number one cause of Cancer period. Cancer kills more people because it is one of the very few ailments that cannot be cured or managed long-term. years ago people used to die from typhus, mumps, syphilis, smallpox, rubella, etc etc...the list goes on...humanity (at least in the developed world) has basically cured or found ways to prevent all of these. This leaves a greater "window of opportunity" for dying by cancer or heart disease: the two big unsolvabkes left. So now you die of cancer at age 75 instead of dying of whooping cough at age 60. you won't die of cancer if you smile It's life as we know it, but only just. [link to citizenperth.wordpress.com] sic ut vos es vos should exsisto , denego alius vicis facio vos change , exsisto youself , proprie |
TruthBard User ID: 49955806 United States 11/15/2013 04:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
TruthBard User ID: 49955806 United States 11/15/2013 04:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Or not if you die from heart disease, or anyone of a number of other radiation related illnesses which could take you out first. Looks good on a UN report that's for sure. "Oh no they all died from heart disease, we don't recognize that as a radiation related illness. Please fuck off and die." Last Edited by TruthBard on 11/15/2013 04:10 AM |