Radiation at Extremely Low Levels - June 6,2006

[Guest guest]

Radiation at Extremely Low Levels International Medical Veritas Association Radiation at extremely low levels is a health hazard that medicine is not dealing with because it uses dangerous levels of radiation in both its diagnosis and treatment of disease. Radiation hazards have been grossly underestimated because they have to be. If they were not then both the medical industry and the atomic power industry would be vulnerable to staggering liabilities. Radiation is an invisible terror that works insidiously in the background so it is easy to hide its place in the deterioration of the publics’ health. But slowly and steadily radiation hazards are destroying not only our health but that of our children and our children’s children and many more generations to come. (This week the IMVA will publish about mercury in the air as a similar hazard. But coming next is Uranium Causes Cancer) "Chernobyl" remains what it became 20 years ago, the name of a horror that doesn't show itself. Serge Schmemann NY Times “The results of surveys and biological monitoring of children and adults of Chernobyl point unambiguously to a steady, rapid and dramatic deterioration of health of all victims of the radiation impact of the Chernobyl accident” wrote doctors E.B. Burlakova & A.G. Nazarov of the Emanuel Institute of Biochemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. Most interestingly they continue saying, “The dose dependence of the radiation effect may be non-linear, non-monotonic and polymodal in character. Over certain dose ranges, low-level irradiation is more devastating with regard to the results of its action on an organism or a population than acute high-level radiation.” In July of 2005 the National Academy of Sciences came to the conclusion that the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless. Many scientists generally assumed that low levels of radiation are harmless, since they produced no immediately observable effects. However during the past few decades tremendously improved radiation measurement techniques coupled with detailed laboratory studies revealed many previously unsuspected hazards from low levels of ionized radiation. Some researchers have even added the view that chronic low level exposure to radiation poses a greater risk than short term high level exposure.[ii] Radiation is normally classified into ionizing and non-ionizing types. Non-ionizing radiation comes in the form of light, radio waves, microwaves and radar. These types of radiation generally do not cause tissue damage, though there are those who would argue rationally about that. Ionizing radiation is radiation that produces immediate chemical effects (ionization) on human tissue. X-rays, gamma rays, and particle bombardment (neutron beam, electron beam, protons, mesons, and others) give off ionizing radiation. This type of radiation can be used for medical testing and treatment, industrial testing, manufacturing, sterilization, weapons and weapons development, and many other uses. Radiation sickness results when humans (or other animals) are exposed to ionizing radiation. Radiation exposure can occur as a single large exposure (acute), or a series of small exposures spread over time (chronic). Radiation sickness is generally associated with acute exposure and has a characteristic set of symptoms that appear in an orderly fashion. Chronic exposure is usually associated with delayed medical problems such as cancer and premature aging, which may develop over a long period of time Ionizing radiation is a proven and ubiquitous mutagen to which humans everywhere are exposed (medically, environmentally, and occupationally). Moreover, unlike some chemical mutagens,[iii] ionizing radiation is capable of inflicting every possible kind of mutation, from a single "base-change" to deletion of entire genes. It is especially potent at inducing the kind of complex genetic injuries which cannot be repaired. The degree of illness (acute radiation sickness) depends on the dose and the rate of exposure. Exposure from x-rays or gamma rays is measured in units of roentgens. For example: Total body exposure of 100 roentgens causes radiation sickness. Total body exposure of 400 roentgens causes radiation sickness and death in half the individuals. 100,000 rads causes almost immediate unconsciousness and death within an hour. Through the decades much effort was put into reducing the dose from medical X-rays when it was realized that only a few rads per year received by radiologists in the course of their work had been found to decrease their life spans significantly, while among their children there had been a definite increase in congenital defects. Clearly all forms of radiation are dangerous. When all the different forms of exposure are combined with heavy metal toxicity from other metals like lead, aluminum, arsenic and mercury, we have the makings of a health disaster. As early as 1955 Dr. Alice Stewart, head of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Oxford University, became aware of a sharp rise in leukemia among young children in England. By May 1957, after the analysis of 1299 cases, half of which involved leukemia and the rest mainly brain and kidney tumors, her study had been completed. The data showed that babies born of mothers who had a series of X-rays of the pelvic region during pregnancy were nearly twice as likely to develop leukemia or another form of cancer, as those born of mothers who had not been X-rayed. Dr. Stewart concluded that the dose from diagnostic X-rays could produce a clearly detectable increase in childhood cancer when given during pregnancy.[iv] Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, who was professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in his book Secret Fallout – Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island, indicated that the risk increased with each additional picture, as the studies of Stewart indicated it did. This clearly implied that there was no significant healing of the damage and thus that the cancer-causing effects of radiation were cumulative.[v] This would mean that the effects of a dose received over a period of time from fallout would be similar to those from an equal dose received all at once from X-rays. Even worse was the realization that children whose mothers were X-rayed during the first third of their pregnancy were found to be ten times more likely to develop cancer than those whose mothers were X-rayed toward the end of pregnancy. Fallout from above ground tests, from nuclear accidents, from depleted uranium weapons, and even from everyday radiation from nuclear power plants operating normally would pose a direct threat to mothers pregnant in their first trimester. Dr. Sternglass concluded that all the research led to the most tragic conclusion that the unborn fetus was hundreds or thousands of times more sensitive to radiation than anyone had ever suspected. The geographic patterns of the changes in worldwide leukemia and infant mortality trends between 1945 and 1955 clearly matched the patterns of fallout. Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass According to the now antiquated "threshold" theory there was a certain low level of radiation exposure, a "threshold," below which no damage would be caused. If this threshold was about the same as the yearly dose from background radiation or from exposure to typical diagnostic X-rays, as various supporters of nuclear programs maintained it was, then we could all sleep safe knowning that the military and medical industrial complexes were not doing us harm. But Dr. Stewart's study implied that if there were any safe threshold for unborn children and infants it would have to be less than the dose from a single X-ray picture. From the simplest x-ray to each particle of uranium inhaled on the wind or drunk from water we have a problem. What few doctors and health officials recognize is that chemicals and radiation combine to act on the very same cellular enzyme pathways. One type of contamination reinforces and strengthens the others so medical treatments need to address both chemical toxicity and radiation poisoning simultaneously. Exposure to radiation causes a cascade of free radicals that wreak havoc on the body. Radiation also decimates the body's supply of glutathione, which allows free radicals to run rampant through our body's tissues and organs. The health establishment’s reactions to radiation dangers are retarded because, from the beginning, physicians saw radiation as a promising new therapy for treating nearly every ailment under the sun. Though science knows well the dangers, modern medicine continues to use radiation recklessly for diagnosis and for the treatment of cancer. The International Commission on Radiation Protection [iCRP] existsin practice largely to play down the effects of radiation on human health, and to shield the nuclear industry from compensation claims from the public. Many people will be surprised to find out that the so-called "fluoride" we use in much of the American water supplies, is fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), and comes from the US fertilizer industry.[vi] Fluorides and radionuclides are the primary toxic pollutants from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer; and according to health activist Tim Bolen, people living near fertilizer plants and mines experience lung cancer and leukemia rates that are double the state average. Radium wastes from filtration systems at phosphate fertilizer facilities are radioactive.[vii] In promoting the use of the pollution concentrate as a fluoridation agent, the American Dental Association, Federal agencies and manufacturers failed to mention that it was radioactive,[viii] which is highly strange if not sickening. Whenever uranium is found in nature as a component of a mineral, a host of other radionuclides are always found in the mineral in various stages of decay. Uranium and all of its decay-rate products are found in phosphate rock, fluorosilicic acid and phosphate fertilizer. While the uranium and radium in fluorosilicic acid are known carcinogens, two decay products of uranium are even more carcinogenic: radon-222 and polonium-210. It is important to realize how many sources of radioactive contamination there are. When we present medical treatments for radiation poisoning, which is similar to treatments for heavy metal toxicity, we are not going to find much support from the medical establishment.. To basic science all radiation is dangerous and life threatening. But according to modern medicine and the United States government there is nothing to worry about, radiation and heavy metals are as safe as mothers milk. Actually this is a bad comparisson because mothers milk itself becomes polluted with the heavy metals and radiation poisoning of the mother. It’s clear this issue about the health effects is out there and floating around. But it’s also clear the Pentagon does not want to study it. Rep. Jim McDermott D-Wash. Mark Sircus Ac., OMDDirector International Medical Veritas Association http://www.imva.infohttp://www.magnesimforlife.com+55-83-3252-2195www.skype.com ID: marksircus International Medical Veritas Association Copyright 2006 All rights reserved. IMPORTANT

[Guest guest]

Eagle,

I love your comment its hit so much that`s wrong, just add a bit of nanochemical and nanobacteria; along with political corrupton and manufactures of technology who have led us down the path of telling us its new, and we sort of don`t really know how safe it all is??? But we must have.

MRI scanors could be band in 2008 under EU law, however it is very unlikely as its so useful; too useful: Staff in adjacent rooms to these machines are getting sick. Only one patient so I read had electrosensitivety with their fillings after treatment; correction after exposure. So many times I`ve heard people say "I`ve got a bad back I am going to have an X-ray". As if they think the X-ray will correct the problem. I`ve likewise read that some people have been cured by MRI machines, the electromagnetic field did something???

However if the so called marketing had said MRI machine are using the same sorts of frequencies as microwave or Radar.. I am quite sure they would be asking for the X-ray machine instead.

A link to this consultant at a hospital made a serious error by throwing away X-rays of patients who had brain surgary for pituitary disease. These patients some of them had metal ties in their brain. If they were put in the MRI, they would light -up, just like if you put a metal container in the microwave oven. (We don`t on the whole keep our own medical records in the uk). Hospitals throw out records every 5 to 7 years if you have not attened for that time. (the NHS can`t afford money, its now spending on a national computer record system).

In the 1980`s I talked to one of the so called inventers of MRI at Nottingham University`s open day: He said that "he did not know how safe MRI machines were"; with the emphasis on magnetic, and the detction of water, within the body. X-ray being more harmful, or so we might be, slighly led to think! and so its got on the market.

The aircraft industry along with the military have sort to hide much of what we call new technology. 1950`s militatry technology is being used in our interactive video games and probably surgary, where they don`t open you up anymore (can`t remember what its called). This links to heads-up-displays and remote sensing.. Which is the baisis of Robo Cop direct linkage to brain/computer.

Only main stream science has been turned on its head to hide this effect, its left scienctists not even understanding what was known science back in the 1950`s and before. Its developed into superstition and psudo- science. While 20+ patents have misdirected so called intellegent men and women, be they the pubic at large, scientist or doctor into using so called low level radiation. My computer is so called low level radiation! How they soon forget?

A 1970`s computer filled a room, how power was that? But today`s computer is only hand held or even "nanobot" it contains the same power=info, and more besides. Yet like head less chickens` if you question why, and then tell them how, they the expert says sudo-science. When I was at school in the 1970`s my physics teacher as part of the lesson told the class. "There is no such thing as Free Energy".

The reason why there`s no such thing as free energy; or so they thinking was that friction, with the very air itself would slow these devices up and make them non-viable. Hence Free Energy machines have this double life they, being sold as low powered and power effeicient.

But hold it right there! Enron or the National grid in the UK (one assumes its the same with other countries power supply companies..) Don`t use these Free Energy systems. They consider them not power efficient and low powered, or low level radaition as you put it.

Confused so you should be! Green technology is low level radition however, a wind turbine which is able to supply 1000`s of homes with power, comes to produce, not only Free Energy, but low level radaition, needs serious questions? When electricity companies don`t use this technology within their own units, yet do not question it when its being sold to them vire the wind turbine companies.

The Greens and the governments inorder to save the planet have been sucked in.... I have found that much of technology does not comply to BSI Standards for health and safety as well as interferance on other electrical systems, which was most governments, concern through the Radiofrequency spectrum on military equipment..

Hence in the UK we had Radiocommunications Ageancy now called OFCOM its now been made semi-privatised, just like the MoD itself has two divisons DSTL being one, I`ve got a memory problem as to what the others called.. But they seem to have been able to to sell what was pervious secret technology, without knowing themselves, how it really works, or the authorties having the intelligence to question. Dispite experts saying, it does not comply to standards.

Radiocommunication ageancy said these devices did not comply to BSI but it was their responcibilty..Local councils and the government have been left in enforce this law.. What they consider jobs not health and safety. If industry wants to kill us, an they provding jobs.

How do you change what was basic civlian science into being, a load of rubbish. While the civilan experts wave their meters at technology and seem to hardly understand how it works. Its like the governments own secracy laws have back fired, with so many scientists of the 1950`s being gagged and now dead. However there are one or two still around who were very young in the 1950`s and remember are now into Mind Control.

That Mind Control as well as healing was band by the FDA in some US states during the 1920/30/50`s.. Radionics being one of the many names used. Its still covered largley in secracy for military purpose these low level radiation/Free Energy systems were developed into The Manhattan Project and The Phildalphia Experiment. This technology was breifly declassified in 1950, then reclassified in by 1955 and the Cold-War, it evolved into Stealth Technology; that being communications, propultion and non-lethal weapons (Freqency basied and subliminal messages).

In the 1920`s they knew this technology could kill, but by changing the frequency it could heal. As in the MRI machine.

However there were two basic power systems; which seem to have be merged into one! But tell them, "head in sand department".

Some scientists seem to have reinvented this once band science, even now! As I said a change in language, and the way you explain and of course look at a product it becomes another animal.

Civilian science is measuring techology with a meter, whereas Einstein would of calcaulted that same energy. He would of worked it out in a completely different way, which would of been Calculous.

While civlian science seems to be based on heard or seen energy, if you are not able to see or hear that energy then it does not exsist. Sudo-science or pretent science has been created by luck and poor obsevation by science after the 1950`s to fill a gap.

Science is living in two different zones: That being Quantum Physics/space/military/ is left to the quantum physists, but that line of knowlege seems to be bluredand machanical engineering and electrical engineering are left to their own fields. There must be a few mathmaticans who have been gagged?

I found a mathatican on the net at Southampton University saying energy was far more powerful than present day equations were saying..I email but recivied no responce. I did try and track him down. The maths department knew nothing of him or his methods. I would have to pay them to do a job.

Hence how we have come to the point where low level radiation has been misstranslated into being low level. When it never was, all because the military wanted to do keep and eye on us all. But they can`t stop the badies. So non-lethal weapons are being used with unfortold effects on our DNA.

Prof. Malcolm Hooper mensions organophosphates as a cause for Gulf War Syndrome and that breaks down DNA. A previous UK government report said that said that troops were already brain damaged... However the military have been combining Radiofrequency RF with chemical/biological pollution for a long time. We now call it nanoparticles before the sudo-scientists label comes out!

Energy exisits in both sine waves and particles. The way those particles are seen to travel in water and Wave Machanics is how the world works. However the electrican or noise consulant has a slightly different understanding. Something has been lost in translation.

Basic school Science tells us that the difference between soilds and liquids is the speed of particles, in that soilds still move but much slower, than liquids; while gases move very fast.

In normal school science the speed of particles is changed by adding or heat or taking it away heat.. The conversion on the Periodic Table; changing base metal into gold, was said to need a high energy and pressure. Either cooling or heating, to move it up and down the Periodic Table. In simplistic terms anything could be made to be anything.

However going back in time to Tesla 1879, he had found a way of breaking into this field. Main stream science lost this knowelge predends not to know? Tesla`s technology is the basis of modern technology. He develop the basis of radio, but was using it to move power or electricity about without a wire. Someone beat him to it by creating the National grid with wires. But much of his science was miniturized to be modern day technology....

Going back to what I said eariler there were two sciences, and they have been turned into one. In the very simplistic terms one tradition worked on clockwise system mono-phase and another works on a muti-phase system or anti-clockwise in effect. So instead of a very large device only generating a mono-phase and very small device generate a multi-phase.

But its like runing a clockwise and a anti-clockwise power within the same device. Or mixing anlogue and digitial within the same device. Each of these parts produce an amplifiaction and frequencies merg and mask leaving meters and measuring devices barley able to understand...Along with the electrician or noise expert who is meant to deciper.

He still thinks he`s measuring a car engine, not an orchestra, and even that car engine is no better than say a triangle being played in the orchestra. The metering system is not up to the job, yet its like the Emperia with no clothes everyone says what fine clothes! No one steps out of line.

Hence we have the Lie of low level radiation.. The BSI Standards for electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) says that large devices need to be calculated by using vertices (More like matrices) . Because a computer, or technology is no longer large in size; yet large in power; this has been lost MASKED by industry and secrecy going back over 50 +years it has not taken long to let science forget, its playing with nuclear energy, not just electromagnetic, with the emphasis on magnetic being harmless. There is no such thing as ionizing and non-lonizing radiation... All radiation is ionizing radiation, the difference is that radioactive ionization is superposed to be a faster radiation to so called electromagnetic.

However this is not how it happens in a power station, where the electromagnet part generates either protons or neutrons, to slow or speed the production of radioactivity,.both the magnetic element and the radioactive metal are considered as nuclear/radioactive. It all happens in a change of names. To make it seem less harmful, and may be to hide it a little as to how it really works. The essence of life of life, is radioactivity "The ARC" may be the grail?

Magnetic energy is slow nuclear energy, but its as slow as you like it or as fast as you like it. A hand held or small device can kill.

From the spiritual or energetic view the univeral energy is being made to work in the wrong direction.. Science has broken into, how the magic of the world works.. Yet they still don`t know!

If I said your spirit was not at home, because of this technology, and you have been taken, what would you do? What could you do about

Tell you its new we don`t know; 100+ years and they have forgotten! We can only get over it, while they play

Carol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, "Eagle" <MedResearch121 wrote:>> > > Radiation at Extremely Low Levels > International Medical Veritas Association > > Radiation at extremely low levels is a health hazard that medicine is not dealing with because it uses dangerous levels of radiation in both its diagnosis and treatment of disease. Radiation hazards have been grossly underestimated because they have to be. If they were not then both the medical industry and the atomic power industry would be vulnerable to staggering liabilities. Radiation is an invisible terror that works insidiously in the background so it is easy to hide its place in the deterioration of the publics' health. But slowly and steadily radiation hazards are destroying not only our health but that of our children and our children's children and many more generations to come. (This week the IMVA will publish about mercury in the air as a similar hazard. But coming next is Uranium Causes Cancer) > > "Chernobyl" remains what it became 20 years ago, > the name of a horror that doesn't show itself. > Serge Schmemann > NY Times > > "The results of surveys and biological monitoring of children and adults of Chernobyl point unambiguously to a steady, rapid and dramatic deterioration of health of all victims of the radiation impact of the Chernobyl accident" wrote doctors E.B. Burlakova & A.G. Nazarov of the Emanuel Institute of Biochemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow. Most interestingly they continue saying, "The dose dependence of the radiation effect may be non-linear, non-monotonic and polymodal in character. Over certain dose ranges, low-level irradiation is more devastating with regard to the results of its action on an organism or a population than acute high-level radiation." > > In July of 2005 the National Academy of Sciences came to the conclusion that the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless. Many scientists generally assumed that low levels of radiation are harmless, since they produced no immediately observable effects. However during the past few decades tremendously improved radiation measurement techniques coupled with detailed laboratory studies revealed many previously unsuspected hazards from low levels of ionized radiation. Some researchers have even added the view that chronic low level exposure to radiation poses a greater risk than short term high level exposure.[ii] > > Radiation is normally classified into ionizing and non-ionizing types. Non-ionizing radiation comes in the form of light, radio waves, microwaves and radar. These types of radiation generally do not cause tissue damage, though there are those who would argue rationally about that. Ionizing radiation is radiation that produces immediate chemical effects (ionization) on human tissue. X-rays, gamma rays, and particle bombardment (neutron beam, electron beam, protons, mesons, and others) give off ionizing radiation. This type of radiation can be used for medical testing and treatment, industrial testing, manufacturing, sterilization, weapons and weapons development, and many other uses. Radiation sickness results when humans (or other animals) are exposed to ionizing radiation. > > Radiation exposure can occur as a single large exposure (acute), or a series of small exposures spread over time (chronic). Radiation sickness is generally associated with acute exposure and has a characteristic set of symptoms that appear in an orderly fashion. Chronic exposure is usually associated with delayed medical problems such as cancer and premature aging, which may develop over a long period of time > > Ionizing radiation is a proven and ubiquitous mutagen to which humans everywhere are exposed (medically, environmentally, and occupationally). Moreover, unlike some chemical mutagens,[iii] ionizing radiation is capable of inflicting every possible kind of mutation, from a single "base-change" to deletion of entire genes. It is especially potent at inducing the kind of complex genetic injuries which cannot be repaired. > > The degree of illness (acute radiation sickness) depends on the dose and the rate of exposure. Exposure from x-rays or gamma rays is measured in units of roentgens. For example: Total body exposure of 100 roentgens causes radiation sickness. Total body exposure of 400 roentgens causes radiation sickness and death in half the individuals. 100,000 rads causes almost immediate unconsciousness and death within an hour. > > Through the decades much effort was put into reducing the dose from medical X-rays when it was realized that only a few rads per year received by radiologists in the course of their work had been found to decrease their life spans significantly, while among their children there had been a definite increase in congenital defects. Clearly all forms of radiation are dangerous. When all the different forms of exposure are combined with heavy metal toxicity from other metals like lead, aluminum, arsenic and mercury, we have the makings of a health disaster. > > As early as 1955 Dr. Alice Stewart, head of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Oxford University, became aware of a sharp rise in leukemia among young children in England. By May 1957, after the analysis of 1299 cases, half of which involved leukemia and the rest mainly brain and kidney tumors, her study had been completed. The data showed that babies born of mothers who had a series of X-rays of the pelvic region during pregnancy were nearly twice as likely to develop leukemia or another form of cancer, as those born of mothers who had not been X-rayed. Dr. Stewart concluded that the dose from diagnostic X-rays could produce a clearly detectable increase in childhood cancer when given during pregnancy.[iv] > > Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, who was professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in his book Secret Fallout – Low-Level Radiation From Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island, indicated that the risk increased with each additional picture, as the studies of Stewart indicated it did. This clearly implied that there was no significant healing of the damage and thus that the cancer-causing effects of radiation were cumulative.[v] This would mean that the effects of a dose received over a period of time from fallout would be similar to those from an equal dose received all at once from X-rays. Even worse was the realization that children whose mothers were X-rayed during the first third of their pregnancy were found to be ten times more likely to develop cancer than those whose mothers were X-rayed toward the end of pregnancy. > > Fallout from above ground tests, from nuclear accidents, from depleted uranium weapons, and even from everyday radiation from nuclear power plants operating normally would pose a direct threat to mothers pregnant in their first trimester. Dr. Sternglass concluded that all the research led to the most tragic conclusion that the unborn fetus was hundreds or thousands of times more sensitive to radiation than anyone had ever suspected. > > The geographic patterns of the changes in worldwide > leukemia and infant mortality trends between 1945 > and 1955 clearly matched the patterns of fallout. > Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass > > According to the now antiquated "threshold" theory there was a certain low level of radiation exposure, a "threshold," below which no damage would be caused. If this threshold was about the same as the yearly dose from background radiation or from exposure to typical diagnostic X-rays, as various supporters of nuclear programs maintained it was, then we could all sleep safe knowning that the military and medical industrial complexes were not doing us harm. But Dr. Stewart's study implied that if there were any safe threshold for unborn children and infants it would have to be less than the dose from a single X-ray picture. > > From the simplest x-ray to each particle of uranium inhaled > on the wind or drunk from water we have a problem. > > What few doctors and health officials recognize is that chemicals and radiation combine to act on the very same cellular enzyme pathways. One type of contamination reinforces and strengthens the others so medical treatments need to address both chemical toxicity and radiation poisoning simultaneously. Exposure to radiation causes a cascade of free radicals that wreak havoc on the body. Radiation also decimates the body's supply of glutathione, which allows free radicals to run rampant through our body's tissues and organs. The health establishment's reactions to radiation dangers are retarded because, from the beginning, physicians saw radiation as a promising new therapy for treating nearly every ailment under the sun. Though science knows well the dangers, modern medicine continues to use radiation recklessly for diagnosis and for the treatment of cancer. > > The International Commission on Radiation Protection [iCRP] exists > in practice largely to play down the effects of radiation on human health, > and to shield the nuclear industry from compensation claims from the public. > > Many people will be surprised to find out that the so-called "fluoride" we use in much of the American water supplies, is fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), and comes from the US fertilizer industry.[vi] Fluorides and radionuclides are the primary toxic pollutants from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer; and according to health activist Tim Bolen, people living near fertilizer plants and mines experience lung cancer and leukemia rates that are double the state average. Radium wastes from filtration systems at phosphate fertilizer facilities are radioactive.[vii] > > In promoting the use of the pollution concentrate as a fluoridation agent, the American Dental Association, Federal agencies and manufacturers failed to mention that it was radioactive,[viii] which is highly strange if not sickening. Whenever uranium is found in nature as a component of a mineral, a host of other radionuclides are always found in the mineral in various stages of decay. Uranium and all of its decay-rate products are found in phosphate rock, fluorosilicic acid and phosphate fertilizer. While the uranium and radium in fluorosilicic acid are known carcinogens, two decay products of uranium are even more carcinogenic: radon-222 and polonium-210. > > It is important to realize how many sources of radioactive contamination there are. When we present medical treatments for radiation poisoning, which is similar to treatments for heavy metal toxicity, we are not going to find much support from the medical establishment.. To basic science all radiation is dangerous and life threatening. But according to modern medicine and the United States government there is nothing to worry about, radiation and heavy metals are as safe as mothers milk. Actually this is a bad comparisson because mothers milk itself becomes polluted with the heavy metals and radiation poisoning of the mother. > > It's clear this issue about the health effects is out there and floating > around. But it's also clear the Pentagon does not want to study it. > Rep. Jim McDermott > D-Wash. > > > Mark Sircus Ac., OMD > Director International Medical Veritas Association > http://www.imva.info > http://www.magnesimforlife.com > +55-83-3252-2195 > www.skype.com ID: marksircus > > > > > International Medical Veritas Association > Copyright 2006 All rights reserved. > > IMPORTANT