The Fallout Hypothesis

Yesterday I sketched out some of my reasons for doubting that smoking caused lung cancer, and a couple of my alternative hypotheses. It drew quite a few comments. And it’s in response to one of these that I’m going to write some more about one of them: the radioactive fall-out hypothesis.

One of the strengths of the fall-out hypothesis is that it’s fairly well known that small amounts of radioactive material cause cancers. I’ve read that when mice are painted with radioactive material, they invariably develop cancer. It wasn’t just 10% or 20% of them. It was the whole lot.

There are a variety of fall-out hypotheses. One of these is that radioactive fall-out lands on food crops, and finds its way into humans that way. Same if it lands on tobacco plants.

But the fallout hypothesis that I was turning over a few years back was that, between about 1945 annd 1965, there was a constant rain of fall-out coming down everywhere in the Northern hemisphere all day every day. It only stopped with the 1963 Test Ban treaty which confined nuclear weapons testing underground. But even then the Chinese and the French carried on testing. There are some maps available online showing the geographic distribution and density. The upper map below is cesium-137 deposition (bq/m2) across the USA, with red 8000 bq/m2, and blue 0 bq/m2. The lower map is lung, trachea, bronchus and pleura cancer mortality, 1970-94 (hat-tip to Fredrik in the comments, from Lauren Colby).

cesium 137 deposition
cancer map

Fredrik Eich in the comments under yesterday’s post said that the problem he had with this theory was that men got lung cancer more often than women, “and I don’t see alpha emitting radio nuclides as being that sexist!” And I remembered that I’d thought about this too, and come up with what seemed a plausible explanation for the cancer difference between the sexes.

The explanation was that the interiors of houses were protected from falling radioactive particles in exactly the same way that they were protected from falling rain. It ran off the roof into the gutters. So if you spent most of your time indoors you were less likely to get sprinkled with fall-out than if you spent most of your time outdoors. And you’d be correspondingly less likely to get fall-out-induced lung cancer from inhaling airborne radioactive particles.

On this hypothesis, it would be people working outdoors much of their lives, like farmers and labourers and builders and the like who would be more likely to develop lung cancer and other forms of cancer, because they were being sprinkled with radioactive material falling from the sky. And these people are almost always men. There are very few women labourers or builders or farmers, because it’s very much men’s work.

In addition, back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, most women were married houswives. They didn’t have jobs. They stayed at home and looked after babies and children, and they cooked and cleaned and washed. Occasionally they’d go out and do some shopping, but that was very often a short trip to a local shop. These women spent most of their time indoors. So they were pretty safe from the ever-falling radioactive particles coming down from the sky.

Their breadwinner husbands, by contrast, were usually out the door by 8am to catch a bus or train to their place of work. Even if they worked in sheltered offices or factories, they’d spend an hour or two every day standing by bus stops, waiting on open platforms, or riding bicycles, with the drizzle of fall-out landing on them. Furthermore, the nature of the work of some of these office workers would have obliged them to spend periods of time outside. Architects would have to visit building sites, van drivers would deliver goods, etc. The degree of exposure of men to the outside environment would have increased as their social status decreased, with labourers digging up roads having the highest exposure, and Whitehall mandarins in their offices having the lowest exposure. And even the Whitehall mandarins would very often have a higher exposure to the external environment than women who went out shopping once a week for groceries.

So, it’s not that radioactive fall-out was sexist. It was that men almost always spent more time outside than women did, and got covered with more fall-out.

fallout rainA further objection to the fall-out hypothesis might be that it was fairly well known that lung cancer was more common in cities than in the countryside. How could the fall-out hypothesis explain that? The answer is: in precisely the same way that it just explained how people who spent their time inside houses were safer than people who spent most of their time outside them.

Cities are made up of impervious materials like tiles and tarmac and concrete and steel. Water mostly runs off. And so does fall-out. Both remain on the surface in cities. But in the countryside the ground is absorbent. Rainwater sinks into it, and percolates away underground. And so does fall-out. Or at least the smallest particles of fall-out. It doesn’t remain on the surface. And this means that in cities there’s likely to be build-up of radioactive fall-out sitting on roofs and in gutters and on the street below. Much of this will gradually be washed away by rainfall into storm sewers, but in dry weather the fall-out will be blowing around from one roof to another, and from one road to another. And this won’t be happening so much out in the country. Hence the impermeable cities will have a much higher density fo fall-out build up in them than the permeable grass-covered earth around them. Cities will be more radio-actively ‘hot’ than the countryside. And so there’ll be more cancer in cities than in the countryside.

Cleanliness will also have an effect. Just like rainwater can be brought into houses on wet shoes or umbrellas or coats, so fall-out can come into houses in exactly the same way. The water eventually evaporates, but the fall-out is likely to stay on the floor. Unless the floor is regularly swept, or better still, vacuumed, it may be inhaled or otherwise ingested.

The same applies to personal hygiene. If you don’t wash, your skin is likely to get covered in fall-out, and stay that way. But if you regularly wash your whole body, and your hair, and your clothes, most of the fall-out will be washed out. It also helps if you buy new clothes quite regularly.

I believe that the incidence of cancer in women is becoming much more like that of men than it was 50 or 60 years ago. And that would be explained by women ceasing to be housewives and instead going out to work every day just like their husbands. This increases their exposure to the fallout-laden external environment. So also will exposure be increased by wearing fewer or lighter clothes – the result of changing fashions.

The same sort of reasoning might be used to explain differences between different countries or cultures. There seems to be a lower incidence of cancer in Mediterranean countries like Spain and Greece. How might that be explained using the fall-out hypothesis? It may just come down to how long people spend outside. And in hot countries, people tend to stay in the shade. And being in the shade very often means being indoors. Cultural differences (e.g. the incidence of housewives) would also affect this. Even differences in architectural styles would affect it. So also would the degree of economic activity. Economic growth means more roads, trains, power lines, drains, and more labourers working outside.building these roads and houses and factories. It means more people going out to work every day. Greece and Spain were, until recently, relatively economically backward. You’d have to look at the culture of each country separately.

The peak of the rain of fall-out would have been from the late 40s through to the late 60s. After that, the fall-out would have dwindled away as atmospheric testing stopped. But because many radioactive materials have half-lives of hundreds of years there’s probably quite a lot of it about still, particularly in cities. When was the last time London or Birmingham had a good wash?

One thing that the fall-out hypothesis can’t explain, however, is the increasing incidence of lung cancer prior to the first nuclear bomb tests in 1945, because there wasn’t any fall-out before then. Lung cancer incidence started rising in 1920, or even slightly earlier. But this increase might have been caused by a different sort of ‘fall-out’. Marie Curie first isolated radium in about 1900, and was unaware of the danger of radioactive materials to human tissues. And shortly afterwards there began to appear radium soaps and even radium drinks, as well as radium clock hands and numbers. Radium was pretty much being sold by the pound in grocers’ shops, wrapped in greaseproof paper. So radioactive material in considerable quantities was percolating through society. And so that was what was causing the rising incidence of cancer. All these products are gone now, but when I was in my teens in about 1960, I had what was probably one of the last of the radioactive wristwatches. It glowed in the dark like a bunch of fireflies. I’ve never seen a watch like it since.

So that’s the fall-out hypothesis more or less as I dreamt it up a few years ago.

The constituents of radioactive fall-out are probably pretty well known. Some constituents will have short half-lives, and some long ones. We’re living now in the trailing edge of a wave of radioactive material that has been passing through our societies for the past 100 years, peaking in the 1950s and 60s. If the half-lives of the constituents of fall-out are very long, then the trailing edge of the wave will decay slowly, and there’ll be plenty more cancer for everybody for a century or more. The incidence of all kinds of cancers will probably plateau, but not fall much. The likelihood of anyone getting cancer would vary with their age. The longer someone lives, the greater the likelihood of fall-out lodging on their skin, or in their lungs or throat or stomach. But even young children would be quite likely to develop cancers, if they lived in a fall-out hot spot.

Counter-measures against it would be cleanliness, and particularly cleanliness of city streets, which would need not just to be swept, but washed and scrubbed. Roofs should also be cleaned and washed. And walls as well. Houses should be regularly vacuumed (because sweeping is likely to disperse fall-out). Skin and hair and clothes should be regularly washed.

Anyway it’s just a hypothesis. Quite likely there isn’t a shred of truth in it.

WUWT Going bananas over radiation

Also, Fallout Hypothesis 2, Fallout Hypothesis 3, Revisiting the Fallout Hypothesis.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to The Fallout Hypothesis

  1. Anonymous says:

    Anyway it’s just a hypothesis. Quite likely there isn’t a shred of truth in it.
    Still, better to mention it than not. The more information people have about the world, the better. I have never seen the cesium-137 map before. Interesting.
    Snakey

  2. Anonymous says:

    Anyway it’s just a hypothesis. Quite likely there isn’t a shred of truth in it.
    Still, better to mention it than not. The more information people have about the world, the better. I have never seen the cesium-137 map before. Interesting.
    Snakey

  3. Anonymous says:

    Article about car exhaust fumes — ‘We’re all going to die!’
    Thanks, Frank, for continuing the theme and for the map.
    There is also the matter of car exhaust:
    http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm
    We have many more cars on the road these days, and that may be another contributing factor to the higher rate of lung cancer. The article is a bit extreme and will make you wonder why we haven’t all died yet, but has some good points for consideration.
    Fascinating topic of discussion, in any event.
    Have you read the Guardian readers’ take on the Billie Piper incident? Worth a look at the comments, most of which (surprisingly) are critical of the SHS hysteria:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/22/billie-piper-smoking?showallcomments=true#comment-51
    Churchmouse

  4. Anonymous says:

    Article about car exhaust fumes — ‘We’re all going to die!’
    Thanks, Frank, for continuing the theme and for the map.
    There is also the matter of car exhaust:
    http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm
    We have many more cars on the road these days, and that may be another contributing factor to the higher rate of lung cancer. The article is a bit extreme and will make you wonder why we haven’t all died yet, but has some good points for consideration.
    Fascinating topic of discussion, in any event.
    Have you read the Guardian readers’ take on the Billie Piper incident? Worth a look at the comments, most of which (surprisingly) are critical of the SHS hysteria:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/22/billie-piper-smoking?showallcomments=true#comment-51
    Churchmouse

  5. Anonymous says:

    Morning Frank
    If I am cluttering up your blog just tell me and I’ll keep quiet.
    Dredged from the archives –
    Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
    And here are some of the mice who helped to prove it!
    Joe Vialls
    “Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies”
    “Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment accidentally found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects.
    But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.”
    http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http://vialls.net/transpositions/smoking.html
    The sexist nature of skin cancer
    “Researchers at the New South Wales Cancer Institute painted healthy volunteers with a lotion containing vitamin B3 or nicotinamide.
    In another first, the study found men were twice as likely to suffer immune damage from the sun than women.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/sophie_scott/newsitems/s1366452.htm
    ‘Malignant Maneuvers’
    “I interviewed Doll while writing about Stewart, the physician and epidemiologist who discovered that the practice of X-raying pregnant women, which was common in the Forties and Fifties, doubled the chance of a childhood cancer.
    Doll and Stewart moved in the same Oxbridge circles, sat on the same committees and editorial boards. Both started out as physicians, then moved into epidemiology after the war, each making major discoveries in the Fifties that helped shape epidemiology so it came to include cancer as well as infectious diseases.
    But after Stewart went public with the dangers of radiation, she plummeted to obscurity, while Doll, credited with discovering the link between lung cancer and smoking, rocketed to fame and a knighthood.”
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/26/malignant-maneuvers/
    Nuclear veterans told: No case for compensation
    “Ministers tell servicemen who witnessed 1950s test explosions they should have claimed years ago
    Ministers have been accused of blocking compensation claims brought by hundreds of nuclear test veterans who believe they developed cancers and other illnesses after being forced to witness atomic bomb experiments in the 1950s and ’60s.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nuclear-veterans-told-no-case-for-compensation-1299678.html
    CLOUD OVER SIR RICHARD
    “”THE last fig leaf of respectability of those disgraceful ministers and civil servants who refused to recognise the suffering caused by atom bomb tests on servicemen has been blown away.
    They should hang their heads in shame for the misery, torment, crippling disease and death they have caused.
    I have been wanting to write that for more than 20 years. Been close, never quite got there. The reason was a man of the greatest medical reputation – Sir Richard Doll, who discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking and because of that could do no wrong.
    Sir Richard was the force behind the National Radiation Protection Board’s insistence that there is no evidence to support the claims by veterans of the Pacific Island tests more than half a century ago.”
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/2006/12/10/cloud-over-sir-richard–98487-18240404/
    I have read enough of Doll’s activities to assume that the opposite of his findings is often true.
    If anyone wishes to examine them, we collected them here.
    http://www.forces.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=363&t=1585
    Rose

  6. Anonymous says:

    Morning Frank
    If I am cluttering up your blog just tell me and I’ll keep quiet.
    Dredged from the archives –
    Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
    And here are some of the mice who helped to prove it!
    Joe Vialls
    “Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies”
    “Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment accidentally found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects.
    But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.”
    http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http://vialls.net/transpositions/smoking.html
    The sexist nature of skin cancer
    “Researchers at the New South Wales Cancer Institute painted healthy volunteers with a lotion containing vitamin B3 or nicotinamide.
    In another first, the study found men were twice as likely to suffer immune damage from the sun than women.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/sophie_scott/newsitems/s1366452.htm
    ‘Malignant Maneuvers’
    “I interviewed Doll while writing about Stewart, the physician and epidemiologist who discovered that the practice of X-raying pregnant women, which was common in the Forties and Fifties, doubled the chance of a childhood cancer.
    Doll and Stewart moved in the same Oxbridge circles, sat on the same committees and editorial boards. Both started out as physicians, then moved into epidemiology after the war, each making major discoveries in the Fifties that helped shape epidemiology so it came to include cancer as well as infectious diseases.
    But after Stewart went public with the dangers of radiation, she plummeted to obscurity, while Doll, credited with discovering the link between lung cancer and smoking, rocketed to fame and a knighthood.”
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/26/malignant-maneuvers/
    Nuclear veterans told: No case for compensation
    “Ministers tell servicemen who witnessed 1950s test explosions they should have claimed years ago
    Ministers have been accused of blocking compensation claims brought by hundreds of nuclear test veterans who believe they developed cancers and other illnesses after being forced to witness atomic bomb experiments in the 1950s and ’60s.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nuclear-veterans-told-no-case-for-compensation-1299678.html
    CLOUD OVER SIR RICHARD
    “”THE last fig leaf of respectability of those disgraceful ministers and civil servants who refused to recognise the suffering caused by atom bomb tests on servicemen has been blown away.
    They should hang their heads in shame for the misery, torment, crippling disease and death they have caused.
    I have been wanting to write that for more than 20 years. Been close, never quite got there. The reason was a man of the greatest medical reputation – Sir Richard Doll, who discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking and because of that could do no wrong.
    Sir Richard was the force behind the National Radiation Protection Board’s insistence that there is no evidence to support the claims by veterans of the Pacific Island tests more than half a century ago.”
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/2006/12/10/cloud-over-sir-richard–98487-18240404/
    I have read enough of Doll’s activities to assume that the opposite of his findings is often true.
    If anyone wishes to examine them, we collected them here.
    http://www.forces.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=363&t=1585
    Rose

  7. Anonymous says:

    Latest UK teens survey — smoking and drugs
    Off-topic perhaps, but saw this on Simon Clark’s Taking Liberties today:

    Click to access SDD_2009_Report.pdf


    The smoking section begins on page 107.
    Churchmouse

  8. Anonymous says:

    Latest UK teens survey — smoking and drugs
    Off-topic perhaps, but saw this on Simon Clark’s Taking Liberties today:

    Click to access SDD_2009_Report.pdf


    The smoking section begins on page 107.
    Churchmouse

  9. Anonymous says:

    Frank,
    I remember seeing a model that suggested that the body retains ~1000 fold more radioactive material if inhaled instead of swallowed – it’s more of a one way trip! I also remember reading somewhere that ~12% (I would have to check) of the world cancer burden is from man made radiation of one sort or another but I have never seen a break down of this – how much due to fallout. So what I meant was that in theory smoking a cabbage is a massively better delivery system than swallowing a cabbage. Therefore, it’s plausible that tobacco crops are 1000 fold more risk to smokers (however small to non-existent that is) than cabbage crops are to anyone. I also saw a study that found ~10 fold more alpha emitting radio nuclides in plants (in fact I believe tobacco plants) growing close to nuclear reactors. That is, all together, a significant increase of “risk” to smokers in the 40s,50s,60s depending on where their tobacco comes from and when. These alpha radio radionuclides can’t do any harm on the skin, they have to enter the body via cuts, burns, ingested or inhaled. So it is actually this part of the fallout hypothesis that I was rejecting (but I did not mention the ~1000 fold increased retention for inhaling) and I can see no good reason why women should be less affected.
    male / female smoking rates here

    Click to access beijing_peto.pdf


    and cancer trends here

    Click to access cancertrends_5099.pdf


    So with melanoma there could be a risk via sun burn, cuts, grazes on beaches and where water meets land is where these little fellows like to hang around. Sun block along with blocking UV could also prevent them from entering burns and cuts. But there is a definite trend break in the 1980’s (Chernobyl 1986) and I find it hard to believe that people are spending more time in the sun across all age groups at the same time.
    But like you, I am more generally more interested in the role of infection, than chemicals and radioactivity because of the massive volatility between smoking prevalence and lung cancer between sexes over space and time.
    Fredrik.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Frank,
    I remember seeing a model that suggested that the body retains ~1000 fold more radioactive material if inhaled instead of swallowed – it’s more of a one way trip! I also remember reading somewhere that ~12% (I would have to check) of the world cancer burden is from man made radiation of one sort or another but I have never seen a break down of this – how much due to fallout. So what I meant was that in theory smoking a cabbage is a massively better delivery system than swallowing a cabbage. Therefore, it’s plausible that tobacco crops are 1000 fold more risk to smokers (however small to non-existent that is) than cabbage crops are to anyone. I also saw a study that found ~10 fold more alpha emitting radio nuclides in plants (in fact I believe tobacco plants) growing close to nuclear reactors. That is, all together, a significant increase of “risk” to smokers in the 40s,50s,60s depending on where their tobacco comes from and when. These alpha radio radionuclides can’t do any harm on the skin, they have to enter the body via cuts, burns, ingested or inhaled. So it is actually this part of the fallout hypothesis that I was rejecting (but I did not mention the ~1000 fold increased retention for inhaling) and I can see no good reason why women should be less affected.
    male / female smoking rates here

    Click to access beijing_peto.pdf


    and cancer trends here

    Click to access cancertrends_5099.pdf


    So with melanoma there could be a risk via sun burn, cuts, grazes on beaches and where water meets land is where these little fellows like to hang around. Sun block along with blocking UV could also prevent them from entering burns and cuts. But there is a definite trend break in the 1980’s (Chernobyl 1986) and I find it hard to believe that people are spending more time in the sun across all age groups at the same time.
    But like you, I am more generally more interested in the role of infection, than chemicals and radioactivity because of the massive volatility between smoking prevalence and lung cancer between sexes over space and time.
    Fredrik.

  11. Anonymous says:

    The Fallout Hypothesis
    Don’t forget Chernobyl in April 1986 – probably the largest contamination of the Northern Hemisphere ever by radioactive fallout.

  12. Anonymous says:

    The Fallout Hypothesis
    Don’t forget Chernobyl in April 1986 – probably the largest contamination of the Northern Hemisphere ever by radioactive fallout.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Frank, You could have put a lung cancer map of the US for comparison of your other map.
    http://www.lcolby.com/calif.htm

  14. Anonymous says:

    Frank, You could have put a lung cancer map of the US for comparison of your other map.
    http://www.lcolby.com/calif.htm

  15. Anonymous says:

    Frank, that was me BTW.
    there are lots of anomalies but broadly speaking it fits more than it does not fit, and water is interesting. I think you should add these to your other map.
    Fredrik.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Frank, that was me BTW.
    there are lots of anomalies but broadly speaking it fits more than it does not fit, and water is interesting. I think you should add these to your other map.
    Fredrik.

  17. Anonymous says:

    When I say water I mean coast and rivers in the fall out area

    Fredrik

  18. Anonymous says:

    When I say water I mean coast and rivers in the fall out area

    Fredrik

  19. Anonymous says:

    Frank,
    Your theory seems to have more back up. The Mississippi delta is where lung cancer hits in the 50’s and it works it’s way back the river system in the 70’s and appears in the coastal regions. It’s pretty likely that radionuclides would concentrate at the end of rivers first – so you could get more cancer here first. Water supply?
    Fredrik

  20. Anonymous says:

    Frank,
    Your theory seems to have more back up. The Mississippi delta is where lung cancer hits in the 50’s and it works it’s way back the river system in the 70’s and appears in the coastal regions. It’s pretty likely that radionuclides would concentrate at the end of rivers first – so you could get more cancer here first. Water supply?
    Fredrik

  21. Frank Davis says:

    Done! Thanks for the link.
    Frank

  22. Frank Davis says:

    Done! Thanks for the link.
    Frank

  23. Frank Davis says:

    Of course it’s not clutter, Rose! Good to have you posting here.
    Frank

  24. Frank Davis says:

    Of course it’s not clutter, Rose! Good to have you posting here.
    Frank

  25. Frank Davis says:

    That’s an interesting thought. Much of the fallout would end up in rivers. And rivers are used as a source of water (after treatment).
    Frank

  26. Frank Davis says:

    That’s an interesting thought. Much of the fallout would end up in rivers. And rivers are used as a source of water (after treatment).
    Frank

  27. Anonymous says:

    Good one Frank!
    Fredrik

  28. Anonymous says:

    Good one Frank!
    Fredrik

  29. Anonymous says:

    A local noisy anti smoking freak(NHS Expert) has a VW 6 litre 4×4,he lives in Oswestry some 60 miles away from his
    base. This pontificating righteous snide coughs more crap into the air WE ALL BREATHE in ONE day than I have since the smoking ban came in 3 years ago.This schmuck is campaigning with the BMA to ban smoking in pubs external areas because of the effect on the kiddies going in the
    pubs with mumsy and papsy
    So help me,when do we start some really serious ass kicking
    Sick as a non smoking parrot

  30. Anonymous says:

    A local noisy anti smoking freak(NHS Expert) has a VW 6 litre 4×4,he lives in Oswestry some 60 miles away from his
    base. This pontificating righteous snide coughs more crap into the air WE ALL BREATHE in ONE day than I have since the smoking ban came in 3 years ago.This schmuck is campaigning with the BMA to ban smoking in pubs external areas because of the effect on the kiddies going in the
    pubs with mumsy and papsy
    So help me,when do we start some really serious ass kicking
    Sick as a non smoking parrot

  31. Anonymous says:

    Frank,
    It’s interesting to read here

    Click to access Technical_Vol_1_Chapter_3.pdf


    that 137Cs only has a half life of 30 years
    (important when looking at the map you posted) and that the ratios of it to plutonium 238 & 239 are still classified. We are reassured that it’s not a problem but they won’t release the data. I have always felt that the massive difference between lung cancer rates and smoking over time disproves even the “synergistic” version of the harm theory of smoking.
    It’s a stitch up.
    Fredrik.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Frank,
    It’s interesting to read here

    Click to access Technical_Vol_1_Chapter_3.pdf


    that 137Cs only has a half life of 30 years
    (important when looking at the map you posted) and that the ratios of it to plutonium 238 & 239 are still classified. We are reassured that it’s not a problem but they won’t release the data. I have always felt that the massive difference between lung cancer rates and smoking over time disproves even the “synergistic” version of the harm theory of smoking.
    It’s a stitch up.
    Fredrik.

  33. Pingback: Chemtrails and Climate Change | Frank Davis

  34. Pingback: Gabriela Segura, MD | Frank Davis

  35. Pingback: An Evolutionary Model of Cancer | Frank Davis

  36. Pingback: Revisiting the Fallout Hypothesis | Frank Davis

  37. Pingback: Playing Up and Playing Down Risks | Frank Davis

  38. Pingback: Tobacco’s Bum Rap | MalagaBay

  39. Pingback: William Whitby: Smoking Is Good For You | Frank Davis

  40. Pingback: Andrei Sakharov on Radioactive Fallout | Frank Davis

  41. Pingback: The Secret of Perpetual Youth | Frank Davis

  42. Pingback: The Fallout Hypothesis Revisited Again | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.