The Fallout Hypothesis 2

A few months back, in The Fallout Hypothesis, I explored the idea that many cancers, including lung cancer, were caused by radioactive fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and 1963. Fredrik Eich became interested in the idea, with the slight variation that fallout would tend to be maximized in places where there was high rainfall. He started his own investigation, and his own blog. Last week he put up a post with a rainfall map of the USA next to a cancer mortality map of the USA. There’s quite a good fit.

There doesn’t seem to have been very much knowledge of the dangers of radiation at the time the nuclear bomb tests began. From Biology and the Bomb:

On March 31, 1954, nearly a month after Bravo, the chairman of the AEC, Admiral Lewis Strauss, stated that nuclear tests had resulted in a small increase in radiation in some places in the United States. He claimed that this increase was “far below the levels which could be harmful in any way to human beings.”

Strauss assumed that, as in the case of many chemical toxins, there existed a threshold dose below which radiation did no harm and that the low dose to which the public was exposed did not exceed this threshold. The threshold assumption was widely held—in fact, shoe stores of the day routinely contained X-ray boxes so that patrons could see the bones in their feet.

Only a select community of biologists understood that the United States and Soviet governments were killing people without realizing it. In the late 1920s, geneticist Hermann Muller had discovered that high-energy radiation caused genetic mutations in fruit flies at a rate proportional to the dosage received. (He won the Nobel Prize for this in 1946.) After the H-bomb tests became public knowledge, he felt morally obligated to warn policymakers and the public about the risk of mutations in the germ line—the reproductive cells in the testes and ovaries—from radioactive fallout.

Also this Wikipedia graph of Carbon-14 (radiocarbon) concentration in the atmosphere:

atmospheric C14
atmospheric C-14, New Zealand[red] and Austria[green]. The New Zealand curve is representative for the Southern Hemisphere, the Austrian curve is representative for the Northern Hemisphere. Atmospheric nuclear weapon tests almost doubled the concentration of Carbon-14 in the Northern Hemisphere. The Delay of some years after the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) of the peak on the Southern Hemisphere can be explained by the time for the propagation of C-14 from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere.

This shows that nuclear tests doubled the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere. Cesium-137 has a half life of 30 years, but C-14 has a half life of 5,600 years. The decay curve in the graph above is not a radioactive decay curve. Pretty much none of the C-14 has decayed away. It’s still around. What the graph shows how rapidly C-14 fell out of the atmosphere onto the surface of the planet.

Back in the 1950s, most concern was about possible human mutations, and with the more energetic fast-decaying radioactive fallout such as Cesium 137 and Strontium 90. Carbon-14 was largely dismissed as a health risk, probably because it decays so slowly. But I found a draft of a paper by multi-Nobel-prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling about C-14, written in the late 1950s, which began:

In his discussion of bomb-test carbon-14 he [Willard Libby] said that "Fortunately, this radioactivity is essentially safe because of its long lifetime and the enormous amount of diluting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." He pointed out that 5.2 tons of neutrons would be needed to "double the feeble natural radioactivity of living matter due to radiocarbon. Such an increase would have no significance from the standpoint of health."

Pauling had initially been reassured by Libby, but a couple of years later performed his own calculations, and drew a different conclusion:

It is concluded that one year of testing (30 megatons of fission plus fusion) is predicted to cause in the world (estimated future number of births 3 times the present) an estimated total of about 223,OOO seriously defective children to be born (stillbirth, childhood death, gross physical or mental defect) plus about 423,000 embryonic and neonatal deaths. These numbers are about 20 times the numbers usually estimated as the probable effects of the fallout fission products from one year of testing. In addition, the somatic effects of bomb-test carbon-14 are predicted to be about equal to those of fission products, including strontium-90, with respect to causing leukemia and bone cancer, and much greater than those of fission products with respect to diseases resulting from radiation damage to tissues other than bone tissue and bone marrow.

This paper has "First draft" written in the top right hand corner, and it has several corrections – including the "much" that has been crossed out by hand in the passage above.

A much more recent (2005) article in American Scientist considers the cancer risks of fallout.

By the early 1960s, there was no place on Earth where the signature of atmospheric nuclear testing could not be found in soil, water and even polar ice. Cancer investigators who specialize in radiation effects have, over the intervening decades, looked for another signature of nuclear testing—an increase in cancer rates…

The earliest concern about health effects from exposure to fallout focused on possible genetic alterations among offspring of the exposed. However, heritable effects of radiation exposure have not been observed from decades of follow-up studies of populations exposed either to medical x rays or to the direct gamma radiation received by survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Rather, such studies have demonstrated radiation-related risks of leukemia and thyroid cancer within a decade after exposure, followed by increased risks of other solid tumors in later years. Studies of populations exposed to radioactive fallout also point to increased cancer risk as the primary late health effect of exposure. As studies of biological samples (including bone, thyroid glands and other tissues) have been undertaken, it has become increasingly clear that specific radionuclides in fallout are implicated in fallout-related cancers and other late effects…

It discusses the distribution of fallout.

Large particles settle locally, whereas small particles and gases may travel around the world. Rainfall can cause localized concentrations far from the test site. On the other hand, large atmospheric explosions injected radioactive material into the stratosphere, 10 kilometers or more above the ground, where it could remain for years and subsequently be deposited fairly homogeneously ("global" fallout)…

Following the deposition of fallout on the ground, local human populations are exposed to external and internal irradiation. External irradiation exposure is mainly from penetrating gamma rays emitted by particles on the ground. Shielding by buildings reduces exposure, and thus doses to people are influenced by how much time one spends outdoors.

Internal irradiation exposures can arise from inhaling fallout and absorbing it through intact or injured skin, but the main exposure route is from consumption of contaminated food. Vegetation can be contaminated when fallout is directly deposited on external surfaces of plants and when it is absorbed through the roots of plants.

As well as being produced by weapons tests, Carbon-14 is produced naturally in the upper atmosphere, so that about one in one trillion carbon atoms is Carbon-14 rather than regular non-radioactive Carbon-12. These radiocarbon atoms are incorporated into plants and animals, and humans as well. It can be used to date when people were born, according to Nature.

we show that the amount of radiocarbon present in tooth enamel as a result of nuclear bomb testing during 1955–63 is a remarkably accurate indicator of when a person was born. Age is determined to within 1.6 years, whereas the commonly used morphological evaluation of skeletal remains and tooth wear is sensitive to within 5–10 years in adults

And in a 2005 Scientific American, Cold War Clues:

Frisen learned of a natural tag unique to people born after 1955, when aboveground testing of nuclear weapons increased substantially. The explosions, which stopped after the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, threw enormous amounts of carbon 14 isotope into the atmosphere that quickly diffused around the globe. Plants incorporated the carbon 14 into their cells, animals ate the plants, and people ate both, absorbing the isotope into their own cells

There are several interesting things here. It seems that my idea in my previous essay that people are more in danger of fallout if they’re outside buildings is true. I’d suggested that this might be the reason why women (or rather housewives) got less lung cancer than men, on the grounds that they spent more time time indoors than men who would be going out to work every day, and would sometimes be working outside.

It also seems that Fredrik Eich’s suggestion that rainfall concentrates fallout in high rainfall areas is also true. It would be interesting to see whether the amount of rainfall in a country correlates with the incidence of cancer. On the other hand, exposure outdoors is likely to be affected by how much clothing is worn, which would suggest that in cold northern countries, where people may spend months wearing hats and scarves and gloves and overcoats, they are less exposed to the external environment than, say, Mediterranean countries where people will be wearing far less. Also people in relatively poor countries may be supposed to get more exposure, because they walk or cycle, while people in rich countries who do most of their travelling in cars or trains.

A further interesting observation is that if one in a trillion carbon atoms is Carbon-14, and there are about 7.0 x 10^26 carbon atoms in the human body, then I have 7.0 x 10^14 or 700,000,000,000,000 or about a billion trillion Carbon-14 atoms in my body gradually decaying. It would be interesting to know whether they are evenly distributed, or tend to concentrate in particular organs or tissues.

Another point is that throughout much of the 1940s and 1950s, there was little understanding of the dangers of fallout, except among a few biologists. But by 1950, the cause of lung cancer had been declared to be smoking cigarettes. The US Surgeon General’s 1964 report made this the official medical view – just a year after the Test Ban Treaty that stopped atmospheric weapons tests.

And although we hear a lot about the chemical carcinogens in tobacco smoke (e.g. benzapyrene), they never mention Carbon-14 or other radioactive fallout. The only one they do mention is Polonium-210, which has a half life of 138 days, and so will be pretty harmless after a couple of years.

Smokers may have been at more risk from lung cancer, not because they were smoking tobacco, but because they were inhaling more radioactive carbon compounds into their lungs than non-smokers. This would have been true if they’d been smoking marijuana or opium or wood smoke rather than tobacco.

If radioactive fallout is the real cause of most cancers, more or less everybody would have got a dose of fallout in the 1950s and 60s and 70s, some of which they’re still carrying around with them to this day.

About Frank Davis

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

39 Responses to The Fallout Hypothesis 2

  1. Anonymous says:

    V interesting.

  2. Anonymous says:

    V interesting.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Problem is, Frank, that they’ll never admit it. Living in Yorkshire we remember all too well the “pink rain” that fell after Chernobyl, the high incidence of leukemia in local upland farming communities where the rain was heaviest, a survey by Leeds Uni which appeared to be trying to correlate teenage leukemia with radon (from underlying rock)- inconclusive, I assume, and the opening of a whole new leukemia ward in Airedale Hospital. Now it’s true that leukemia treatments and outcomes have improved in recent years, and that would justify extra treatment beds, but it does seem strange that all these things happened in the few years following Chernobyl. But they’ll never admit it. Easier to blame smokers.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Problem is, Frank, that they’ll never admit it. Living in Yorkshire we remember all too well the “pink rain” that fell after Chernobyl, the high incidence of leukemia in local upland farming communities where the rain was heaviest, a survey by Leeds Uni which appeared to be trying to correlate teenage leukemia with radon (from underlying rock)- inconclusive, I assume, and the opening of a whole new leukemia ward in Airedale Hospital. Now it’s true that leukemia treatments and outcomes have improved in recent years, and that would justify extra treatment beds, but it does seem strange that all these things happened in the few years following Chernobyl. But they’ll never admit it. Easier to blame smokers.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I got caught out in that heavy rain when the Chernobyl cloud passed over, unfortunately the kids were with me.
    “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/
    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
    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.
    Immediately after Stewart published her findings, Doll launched a study to prove her wrong.
    For nearly two decades, he succeeded in keeping her findings from being accepted, thereby allowing fetal X-raying to continue (one doesn’t like to think how many cancers that may have caused).
    This was the decade when the arms race was at its height and the US and UK governments were reassuring us we could survive all-out nuclear war; nobody wanted to hear that radiation was as dangerous as Stewart claimed”
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/26/malignant-maneuvers/
    “Stewart’s findings sparked vehement attacks not only from the medical profession–which had become enamored of X-ray technology, using it frequently–but also from the nuclear industry, which had long assured the public that low-level radiation was harmless”
    http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2002/110-10/forum.html
    “The incidence of child leukaemias was increasing and no one knew why. She suspected that the mothers might remember something the doctors did not, so she interviewed them and rapidly saw the correlation with X-rays, which she demonstrated statistically.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/dr-alice-stewart-647741.html
    The Seascale Cluster and population mixing: an improbable explanation
    “Low Level Radiation Campaign statement on the suggested effect of population mixing”
    http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/doll.htm
    Still hope for the best.
    “Scientists are not exactly sure how vitamin B3 boosts the skin’s defences against cancer.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/sophie_scott/newsitems/s1366452.htm
    Rose

  6. Anonymous says:

    I got caught out in that heavy rain when the Chernobyl cloud passed over, unfortunately the kids were with me.
    “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/
    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
    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.
    Immediately after Stewart published her findings, Doll launched a study to prove her wrong.
    For nearly two decades, he succeeded in keeping her findings from being accepted, thereby allowing fetal X-raying to continue (one doesn’t like to think how many cancers that may have caused).
    This was the decade when the arms race was at its height and the US and UK governments were reassuring us we could survive all-out nuclear war; nobody wanted to hear that radiation was as dangerous as Stewart claimed”
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/26/malignant-maneuvers/
    “Stewart’s findings sparked vehement attacks not only from the medical profession–which had become enamored of X-ray technology, using it frequently–but also from the nuclear industry, which had long assured the public that low-level radiation was harmless”
    http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2002/110-10/forum.html
    “The incidence of child leukaemias was increasing and no one knew why. She suspected that the mothers might remember something the doctors did not, so she interviewed them and rapidly saw the correlation with X-rays, which she demonstrated statistically.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/dr-alice-stewart-647741.html
    The Seascale Cluster and population mixing: an improbable explanation
    “Low Level Radiation Campaign statement on the suggested effect of population mixing”
    http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/doll.htm
    Still hope for the best.
    “Scientists are not exactly sure how vitamin B3 boosts the skin’s defences against cancer.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/sophie_scott/newsitems/s1366452.htm
    Rose

  7. Anonymous says:

    You and Frederik are not alone in this theory. The book “The Smoking Scare Debunked” was published by Australian physician Dr William T Whitby back in the 1980s, when criticism of the “smoking kills” mantra was still permitted in medical circles, in which he comes to precisely the same conclusions as you, although he doesn’t cover the “rain” element. I quote:
    “One thing that made me doubt it [that smoking was the cause of lung cancer] was that of all my relatives and friends who got lung cancer not one was a smoker. People have been telling me the same thing every day and more and more people are saying it now. Not one of my smoking patients in forty years has to my knowledge got lung cancer, although some non-smokers did. Then I was struck by the fact that it was only since the advent of the atomic bomb and the enormous proliferation of carcinogenic industrial products that lung cancer has become so prevalent.”
    It’s certainly worth a look (and freely available online – just type in the title and you’ll find it. You have to scroll down a bit to reach it), if you haven’t read it already.

  8. Anonymous says:

    You and Frederik are not alone in this theory. The book “The Smoking Scare Debunked” was published by Australian physician Dr William T Whitby back in the 1980s, when criticism of the “smoking kills” mantra was still permitted in medical circles, in which he comes to precisely the same conclusions as you, although he doesn’t cover the “rain” element. I quote:
    “One thing that made me doubt it [that smoking was the cause of lung cancer] was that of all my relatives and friends who got lung cancer not one was a smoker. People have been telling me the same thing every day and more and more people are saying it now. Not one of my smoking patients in forty years has to my knowledge got lung cancer, although some non-smokers did. Then I was struck by the fact that it was only since the advent of the atomic bomb and the enormous proliferation of carcinogenic industrial products that lung cancer has become so prevalent.”
    It’s certainly worth a look (and freely available online – just type in the title and you’ll find it. You have to scroll down a bit to reach it), if you haven’t read it already.

  9. Frank Davis says:

    Dr Alice Stewart would seem to be very relevant.
    From Wikipedia:
    in 1953 the Medical Research Council allocated funds to her pioneering study of x-rays as a cause of childhood cancer, which she worked on from 1953 until 1956. Her results were initially regarded as unsound, but her findings on fetal damage caused by x-rays of pregnant women were eventually accepted worldwide and the use of medical x-rays during pregnancy and early childhood was curtailed as a result.
    Independent obituary:
    The incidence of child leukaemias was increasing and no one knew why. She suspected that the mothers might remember something the doctors did not, so she interviewed them and rapidly saw the correlation with X-rays, which she demonstrated statistically. X-rays were medicine’s new toy and were being used for everything from examining the position of the foetus to treating acne; even shoe shops had X-ray machines where customers could see how their footwear fitted. This was at the height of the arms race, when the British and US governments were trying to build up public trust in the friendly atom and did not want people to get the idea that low-dose radiation could kill their children.
    It seems that she suggested that there was no threshold below which radiation was harmless:
    The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is based on the controversial assumption that the damage caused by ionizing radiation is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels.
    No safe level.
    Stewart’s discovery that the exposure of the fetus to low-dose X-rays resulted in increased numbers of childhood leukemia supported the “linear hypothesis,” a new understanding that cancer risk is proportional to X-ray dose and that there is no threshold below which radiation exposure is harmless. In spite of increasing scientific data consistent with this theory accumulating over the intervening decades, guidelines for radiation exposure levels for workers set by the International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP) have essentially ignored this concept and adhered to a threshold standard of 5 rads per year. This standard was maintained until recently even though the ICRP acknowledged as long ago as 1962 that no safe level of exposure exists [2].
    Odd that it’s now tobacco smoke that has “no safe level”.
    She’s mentioned in Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America’s Experience
    with Atomic Radiation.
    by Wasserman and Solomon 1982, which is available to read online.
    Frank

  10. Frank Davis says:

    Dr Alice Stewart would seem to be very relevant.
    From Wikipedia:
    in 1953 the Medical Research Council allocated funds to her pioneering study of x-rays as a cause of childhood cancer, which she worked on from 1953 until 1956. Her results were initially regarded as unsound, but her findings on fetal damage caused by x-rays of pregnant women were eventually accepted worldwide and the use of medical x-rays during pregnancy and early childhood was curtailed as a result.
    Independent obituary:
    The incidence of child leukaemias was increasing and no one knew why. She suspected that the mothers might remember something the doctors did not, so she interviewed them and rapidly saw the correlation with X-rays, which she demonstrated statistically. X-rays were medicine’s new toy and were being used for everything from examining the position of the foetus to treating acne; even shoe shops had X-ray machines where customers could see how their footwear fitted. This was at the height of the arms race, when the British and US governments were trying to build up public trust in the friendly atom and did not want people to get the idea that low-dose radiation could kill their children.
    It seems that she suggested that there was no threshold below which radiation was harmless:
    The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is based on the controversial assumption that the damage caused by ionizing radiation is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels.
    No safe level.
    Stewart’s discovery that the exposure of the fetus to low-dose X-rays resulted in increased numbers of childhood leukemia supported the “linear hypothesis,” a new understanding that cancer risk is proportional to X-ray dose and that there is no threshold below which radiation exposure is harmless. In spite of increasing scientific data consistent with this theory accumulating over the intervening decades, guidelines for radiation exposure levels for workers set by the International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP) have essentially ignored this concept and adhered to a threshold standard of 5 rads per year. This standard was maintained until recently even though the ICRP acknowledged as long ago as 1962 that no safe level of exposure exists [2].
    Odd that it’s now tobacco smoke that has “no safe level”.
    She’s mentioned in Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America’s Experience
    with Atomic Radiation.
    by Wasserman and Solomon 1982, which is available to read online.
    Frank

  11. Frank Davis says:

    Thanks for the quote. My experience is similar. None of my smoking friends got lung cancer. The only person I ever met who had it was a lifelong non-smoker.
    I’ve read quite a lot of Whitby’s book here in image format. There’s probably a more readable version somewhere else.
    And I’m sure that plenty of other people have been looking at this hypothesis.
    Frank

  12. Frank Davis says:

    Thanks for the quote. My experience is similar. None of my smoking friends got lung cancer. The only person I ever met who had it was a lifelong non-smoker.
    I’ve read quite a lot of Whitby’s book here in image format. There’s probably a more readable version somewhere else.
    And I’m sure that plenty of other people have been looking at this hypothesis.
    Frank

  13. Anonymous says:

    I dredged this one up from the archives, I like the dancing mice.
    Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
    And here are some of the mice who helped to prove it!
    http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http://vialls.net/transpositions/smoking.html
    I believe the study described is this one, somewhere in the tobacco documents.
    “Combined action of cigarette tar and beta radiation on mice”
    While looking up Professor Schrauzer, I also found this –
    Dr William Whitby
    S.Chapman
    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/suppl_3/iii4.full
    Rose

  14. Anonymous says:

    I dredged this one up from the archives, I like the dancing mice.
    Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
    And here are some of the mice who helped to prove it!
    http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http://vialls.net/transpositions/smoking.html
    I believe the study described is this one, somewhere in the tobacco documents.
    “Combined action of cigarette tar and beta radiation on mice”
    While looking up Professor Schrauzer, I also found this –
    Dr William Whitby
    S.Chapman
    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/suppl_3/iii4.full
    Rose

  15. Anonymous says:

    Egypt photo
    Hello all! check pliz
    somebody know information about egypt miting in that moment? and who have photo from Egypt? plz give me a link to see this photo!!
    sorry if i post this messege wrong topic.
    Fxxxxcking dirty egyptians!!!

  16. Anonymous says:

    Egypt photo
    Hello all! check pliz
    somebody know information about egypt miting in that moment? and who have photo from Egypt? plz give me a link to see this photo!!
    sorry if i post this messege wrong topic.
    Fxxxxcking dirty egyptians!!!

  17. Anonymous says:

    Egypt photo
    Hello all! check pliz
    somebody know information about egypt miting in that moment? and who have photo from Egypt? plz give me a link to see this photo!!
    sorry if i post this messege wrong topic.
    Fxxxxcking dirty egyptians!!!

  18. Anonymous says:

    …..first topic
    delete

  19. Anonymous says:

    …..first topic
    delete

    • Anonymous says:

      Here is a little homily which highlights the situation further.
      A few days ago, my grandson and I went into our local little town centre (Atherton, not Bolton) for some reason or other. While walking about, I came across two or three people I knew: “Hello! How are you? Not seen you for ages! Etc, etc”. And grandson said to me, “Funny, Granddad, how all old people seem to know each other”
      Actually, it isn’t odd at all. It is because, over many years, people went to their locals. Different locals had different atmospheres – some were very ‘darty’, some were ‘rugby league-y’, some were ‘posh’, some were noisy and some were quiet; and over the years, you circle of acquaintances grew bigger and bigger and bigger. And then you throw in all the clubs – the labour club, the cony club, the catholic club, the garrick club (serving til eleven with cabaret!), the botanical club (would you believe!), the golf club, and so on.
      My wife won a cruise for two in 1982 (in a raffle at the rugby union club), and, believe it or not I knew three people on the Canberra – one was a seaman who went into the Concert Inn, another was a young man who spent a few days as a relief member of staff at my bank branch nd the other was the mother of a member of my golf club.
      Are those days gone for ever? I fear so. And is that largely because of the glorious organisation named ASH?
      ASH is at the centre of a web in the UK. It was set up by the Royal College of Physicians to collate studies and lobby the Gov. The US also has an ASH and a web. And above these webs sits the WHO.
      The WHO, ASH and the politicians are destroying several centuries of social cohesion. The actual buildings of the pubs do not really matter – it may be that many of them are too big and too grand and too inefficient, but with the smoking ban in place, there is little chance of smaller, more efficient bars opening up, especially in small towns and villages.
      All the clubs which I mentioned above were havens for little old ladies, especially. Most women did not go into pubs as men do, but they were quite happy to go to clubs for the bingo nights, whist drives and beetle drives (remember them?). Now even their bingo clubs are going to the wall.
      It is all so sad.

    • Anonymous says:

      Here is a little homily which highlights the situation further.
      A few days ago, my grandson and I went into our local little town centre (Atherton, not Bolton) for some reason or other. While walking about, I came across two or three people I knew: “Hello! How are you? Not seen you for ages! Etc, etc”. And grandson said to me, “Funny, Granddad, how all old people seem to know each other”
      Actually, it isn’t odd at all. It is because, over many years, people went to their locals. Different locals had different atmospheres – some were very ‘darty’, some were ‘rugby league-y’, some were ‘posh’, some were noisy and some were quiet; and over the years, you circle of acquaintances grew bigger and bigger and bigger. And then you throw in all the clubs – the labour club, the cony club, the catholic club, the garrick club (serving til eleven with cabaret!), the botanical club (would you believe!), the golf club, and so on.
      My wife won a cruise for two in 1982 (in a raffle at the rugby union club), and, believe it or not I knew three people on the Canberra – one was a seaman who went into the Concert Inn, another was a young man who spent a few days as a relief member of staff at my bank branch nd the other was the mother of a member of my golf club.
      Are those days gone for ever? I fear so. And is that largely because of the glorious organisation named ASH?
      ASH is at the centre of a web in the UK. It was set up by the Royal College of Physicians to collate studies and lobby the Gov. The US also has an ASH and a web. And above these webs sits the WHO.
      The WHO, ASH and the politicians are destroying several centuries of social cohesion. The actual buildings of the pubs do not really matter – it may be that many of them are too big and too grand and too inefficient, but with the smoking ban in place, there is little chance of smaller, more efficient bars opening up, especially in small towns and villages.
      All the clubs which I mentioned above were havens for little old ladies, especially. Most women did not go into pubs as men do, but they were quite happy to go to clubs for the bingo nights, whist drives and beetle drives (remember them?). Now even their bingo clubs are going to the wall.
      It is all so sad.

  20. Anonymous says:

    …..first topic
    delete

  21. Anonymous says:

    Hello, world!
    How do you do?

  22. Anonymous says:

    Hello, world!
    How do you do?

  23. Anonymous says:

    Hello, world!
    How do you do?

  24. Anonymous says:

    Here is a little homily which highlights the situation further.
    A few days ago, my grandson and I went into our local little town centre (Atherton, not Bolton) for some reason or other. While walking about, I came across two or three people I knew: “Hello! How are you? Not seen you for ages! Etc, etc”. And grandson said to me, “Funny, Granddad, how all old people seem to know each other”
    Actually, it isn’t odd at all. It is because, over many years, people went to their locals. Different locals had different atmospheres – some were very ‘darty’, some were ‘rugby league-y’, some were ‘posh’, some were noisy and some were quiet; and over the years, you circle of acquaintances grew bigger and bigger and bigger. And then you throw in all the clubs – the labour club, the cony club, the catholic club, the garrick club (serving til eleven with cabaret!), the botanical club (would you believe!), the golf club, and so on.
    My wife won a cruise for two in 1982 (in a raffle at the rugby union club), and, believe it or not I knew three people on the Canberra – one was a seaman who went into the Concert Inn, another was a young man who spent a few days as a relief member of staff at my bank branch nd the other was the mother of a member of my golf club.
    Are those days gone for ever? I fear so. And is that largely because of the glorious organisation named ASH?
    ASH is at the centre of a web in the UK. It was set up by the Royal College of Physicians to collate studies and lobby the Gov. The US also has an ASH and a web. And above these webs sits the WHO.
    The WHO, ASH and the politicians are destroying several centuries of social cohesion. The actual buildings of the pubs do not really matter – it may be that many of them are too big and too grand and too inefficient, but with the smoking ban in place, there is little chance of smaller, more efficient bars opening up, especially in small towns and villages.
    All the clubs which I mentioned above were havens for little old ladies, especially. Most women did not go into pubs as men do, but they were quite happy to go to clubs for the bingo nights, whist drives and beetle drives (remember them?). Now even their bingo clubs are going to the wall.
    It is all so sad.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Mr A! I see you got here before me. Sorry to go off topic Frank, and I’m sure Mr A is too, but I feel we really must get this message out – it may be the most significant move we smokers will ever make. Here is my standard message which I am going to append to all my comments.
    If you smoke why not declare it as a religion in the next census. Half a million Jedis are now recognised. We can do the same.
    Again – sorry for the hijack, Frank, but I’m sure you’ll agree its for a good cause (or, as the now discredited ASH might feel “the end justifies the means”).
    George Speller

  26. Anonymous says:

    Mr A! I see you got here before me. Sorry to go off topic Frank, and I’m sure Mr A is too, but I feel we really must get this message out – it may be the most significant move we smokers will ever make. Here is my standard message which I am going to append to all my comments.
    If you smoke why not declare it as a religion in the next census. Half a million Jedis are now recognised. We can do the same.
    Again – sorry for the hijack, Frank, but I’m sure you’ll agree its for a good cause (or, as the now discredited ASH might feel “the end justifies the means”).
    George Speller

  27. Anonymous says:

    Mr A! I see you got here before me. Sorry to go off topic Frank, and I’m sure Mr A is too, but I feel we really must get this message out – it may be the most significant move we smokers will ever make. Here is my standard message which I am going to append to all my comments.
    If you smoke why not declare it as a religion in the next census. Half a million Jedis are now recognised. We can do the same.
    Again – sorry for the hijack, Frank, but I’m sure you’ll agree its for a good cause (or, as the now discredited ASH might feel “the end justifies the means”).
    George Speller

  28. Anonymous says:

    INVITE GREEK SMOKERS TO THE UK
    If every smoker in the UK invited a Greek smoker over for a holiday it would be the end of the smoking ban in the UK.

  29. Anonymous says:

    INVITE GREEK SMOKERS TO THE UK
    If every smoker in the UK invited a Greek smoker over for a holiday it would be the end of the smoking ban in the UK.

  30. Anonymous says:

    INVITE GREEK SMOKERS TO THE UK
    If every smoker in the UK invited a Greek smoker over for a holiday it would be the end of the smoking ban in the UK.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Они скорее походят на пансионы или большие сельские до
    Однако спокойнее оставлять серебро без гра- вировки, тогда невеста сможет его обменять, если ей захочется иметь что-то другое. [url=http://www.emirates-group.ru/editor_img/syst/map.html]сергей любавин любовь моя скачать [/url] Исключение делается только по очень веским причинам: например, другу дома будет обидно, если его не представят почетному гостю или тому чело- веку, который его особенно интересует.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Они скорее походят на пансионы или большие сельские до
    Однако спокойнее оставлять серебро без гра- вировки, тогда невеста сможет его обменять, если ей захочется иметь что-то другое. [url=http://www.emirates-group.ru/editor_img/syst/map.html]сергей любавин любовь моя скачать [/url] Исключение делается только по очень веским причинам: например, другу дома будет обидно, если его не представят почетному гостю или тому чело- веку, который его особенно интересует.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Они скорее походят на пансионы или большие сельские до
    Однако спокойнее оставлять серебро без гра- вировки, тогда невеста сможет его обменять, если ей захочется иметь что-то другое. [url=http://www.emirates-group.ru/editor_img/syst/map.html]сергей любавин любовь моя скачать [/url] Исключение делается только по очень веским причинам: например, другу дома будет обидно, если его не представят почетному гостю или тому чело- веку, который его особенно интересует.

  34. Anonymous says:

    backlinks backlinks service
    backlinks checker
    net seo
    [url=http://xrumerservice.org/]backlinks service[/url]
    high quality backlinks

  35. Pingback: Gabriela Segura, MD | Frank Davis

  36. Pingback: The Fallout Hypothesis | Frank Davis

  37. Pingback: Tobacco’s Bum Rap | MalagaBay

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.