The Fallout Hypothesis 3

I’ve been reading Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America’s Experience with Atomic Radiation by Harvey Wasserman & Norman Solomon, published in 1982. Chapter 4 describes the US atmospheric testing in the 1950s. The dangers to the public of these tests were publicly played down.

But by 1955, the upsurge in radioactivity only hours after nuclear tests in Nevada was becoming alarming. Two scientists at University of Colorado Medical Center, Ray Lanier and Theodore Puck, went public.

Said Dr. Puck: "The trouble with airborne radioactive dust is that we breathe it into the lungs, where it may lodge in direct contact with living tissue." Thus, he explained, internal exposure from alpha or beta particles was "very different from having it lodge on skin or clothing where it can be brushed or washed off." …

Dr. Lanier also pointed out the absence of any "safe minimum below which danger to individuals or their unborn descendants disappears. Or at least we do not know what it is."

Colorado’s governor immediately said that the two men "should be arrested". But other scientists were also beginning to become concerned.

But within the AEC the cold war made it very difficult for scientists to question the testing program. Oppenheimer’s banishment had set a powerful example. "There developed what I consider to be a strange psychological frame of mind," Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, director of the Oak Ridge Health Physics Lab during that era, reflected in 1980. "It became unpatriotic and perhaps unscientific to suggest that atomic weapons testing might cause deaths throughout the world from fallout." Morgan found many of his AEC colleagues holding "onto untenable and extremely shallow arguments . . . comparisons with medical and natural background exposures as if they were harmless."

The press gave only limited coverage to scientists who challenged the wisdom of atomic testing. Those complaining about radioactivity were routinely accused of ignorance, hysteria, or involvement in Communist manipulations. Nevertheless concern among scientists mounted.

Another event in 1956 also had major impact. British physician Alice Stewart found the first firm evidence that low-level radiation causes cancer in human beings. "At the time," Dr. Stewart told us, "radiologists considered low-level radiation to be in the range of fifty to one hundred rems. We were able to demonstrate that the flicker from one X-ray photograph to a fetus could initiate a cancer. This was a tiny fraction of the amount considered safe." …

In June 1957 Linus Pauling estimated in a Foreign Policy Bulletin article that ten thousand persons had died or were dying from leukemia because of nuclear tests. A month earlier Pauling’s colleague E. B. Lewis had published a more detailed analysis in Science. Using four sets of data, Lewis showed that there was no safe level of exposure; leukemia incidence seemed to be directly proportionate to the amount of the radiation dose. These articles documented the absence of any "safe" dose of radiation.

Strangely enough (H/T Rose), it was Dr Richard Doll, who’d linked smoking and lung cancer a few years before, who swung into action.

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

The nuclear testing continued unabated.

In 1958 the U.S. tested sixty-four weapons aboveground, the Soviet Union twenty-four, and Britain five. This was the highest rate since the first tests began….

Meanwhile strontium 90 levels in milk were rising dramatically, according to the AEC’s own data. The northern Great Plains–particularly the Red River Valley dividing North Dakota and Minnesota–were fast becoming the most strontium-90-contaminated area in North America. Strontium 90 in the region’s milk supply was far in excess of the AEC’s own safe limit for human consumption…

During this period Dr. Karl Z. Morgan attended an NCRP meeting where Teller gave a speech about fallout. "To my amazement, and certainly to the amazement of others, Ed [Teller] was claiming that since naturally occurring radiation played a part in the evolutionary process, the increase in fallout would simply speed up the evolution."

Linus Pauling persisted, drafting a petition to governments to stop nuclear tests, which was signed by 2,000 scientists. The petition ended up with over 11,000 signatures from scientists from all over the world, including over 200 from the Soviet Union. Attempts were made to brand Pauling as a Communist sympathiser.

Even America’s major metropolitan areas were not exempt from intensely radioactive fallout clouds. Rapid-fire atmospheric nuclear tests in Nevada, plus Russian atomic detonations, sent radiation readings to the highest ever recorded in Los Angeles by the end of October 1958. Government officials announced that the fallout on Los Angeles was "harmless." Yet privately the National Advisory Committee on Radiation termed the L.A. radioactivity "an emergency."…

The huddled government scientists observed that radiation dosages at least as high as those besetting Los Angeles had been found the previous year in Salt Lake City. But twenty years would pass before residents of either city learned about what was said at that closed governmental meeting.

Nevertheless a temporary moratorium on nuclear testing by the USA and the USSR was called in November 1958. It continued until 1961, and in 1962 there were more nuclear tests than ever before, until the Partial Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1963, halting atmospheric tests. But this didn’t keep all the radioactive material underground.

One of the most pervasive–and erroneous–beliefs about the U.S. nuclear testing program is that its radioactive fallout ended when the Limited Test Ban treaty took effect in 1963. When the nuclear tests went underground, people assumed the weapons-testing radiation threat disappeared. This comforting notion, carefully nurtured by the government, is false.

If nothing else, radioactive gases escaped relatively easily. From 1966 to 1975, Colonel Raymond E. Brim was responsible for monitoring off-site fallout.

On December 8, 1968, a thirty-kiloton Plowshare blast named Schooner sent up a storm of radioactivity over the Nevada Test Site. As usual Brim’s agency began to monitor the fallout.

"This effluent cloud was tracked continuously by Air Force planes until it reached the border of Canada where standing orders prevented tracking outside the United States," Brim revealed more than a decade afterward…

"There is indisputable evidence on record that shows that the people, not just of Utah and Nevada but of a much wider and more encompassing area of the United States, were unknowingly subjected to fallout of radioactive debris that resulted from ventings of underground and cratering tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site," Brim told the congressional panel. "Because of weather and wind patterns, this debris was frequently carried much farther than has been reported to the public."

Underground weapons testing continued until 1991, in both the USA and USSR. The weapons got bigger and bigger. And the underground test sites continued to vent radiation.

Mighty Oak test using the Mk-21 RV warhead. was conducted on April 10, 1986. Containment failed and later radiation was released. Secondary sources put this venting into at 36,000 curies, which is 2000 times greater than the 3 Mile Island incident.

It’s not just fallout from weapons tests that was adding to the radiation burden. The book concludes:

all signs indicate that radiation from bomb tests, power reactors, uranium mines, mills and tailings piles, bomb production factories, "rear-end" waste dumps, commercial production facilities, and X-ray machines are far more dangerous than previously expected.

All in all, there’s a lot of evidence that supports the notion that it was the introduction of radioactive materials which was the more likely cause of most of the epidemic of cancer which began at the dawn of the 20th century. Nobody realised how dangerous the stuff was. And for several decades a variety of radioactive products were sold commercially all around the world – radioactive face creams, radioactive soaps, radioactive suppositories, radioactive water, even radioactive chocolates -. Radiation was seen as beneficial and life-enhancing. By the time nuclear weapons testing started in the 1940s, there was already a considerable amount of radioactive material in circulation, and it was already causing a lot of cancer.

But by the 1950s, nuclear tests were regarded as essential in the Cold War. Nothing could be allowed to stop them. So the dangers were routinely downplayed, and the escapes of radiation concealed, and the critics vilified. In Britain, Dr Alice Stewart struggled to win funding. In the USA, Linus Pauling never got another cent of federal money.

But perhaps during the 1950s something else started happening. Desperate to keep the nuclear programme going, governments began looking around for something else on which to blame the growing epidemic of cancer. Cigarettes and smoking were groomed to become the patsy onto which the blame would be loaded. Once the US Surgeon General pinned the blame for lung cancer firmly on smoking in 1964, and nuclear tests went underground, the finger of suspicion began to point away from radioactive fallout. It was probably a stroke of luck that JFK had been assassinated the previous year, because he too seemed to think that fallout might get in people’s lungs.

In a July 1963 speech televised to the nation Kennedy urged Senate ratification of the test ban treaty: "The number of children and grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukemia in their blood, or with poison in their lungs might seem statistically small to some, in comparison with natural hazards, but this is not a natural health hazard–and it is not a statistical issue. The loss of even one human life, or malformation of one baby–who may be born long after we are gone–should be of concern to us all. Our children and grandchildren are not merely statistics towards which we can be indifferent."

And once the focus had been switched to tobacco, it had to be kept there. Cigarettes gradually came to cause not just lung cancer, but every other sort of cancer. And heart disease as well. Smoking was made to seem to be be more and more dangerous. It wasn’t just active smoking that was dangerous, but passive smoking as well. The more the spotlight was kept focused on tobacco, and greater the hysteria over tobacco grew, the less any consideration would be given to any other possible cause of cancer.

And, in time, all the dangers associated with radiation were entirely transferred to tobacco. There is now "no safe level of tobacco smoke" just as Alice Stewart and others had found out about radiation back in the 1950s. And just as the youngest children were in greatest danger from radiation – because any damage to their dividing and multiplying cells would result in damaged cells continuing to reproduce, resulting in stillborn or sickly infants – so also tobacco had to be presented as above all a threat to mothers and children. Tobacco was made to do everything that radiation could do.

Seen from this perspective, the War on Smoking is intimately linked with the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. It was part and parcel of everything else that was going on.

But the Cold War is over, isn’t it? So why go on? Well, perhaps it’s just over temporarily, and is set to start up any day all over again. And also, when all the new environmentally friendly windmills fail to provide enough power to maintain Western civilisation in the manner to which it has become accustomed, there’ll be renewed calls to build nuclear power stations. In fact there are already. The last thing the nuclear lobby would want is for doubt to be cast on the culpability of tobacco in causing all the cancer and heart disease of the past century.

About Frank Davis

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

47 Responses to The Fallout Hypothesis 3

  1. Anonymous says:

    Nuclear Industry
    In my understanding the nuclear industry was initially started to produce weapons grade Plutonium, at the Oakridge laboratories there was research into Thorium fueled reactors, tThorium is NOT radio active in the way uranium is, however the US decided to stop that research in order to continue developing Uranium fueled reactors. Since Chernobyl, things have changed and India, a country with vast natural rescources of Thorium is developing new reactors with a 100 year working life that will be Uranium free, other countries are also developing 3rd and soon 4th generation Reactors which burn Plutonium or actually “Breed” the fuel, Fusion reactors have just slid back a few years as the EU have decided to cut the budget at a time when they knew the hardware costs would be the most expensive, typical administative thinking by morons, still, however you look at Nuclear power, it is could be said that it has saved at least as many lives that it has taken, bearing in mind that what happened at Chernobyl was a deliberate and dangerous experiment by newly appointed Commisar for the reason trying to impress Moscow, who when the truth was finally published, Gorbachov had executed for Treason against the USSR.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Nuclear Industry
    In my understanding the nuclear industry was initially started to produce weapons grade Plutonium, at the Oakridge laboratories there was research into Thorium fueled reactors, tThorium is NOT radio active in the way uranium is, however the US decided to stop that research in order to continue developing Uranium fueled reactors. Since Chernobyl, things have changed and India, a country with vast natural rescources of Thorium is developing new reactors with a 100 year working life that will be Uranium free, other countries are also developing 3rd and soon 4th generation Reactors which burn Plutonium or actually “Breed” the fuel, Fusion reactors have just slid back a few years as the EU have decided to cut the budget at a time when they knew the hardware costs would be the most expensive, typical administative thinking by morons, still, however you look at Nuclear power, it is could be said that it has saved at least as many lives that it has taken, bearing in mind that what happened at Chernobyl was a deliberate and dangerous experiment by newly appointed Commisar for the reason trying to impress Moscow, who when the truth was finally published, Gorbachov had executed for Treason against the USSR.

  3. Anonymous says:

    IAEA veto on Nuke reasearch
    I am not really into to conspiracy theory stuff but it is interesting that the Nuclear Industry has a veto over what the WHO researches.
    “give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power – and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health.”
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13767
    If the WHO can not research any link between lung cancer and other cancers and nukes then the WHO has to look at what it can.
    Fredrik

  4. Anonymous says:

    IAEA veto on Nuke reasearch
    I am not really into to conspiracy theory stuff but it is interesting that the Nuclear Industry has a veto over what the WHO researches.
    “give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power – and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health.”
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13767
    If the WHO can not research any link between lung cancer and other cancers and nukes then the WHO has to look at what it can.
    Fredrik

  5. Anonymous says:

    Here and previously you have brought many interesting and disturbing facts to our attention, but on the subject of smoking and lung cancer, I can’t agree with you. I believe any effects of passive smoking to be negligible, but the evidence that if you smoke, you are more likely to get lung cancer, is overwhelming. Of course, this mechanism might be enabled or made more efficient by radioactive fallout or any number of other things. I agree that there are peculiarities in the early studies such as Doll’s, but his doctors’ study continued into the 1990’s and demonstrated to my satisfaction the effects of smoking. The very low rate of lung cancer among Swedish males together with the substitution of snus for cigarettes is further evidence. I write as a smoker and someone violently opposed to the smoking ban. Always enjoy your writing. Keep on going.
    Jonathan Bagley.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Here and previously you have brought many interesting and disturbing facts to our attention, but on the subject of smoking and lung cancer, I can’t agree with you. I believe any effects of passive smoking to be negligible, but the evidence that if you smoke, you are more likely to get lung cancer, is overwhelming. Of course, this mechanism might be enabled or made more efficient by radioactive fallout or any number of other things. I agree that there are peculiarities in the early studies such as Doll’s, but his doctors’ study continued into the 1990’s and demonstrated to my satisfaction the effects of smoking. The very low rate of lung cancer among Swedish males together with the substitution of snus for cigarettes is further evidence. I write as a smoker and someone violently opposed to the smoking ban. Always enjoy your writing. Keep on going.
    Jonathan Bagley.

  7. Anonymous says:

    . . . but I read that the Japanese are heavy smokers and have a low lung cancer rate . . . how does that figure?
    Oh yes, and the extensive medical care lavished on them by the US after the war actually produced a healthier population, giving rise to the facetious tongue in cheek claim that the radioctivity was actually good for them!

  8. Anonymous says:

    . . . but I read that the Japanese are heavy smokers and have a low lung cancer rate . . . how does that figure?
    Oh yes, and the extensive medical care lavished on them by the US after the war actually produced a healthier population, giving rise to the facetious tongue in cheek claim that the radioctivity was actually good for them!

  9. Anonymous says:

    But smoker prevalence can not explain the distribution of lung cancer across time and space. Look at the massive volatility in lung cancer rates here:
    http://alternativeanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/10/this-rain-map-is-better.html
    I would say there is a stronger link with precipitation than smoking !?!, and a dose response!?!, the more it rains the more lung cancer there is, but no one would claim that
    rain fall causes lung cancer or that rain fall is responsible for the post WWII rise in lung cancer as seen in countries like Sweden!

    Click to access appel2.pdf


    Fredrik

  10. Anonymous says:

    But smoker prevalence can not explain the distribution of lung cancer across time and space. Look at the massive volatility in lung cancer rates here:
    http://alternativeanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/10/this-rain-map-is-better.html
    I would say there is a stronger link with precipitation than smoking !?!, and a dose response!?!, the more it rains the more lung cancer there is, but no one would claim that
    rain fall causes lung cancer or that rain fall is responsible for the post WWII rise in lung cancer as seen in countries like Sweden!

    Click to access appel2.pdf


    Fredrik

  11. Anonymous says:

    George and Fredrik, I don’t think what I said contradicts your alternative hypotheses and the inconsistencies you point out. I know about the Japanese and, to a lesser extent, Greece. Also Andorra, with a high smoking incidence and almost as high a life expectancy as Japan. I haven’t looked, but I think that Japanese smokers would be more likely to get lung cancer than Japenese non smokers, even though the overall rate is low. I’m not suggesting these investigations are pointless. On the contrary: I’m finding these current investigations into radiation and precipitation fascinating.
    Strange to think that a decade ago this couldn’t be taking place.

  12. Anonymous says:

    George and Fredrik, I don’t think what I said contradicts your alternative hypotheses and the inconsistencies you point out. I know about the Japanese and, to a lesser extent, Greece. Also Andorra, with a high smoking incidence and almost as high a life expectancy as Japan. I haven’t looked, but I think that Japanese smokers would be more likely to get lung cancer than Japenese non smokers, even though the overall rate is low. I’m not suggesting these investigations are pointless. On the contrary: I’m finding these current investigations into radiation and precipitation fascinating.
    Strange to think that a decade ago this couldn’t be taking place.

  13. Frank Davis says:

    I agree that there are peculiarities in the early studies such as Doll’s, but his doctors’ study continued into the 1990’s and demonstrated to my satisfaction the effects of smoking.
    We are all, of course, entitled to our opinions! But I think that in the case of smoking and lung cancer, we’ve all been brainwashed for the past half century to think that the one causes the other.
    The first studies (discounting the Nazi studies) seem to me to be the most important, because they’re the ones which convinced Richard Doll and Goeorge Godber that smoking caused lung cancer. But I really don’t know why. 98% of the patients in the London Hospitals study were smokers, and so you’d expect that, even if smoking didn’t cause lung cancer, that 98% of the lung cancer cases would be found among smokers. In fact over 99% were.
    But a similar criticism of the British Doctors study can be made, given that 87% of the doctors were smokers (at the outset). In my opinion, the British Doctors study is one which builds upon the London Hospitals study, because it’s more or less assumed at the outset that smoking caused lung cancer. The only question the doctors were asked was how much they smoked. It was never going to find out that something else was the cause of lung cancer. The aim was to see what else it caused. It was, as I’ve written before, a fishing expedition. And it was intended, as Doll said in 2004 when he addressed the last meeting of the researchers, to highlight the link of smoking and cancer (I forget the exact words).
    There are of course lots of other studies, most of which I haven’t looked at, but they all seem to have been based on questionnaires or interviews. Which isn’t science, as far as I’m concerned, because it doesn’t produce reliable data.
    I don’t of course know what does cause lung cancer, but I doubt that cigarettes on their own will do so. But that’s just my opinion.
    Frank

  14. Frank Davis says:

    I agree that there are peculiarities in the early studies such as Doll’s, but his doctors’ study continued into the 1990’s and demonstrated to my satisfaction the effects of smoking.
    We are all, of course, entitled to our opinions! But I think that in the case of smoking and lung cancer, we’ve all been brainwashed for the past half century to think that the one causes the other.
    The first studies (discounting the Nazi studies) seem to me to be the most important, because they’re the ones which convinced Richard Doll and Goeorge Godber that smoking caused lung cancer. But I really don’t know why. 98% of the patients in the London Hospitals study were smokers, and so you’d expect that, even if smoking didn’t cause lung cancer, that 98% of the lung cancer cases would be found among smokers. In fact over 99% were.
    But a similar criticism of the British Doctors study can be made, given that 87% of the doctors were smokers (at the outset). In my opinion, the British Doctors study is one which builds upon the London Hospitals study, because it’s more or less assumed at the outset that smoking caused lung cancer. The only question the doctors were asked was how much they smoked. It was never going to find out that something else was the cause of lung cancer. The aim was to see what else it caused. It was, as I’ve written before, a fishing expedition. And it was intended, as Doll said in 2004 when he addressed the last meeting of the researchers, to highlight the link of smoking and cancer (I forget the exact words).
    There are of course lots of other studies, most of which I haven’t looked at, but they all seem to have been based on questionnaires or interviews. Which isn’t science, as far as I’m concerned, because it doesn’t produce reliable data.
    I don’t of course know what does cause lung cancer, but I doubt that cigarettes on their own will do so. But that’s just my opinion.
    Frank

  15. Frank Davis says:

    I spent a while a few days ago looking at lung cancer and rainfall, and it doesn’t look like there’s a very strong association outside the USA (and Mexico which has average rainfall of 18 mm/month by comparison with Starkville, Mississippi with 116 mm/month.
    Greece has low rainfall of av 28 mm/month. But Tokyo in Japan has 122 mm/month (up at Mississippi levels). Also, across Europe Ireland has 166 mm/month in western coastal regions, and 66 mm/month in the east, the UK average is 76 mm/month, but a whole raft of countries ranging from Spain to Norway and Finland and Germany and Hungary get 50 mm/month, yet lung cancer incidence is lower in wet Ireland and not-so-wet Britain than the other drier European countries.
    But this was just a quick look. I did think that how much people wear when they’re outside would have an effect (assuming the fallout hypothesis holds), so that there’d be less cancer in Northern Europe than in southern Europe (there is).
    But then, I’ve tended to think in terms of direct exposure to fallout, rather than ingestion through food and water.
    Frank

  16. Frank Davis says:

    I spent a while a few days ago looking at lung cancer and rainfall, and it doesn’t look like there’s a very strong association outside the USA (and Mexico which has average rainfall of 18 mm/month by comparison with Starkville, Mississippi with 116 mm/month.
    Greece has low rainfall of av 28 mm/month. But Tokyo in Japan has 122 mm/month (up at Mississippi levels). Also, across Europe Ireland has 166 mm/month in western coastal regions, and 66 mm/month in the east, the UK average is 76 mm/month, but a whole raft of countries ranging from Spain to Norway and Finland and Germany and Hungary get 50 mm/month, yet lung cancer incidence is lower in wet Ireland and not-so-wet Britain than the other drier European countries.
    But this was just a quick look. I did think that how much people wear when they’re outside would have an effect (assuming the fallout hypothesis holds), so that there’d be less cancer in Northern Europe than in southern Europe (there is).
    But then, I’ve tended to think in terms of direct exposure to fallout, rather than ingestion through food and water.
    Frank

  17. Anonymous says:

    Frank,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9428585
    This study in Mexico 1979 – 1993 shows that lung cancer is very low compared with the US and is a little higher in the north of the country
    “In 15 years, 73,807 deaths from LC were reported, with an increase in mortality from 5.01 – 7.25 per 100,000 inhabitants.”

  18. Anonymous says:

    Frank,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9428585
    This study in Mexico 1979 – 1993 shows that lung cancer is very low compared with the US and is a little higher in the north of the country
    “In 15 years, 73,807 deaths from LC were reported, with an increase in mortality from 5.01 – 7.25 per 100,000 inhabitants.”

  19. Anonymous says:

    Not knowing anything much about this, I had a look at when it seems to have started.
    It appears there was a fashion for irradiating pretty much any product, with no idea of any possible long term effects.
    Radithor and the Era of Mild Radium Therapy
    “Soon after the discovery of radium, a school of practitioners arose who were interested primarily in the physiological rather than the tumoricidal powers of this new radioactive element.
    This treatment philosophy was called “mild radium therapy” and involved the oral or parenteral administration of microgram quantities of radium and its daughter isotopes, often as cures for rheumatic diseases, hypertension, and metabolic disorders.
    Manufacturers of patent medicines responded to this market by producing a variety of over-the-counter radioactive preparations including pills, elixirs, and salves.
    One such nostrum was Radithor, a popular and expensive mixture of radium 226 and radium 228 in distilled water.
    Radithor was advertised as an effective treatment for over 150 “endocrinologic” diseases, especially lassitude and sexual impotence. Over 400 000 bottles, each containing over 2 µCi (74 kBq) of radium, were apparently marketed and sold worldwide between 1925 and 1930.”
    The death of the Pittsburgh millionaire sportsman Eben M. Byers, who was an avid Radithor user, by radium poisoning in 1932 brought an end to this era and prompted the development of regulatory controls for all radiopharmaceuticals.”
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/264/5/614
    “One sip and “immediately the whole body is flooded with billions and billions of Alpha rays that liberate their energy throughout the entire system like floods of sunshine.”
    http://www.wnyc.org/books/42457
    Medicine: Radium Drinks – Radithor
    Monday, Apr. 11, 1932
    “William J. A. Bailey, the man who made “Radithor,” last week was conducting a printing and advertising business in West Orange, N. J. He is a scholarly-looking man with no scientific or medical degrees, no learned connections other than membership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in which he claims a protean interest in medical sciences, chemistry and physics.
    For a period he worked for U. S. Radium Corp. According to the Better Business Bureau, he has been associated with the manufacturers of “Thorone tablets … 250 times more radioactive than radium.” He also was connected with “Arium tablets” and with a “radiendocrinator, a high-priced piece of hokum that sold first for $1,000 and later for $150.” His “Radithor” sold for $30 per case of 24 2-oz. bottles, which contained altogether about $7 worth of radioactive material.”
    Mr. Bailey’s defense last week was that he sold “Radithor” on doctors’ prescriptions.”
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,743525,00.html
    The radiotoxicology of Radithor. Analysis of an early case of iatrogenic poisoning by a radioactive patent medicine.
    “Radithor was a radioactive patent medicine that was touted as a metabolic stimulant and aphrodisiac.
    We have obtained several original samples of Radithor and have used these historical specimens and a computer-based calculation model to perform a retrospective analysis of a famous case of Radithor-related radium poisoning.
    Our data suggest that the victim’s cumulative skeletal radiation dose may have exceeded 350 Sv by the time he died. This figure far exceeds most current estimates of what radiation exposure level would constitute a rapidly lethal dose if given acutely.
    The physiological response to longterm internal radiation exposure and the highly localized nature of alpha particle irradiation may require the development of new models for the assessment of risk in cases of internal alpha particle irradiation.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2366303
    Goodness knows what happened to the survivors in the end.
    Rose

  20. Anonymous says:

    Not knowing anything much about this, I had a look at when it seems to have started.
    It appears there was a fashion for irradiating pretty much any product, with no idea of any possible long term effects.
    Radithor and the Era of Mild Radium Therapy
    “Soon after the discovery of radium, a school of practitioners arose who were interested primarily in the physiological rather than the tumoricidal powers of this new radioactive element.
    This treatment philosophy was called “mild radium therapy” and involved the oral or parenteral administration of microgram quantities of radium and its daughter isotopes, often as cures for rheumatic diseases, hypertension, and metabolic disorders.
    Manufacturers of patent medicines responded to this market by producing a variety of over-the-counter radioactive preparations including pills, elixirs, and salves.
    One such nostrum was Radithor, a popular and expensive mixture of radium 226 and radium 228 in distilled water.
    Radithor was advertised as an effective treatment for over 150 “endocrinologic” diseases, especially lassitude and sexual impotence. Over 400 000 bottles, each containing over 2 µCi (74 kBq) of radium, were apparently marketed and sold worldwide between 1925 and 1930.”
    The death of the Pittsburgh millionaire sportsman Eben M. Byers, who was an avid Radithor user, by radium poisoning in 1932 brought an end to this era and prompted the development of regulatory controls for all radiopharmaceuticals.”
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/264/5/614
    “One sip and “immediately the whole body is flooded with billions and billions of Alpha rays that liberate their energy throughout the entire system like floods of sunshine.”
    http://www.wnyc.org/books/42457
    Medicine: Radium Drinks – Radithor
    Monday, Apr. 11, 1932
    “William J. A. Bailey, the man who made “Radithor,” last week was conducting a printing and advertising business in West Orange, N. J. He is a scholarly-looking man with no scientific or medical degrees, no learned connections other than membership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in which he claims a protean interest in medical sciences, chemistry and physics.
    For a period he worked for U. S. Radium Corp. According to the Better Business Bureau, he has been associated with the manufacturers of “Thorone tablets … 250 times more radioactive than radium.” He also was connected with “Arium tablets” and with a “radiendocrinator, a high-priced piece of hokum that sold first for $1,000 and later for $150.” His “Radithor” sold for $30 per case of 24 2-oz. bottles, which contained altogether about $7 worth of radioactive material.”
    Mr. Bailey’s defense last week was that he sold “Radithor” on doctors’ prescriptions.”
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,743525,00.html
    The radiotoxicology of Radithor. Analysis of an early case of iatrogenic poisoning by a radioactive patent medicine.
    “Radithor was a radioactive patent medicine that was touted as a metabolic stimulant and aphrodisiac.
    We have obtained several original samples of Radithor and have used these historical specimens and a computer-based calculation model to perform a retrospective analysis of a famous case of Radithor-related radium poisoning.
    Our data suggest that the victim’s cumulative skeletal radiation dose may have exceeded 350 Sv by the time he died. This figure far exceeds most current estimates of what radiation exposure level would constitute a rapidly lethal dose if given acutely.
    The physiological response to longterm internal radiation exposure and the highly localized nature of alpha particle irradiation may require the development of new models for the assessment of risk in cases of internal alpha particle irradiation.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2366303
    Goodness knows what happened to the survivors in the end.
    Rose

  21. Anonymous says:

    There were some doubts though.
    RADIUM CAUSE OF CANCER?; Theory Advanced by Dr. Lazarus-Barlow of Middlesex Hospital.
    By Marconi Transatlantic Wireless Telegraph to The New York Times.
    April 24, 1914,
    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F30B15F9355D13738DDDAD0A94DC405B848DF1D3
    ERROR IN RADIUM CANCER TREATMENT; Dr. Abbe Explains to Doctors How He and Dr. Carrel Have Discovered It.
    “Dr. Robert Abbe, who began eleven years ago to use radium in the treatment of cancer, told members of the Radium Institute of America, at a meeting at Columbia University yesterday afternoon, that experiments conducted under his direction by Dr. Alexis Carrel of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research had convinced him that the central theory of radium’s action, under which he had proceeded up to this time, was entirely wrong.”
    Stimulated Cancer
    “You know we have failures with radium , and its effect is sometimes confusing in the extreme.”
    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70915FE3D5E13738DDDA10994DA405B848DF1D3
    Morris Beale’s view in 1949.
    “Because the price of radium increased 1,000 percent when some enterprising medical business men started a fad in using it on cancer victims, too much money is tied up in radium now for those who own it to give up cancer futility without a struggle.
    And because the cancer victim before he dies helps bull the drug market, the Drug Trust will not consent to the naturopathic method of treating cancer without a similar death struggle.”
    http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/TheDrugStoryBeale.htm#Chapter_5_The_Racket_In_Cancer_Control_
    Rose

  22. Anonymous says:

    There were some doubts though.
    RADIUM CAUSE OF CANCER?; Theory Advanced by Dr. Lazarus-Barlow of Middlesex Hospital.
    By Marconi Transatlantic Wireless Telegraph to The New York Times.
    April 24, 1914,
    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F30B15F9355D13738DDDAD0A94DC405B848DF1D3
    ERROR IN RADIUM CANCER TREATMENT; Dr. Abbe Explains to Doctors How He and Dr. Carrel Have Discovered It.
    “Dr. Robert Abbe, who began eleven years ago to use radium in the treatment of cancer, told members of the Radium Institute of America, at a meeting at Columbia University yesterday afternoon, that experiments conducted under his direction by Dr. Alexis Carrel of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research had convinced him that the central theory of radium’s action, under which he had proceeded up to this time, was entirely wrong.”
    Stimulated Cancer
    “You know we have failures with radium , and its effect is sometimes confusing in the extreme.”
    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70915FE3D5E13738DDDA10994DA405B848DF1D3
    Morris Beale’s view in 1949.
    “Because the price of radium increased 1,000 percent when some enterprising medical business men started a fad in using it on cancer victims, too much money is tied up in radium now for those who own it to give up cancer futility without a struggle.
    And because the cancer victim before he dies helps bull the drug market, the Drug Trust will not consent to the naturopathic method of treating cancer without a similar death struggle.”
    http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/TheDrugStoryBeale.htm#Chapter_5_The_Racket_In_Cancer_Control_
    Rose

  23. Anonymous says:

    Jonathan,
    Just a few years ago I shared your views on active smoking and of course I still fully respect your position.
    However I have changed my mind recently and no longer think active smoking has a significant causal role in lung cancer. My conclusion is based on a whole raft of articles/papers and from my own analysis of Doll’s Doctors Study. In case you are interested, I link to some of the key info below:
    http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
    http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html
    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/584.full.pdf+html (last sentence of the abstract)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9099400 or in full:
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2060549906-9917.html

    Click to access lc_triggered_stop_smoking.pdf


    As to my analysis of the Doctors Study, I won’t bore people with all of it but here are some thoughts:
    1. Cigarette smoking doctors were more likely to have had a working class background and to have practised medicine in poorer areas. Rich patients don’t walk into a surgery shaking asbestos dust off their clothing for example.
    2. In Doll’s study, a smoker typically had to have given up for five or more years before being re-classified as non-smoker. See last link above.
    3. Diagnostic bias (smokers being over diagnosed and non-smokers under diagnosed – Metastasis playing a key role here) would have contributed to the correlation.
    I think Frank has been mentioned most of these before so I hope you don’t mind my listing them again.
    Tony

  24. Anonymous says:

    Jonathan,
    Just a few years ago I shared your views on active smoking and of course I still fully respect your position.
    However I have changed my mind recently and no longer think active smoking has a significant causal role in lung cancer. My conclusion is based on a whole raft of articles/papers and from my own analysis of Doll’s Doctors Study. In case you are interested, I link to some of the key info below:
    http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
    http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html
    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/584.full.pdf+html (last sentence of the abstract)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9099400 or in full:
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2060549906-9917.html

    Click to access lc_triggered_stop_smoking.pdf


    As to my analysis of the Doctors Study, I won’t bore people with all of it but here are some thoughts:
    1. Cigarette smoking doctors were more likely to have had a working class background and to have practised medicine in poorer areas. Rich patients don’t walk into a surgery shaking asbestos dust off their clothing for example.
    2. In Doll’s study, a smoker typically had to have given up for five or more years before being re-classified as non-smoker. See last link above.
    3. Diagnostic bias (smokers being over diagnosed and non-smokers under diagnosed – Metastasis playing a key role here) would have contributed to the correlation.
    I think Frank has been mentioned most of these before so I hope you don’t mind my listing them again.
    Tony

  25. Anonymous says:

    Mexico
    That figure of 73,807 LC deaths for mexico tallies well with my numbers from the WHO mortality database.
    LC DEATHS MEX 1979 – 1995 73,260
    LC DEATHS USA 1979 – 1995 2,084,595
    USA POP 1980 227,202,000
    USA POP 1995 262,755,300
    MEX POP 1980 69,351,000
    MEX POP 1995 91,145,200
    Mexico has a very low lung cancer rate.
    Fredrik.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Mexico
    That figure of 73,807 LC deaths for mexico tallies well with my numbers from the WHO mortality database.
    LC DEATHS MEX 1979 – 1995 73,260
    LC DEATHS USA 1979 – 1995 2,084,595
    USA POP 1980 227,202,000
    USA POP 1995 262,755,300
    MEX POP 1980 69,351,000
    MEX POP 1995 91,145,200
    Mexico has a very low lung cancer rate.
    Fredrik.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Jonathan,
    I don’t know how old you are, but I suspect that you are younger than me – probably because these days, most people are. But I recall very well the first tentative steps of the anti-smoking lobby to “prove” that smoking “caused” cancer and I can remember how difficult they found it. Indeed, it has never actually been “proven” in the truly scientific sense of the word, simply because the final stage in any research which enables scientists to claim that they have found a “cause” for any condition is the ability to render previously healthy organisms ill with the researched condition by application of the supposed “cause” – be it a bacterium, a virus or a chemical substance.
    In the case of tobacco smoke, over many years many thousands of laboratory animals had huge quantities of undiluted tobacco smoke pumped directly into their lungs and none of them obliged by developing the requisite lung cancer. Note that last phrase – none of them. Not one, not a few, not a “statistically insignificant number” – none.
    “Proof” was finally claimed by isolating the different chemicals within tobacco smoke and painting them in highly concentrated liquid forms onto the shaved skin of rabbits. Only then, after going to such huge lengths that the final experiments bore absolutely no resemblance to the smoking of tobacco, or the isolated chemicals any resemblance to the tiny quantities found in tobacco smoke, did the animals do the decent thing and develop cancerous tumours – on their skin.
    It is on the basis of this highly convoluted and far-removed experiment that the anti-smoking movement felt able to proclaim that they had been “right all along” – smoking really did cause cancer. Hoorah! Perhaps at the time greater detail of the exact technique was reported, but as soon as they felt safe enough to claim that they had their “proof” the anti-smoking movement’s PR and publicity machine clicked efficiently into action, the precise details of the experiments were quickly swept under the carpet, and the catchphrase “smoking causes cancer” was coined.
    Maybe it does, or maybe it’s a contributory factor, or maybe there’s no connection at all. But as a statement it is one of belief, not of fact as the anti-smokers would have you believe. And you, like anyone, are entitled to “buy in” to any belief system you choose, including this one. Just don’t mistake your own beliefs for indisputable truths, because that’s when beliefs spill over into brainwashing, and it’s a dangerous place to go. As far as scientific “evidence” goes – let alone “overwhelming” scientific evidence – there is, categorically, none.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Jonathan,
    I don’t know how old you are, but I suspect that you are younger than me – probably because these days, most people are. But I recall very well the first tentative steps of the anti-smoking lobby to “prove” that smoking “caused” cancer and I can remember how difficult they found it. Indeed, it has never actually been “proven” in the truly scientific sense of the word, simply because the final stage in any research which enables scientists to claim that they have found a “cause” for any condition is the ability to render previously healthy organisms ill with the researched condition by application of the supposed “cause” – be it a bacterium, a virus or a chemical substance.
    In the case of tobacco smoke, over many years many thousands of laboratory animals had huge quantities of undiluted tobacco smoke pumped directly into their lungs and none of them obliged by developing the requisite lung cancer. Note that last phrase – none of them. Not one, not a few, not a “statistically insignificant number” – none.
    “Proof” was finally claimed by isolating the different chemicals within tobacco smoke and painting them in highly concentrated liquid forms onto the shaved skin of rabbits. Only then, after going to such huge lengths that the final experiments bore absolutely no resemblance to the smoking of tobacco, or the isolated chemicals any resemblance to the tiny quantities found in tobacco smoke, did the animals do the decent thing and develop cancerous tumours – on their skin.
    It is on the basis of this highly convoluted and far-removed experiment that the anti-smoking movement felt able to proclaim that they had been “right all along” – smoking really did cause cancer. Hoorah! Perhaps at the time greater detail of the exact technique was reported, but as soon as they felt safe enough to claim that they had their “proof” the anti-smoking movement’s PR and publicity machine clicked efficiently into action, the precise details of the experiments were quickly swept under the carpet, and the catchphrase “smoking causes cancer” was coined.
    Maybe it does, or maybe it’s a contributory factor, or maybe there’s no connection at all. But as a statement it is one of belief, not of fact as the anti-smokers would have you believe. And you, like anyone, are entitled to “buy in” to any belief system you choose, including this one. Just don’t mistake your own beliefs for indisputable truths, because that’s when beliefs spill over into brainwashing, and it’s a dangerous place to go. As far as scientific “evidence” goes – let alone “overwhelming” scientific evidence – there is, categorically, none.

  29. Frank Davis says:

    Here’s a few links.
    http://amazingdata.com/10-radioactive-products-that-people-actually-used/
    http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2010/06/radium-rectal-suppositories.html
    At that time, at least in the US, radioluminescent paint saw little application. It stayed in the bottle. But in Europe, especially Switzerland, things were different. Quoting Ross Mullner “there were so many radium painters in that country that it was common to recognize them on the streets even on the darkest nights because of the glow around them: their hair sparkled almost like a halo.”
    http://www.uphaa.com/blog/index.php/strangest-radioactive-products/
    http://www.scripophily.net/unstracofrag1.html
    Radium – Boon or Menace (1932 article)
    http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/15/radium-boon-or-menace/
    There were even radium cigarettes.
    http://accidentalmysteries.blogspot.com/2009/03/nuclear-products-for-modern-age.html
    http://home.gwi.net/~dnb/gallery/radior/radior.htm
    http://www.oobject.com/radioactive-products/radium-paint-kit/1265/
    A short BBC Four video
    http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/2/Radium-Commercial-Products-451855.html
    http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/arium.htm
    http://etsyearthteam.blogspot.com/2010/08/remembering-radium-city-radium-girls.html
    RADIUM A WONDERFUL STIMULANT OF FARMERS’ CROPS; Tests Show That the Yield of Many Vegetables Is Much Increased by Its Use and That the Quality Is Improved. Flowers and Lawns Benefited. October 25, 1914,
    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70612F73D5C13738DDDAC0A94D8415B848DF1D3
    The first factory was dismantled, but first many residents took items from the factory to their homes. The factory was hosed down, contaminating the town’s water supply. The radioactive building pieces went into a landfill which spread the contamination further. When the second factory closed, it shockingly became a meat packing planet. Several areas of Ottawa are still radioactive today.
    http://etsyearthteam.blogspot.com/2010/08/remembering-radium-city-radium-girls.html
    Tests on radioactive water:
    The team found that radon concentrations in the air and water sampled from jars sealed for one week significantly exceeded the EPA-recommended maximum contaminant levels (MCL). Nevertheless, the team noted that the concentration of radon in the air, given the drafty conditions of an early 20th century home, would not have posed a significant health risk. Moreover, although the levels of radon in the water were high—between 50,000 and 200,000 picoCuries per liter—the study found that, compared to the myriad other disease-related causes of mortality at the time, the chances of dying as a result of drinking radon-infused water were relatively low.
    http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2010/01/the_real_health_risks_of_irradiated_products_from_a_bygone_era.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
    http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/57672
    http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/faibles_doses_stewart.html
    The first radium production plant in the USA opened in 1914, and most of the product went for military use in WW1 (gun sights, dials). It also had growing medical use.
    Radium sold for over $100,000 a gram in about 1914, and fell to about $30,000 per gram 20 years later. By 1939 there was only about 320 grams of it in the whole world. There was an appeal launched to buy Marie Curie a single gram of the stuff.
    http://www.bmj.com/content/1/3553/238.full.pdf+html
    I was thinking of posting something about it all. Radioactive material (and I only looked at Radium) was being put in all sorts of things in the 1920s and 30s. The amounts were probably minute. But given what Alice Stewart found 20 years later about low doses, who know what the damage was.
    Frank

  30. Frank Davis says:

    Here’s a few links.
    http://amazingdata.com/10-radioactive-products-that-people-actually-used/
    http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2010/06/radium-rectal-suppositories.html
    At that time, at least in the US, radioluminescent paint saw little application. It stayed in the bottle. But in Europe, especially Switzerland, things were different. Quoting Ross Mullner “there were so many radium painters in that country that it was common to recognize them on the streets even on the darkest nights because of the glow around them: their hair sparkled almost like a halo.”
    http://www.uphaa.com/blog/index.php/strangest-radioactive-products/
    http://www.scripophily.net/unstracofrag1.html
    Radium – Boon or Menace (1932 article)
    http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/15/radium-boon-or-menace/
    There were even radium cigarettes.
    http://accidentalmysteries.blogspot.com/2009/03/nuclear-products-for-modern-age.html
    http://home.gwi.net/~dnb/gallery/radior/radior.htm
    http://www.oobject.com/radioactive-products/radium-paint-kit/1265/
    A short BBC Four video
    http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/2/Radium-Commercial-Products-451855.html
    http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/arium.htm
    http://etsyearthteam.blogspot.com/2010/08/remembering-radium-city-radium-girls.html
    RADIUM A WONDERFUL STIMULANT OF FARMERS’ CROPS; Tests Show That the Yield of Many Vegetables Is Much Increased by Its Use and That the Quality Is Improved. Flowers and Lawns Benefited. October 25, 1914,
    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70612F73D5C13738DDDAC0A94D8415B848DF1D3
    The first factory was dismantled, but first many residents took items from the factory to their homes. The factory was hosed down, contaminating the town’s water supply. The radioactive building pieces went into a landfill which spread the contamination further. When the second factory closed, it shockingly became a meat packing planet. Several areas of Ottawa are still radioactive today.
    http://etsyearthteam.blogspot.com/2010/08/remembering-radium-city-radium-girls.html
    Tests on radioactive water:
    The team found that radon concentrations in the air and water sampled from jars sealed for one week significantly exceeded the EPA-recommended maximum contaminant levels (MCL). Nevertheless, the team noted that the concentration of radon in the air, given the drafty conditions of an early 20th century home, would not have posed a significant health risk. Moreover, although the levels of radon in the water were high—between 50,000 and 200,000 picoCuries per liter—the study found that, compared to the myriad other disease-related causes of mortality at the time, the chances of dying as a result of drinking radon-infused water were relatively low.
    http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2010/01/the_real_health_risks_of_irradiated_products_from_a_bygone_era.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
    http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/57672
    http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/faibles_doses_stewart.html
    The first radium production plant in the USA opened in 1914, and most of the product went for military use in WW1 (gun sights, dials). It also had growing medical use.
    Radium sold for over $100,000 a gram in about 1914, and fell to about $30,000 per gram 20 years later. By 1939 there was only about 320 grams of it in the whole world. There was an appeal launched to buy Marie Curie a single gram of the stuff.
    http://www.bmj.com/content/1/3553/238.full.pdf+html
    I was thinking of posting something about it all. Radioactive material (and I only looked at Radium) was being put in all sorts of things in the 1920s and 30s. The amounts were probably minute. But given what Alice Stewart found 20 years later about low doses, who know what the damage was.
    Frank

  31. Frank Davis says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Abbe
    He befriended the Curies, and in particular Marie Curie. He collected many photographs of her, documented the production of radium, and explored, with her, the medical uses of radiation and x-rays. In 1904, he introduced the practice of using radiation to treat cancer and founded the science of radiation oncology. In 1927, he founded the Abbe Museum of Native American artifacts.
    In 1904, after corresponding with Professor and Madame Curie, he visited their laboratories in Paris. Joining in their groundbreaking research, he became the founder of radiation therapy in the United States. He was a vigorous opponent of the use of tobacco which he considered a cause of cancer and reported over 100 cases of smoker’s cancer.
    He died of anemia, possibly due to his work handling radium.
    Frank

  32. Frank Davis says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Abbe
    He befriended the Curies, and in particular Marie Curie. He collected many photographs of her, documented the production of radium, and explored, with her, the medical uses of radiation and x-rays. In 1904, he introduced the practice of using radiation to treat cancer and founded the science of radiation oncology. In 1927, he founded the Abbe Museum of Native American artifacts.
    In 1904, after corresponding with Professor and Madame Curie, he visited their laboratories in Paris. Joining in their groundbreaking research, he became the founder of radiation therapy in the United States. He was a vigorous opponent of the use of tobacco which he considered a cause of cancer and reported over 100 cases of smoker’s cancer.
    He died of anemia, possibly due to his work handling radium.
    Frank

  33. Frank Davis says:

    Re: IAEA veto on Nuke reasearch
    Why should they have a veto?
    Frank

  34. Frank Davis says:

    Re: IAEA veto on Nuke reasearch
    Why should they have a veto?
    Frank

  35. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Nuclear Industry
    You’re right. Thorium is only slightly radioactive, with a half life of several billion years. But i know next to nothing about it.
    Frank

  36. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Nuclear Industry
    You’re right. Thorium is only slightly radioactive, with a half life of several billion years. But i know next to nothing about it.
    Frank

  37. Anonymous says:

    Early attempts with tars produced by destructive distillation from tobacco leaves, rather than tobacco smoke condensates.
    The Production of Tumors by Tobacco Tars – 1941
    “At higher temperatures the destructive distillates of petroleum, human skin, and yeast cholesterol , turpentine , rice polishings and crude sugar, all were shown to be carcinogenic.
    Tobacco, like many of the above substances, is a complex mixture of chemicals, and by subjecting it to combustion and destructive distillation processes many workers have attempted to obtain carcinogenic substance.”
    “The still was filled with a.5 kg. of dry tobacco: the asbestos gasket, soaked in water-glass (liquid sodium silicate), put in place; and the lid fastened tightly so as to prevent the escape of fumes. The still was then slowly heated to 700° C.
    Six to 8 hours were required for a distillation. A straight-tubed water-cooled condenser leading into a filter flask was used to collect the water and tar, and the noncondensable products were led into a hood.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/1224.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=1
    Investigation into the Possible Carcinogenic Activity of Wood Smoke – 1942

    Click to access 680.full.pdf


    Explains the considerable difference between destructive distillation and normal burning in air.
    Mentions tobacco experiments.
    “Some, however, had been sufficiently impressed to try to produce cancer with tobacco tar on the skin of laboratory animals.
    Roffo succeeded in doing so in the Argentine in 1931, using rabbits, but his results were generally dismissed in the UK and the US on the grounds that the tobacco had been burnt at unrealistically high temperatures.
    Experiments in Britain were negative (Leitch, 1928; Passey, 1929) apart from one which produced one cancer in 50 animals and led Cooper et al (1932) to conclude that “tobacco tar is relatively unimportant in the causation of cancers”.
    http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhealth/27/9111806.htm
    Angel H Roffo
    “Reasoning by analogy from the production of cancer using coal tars, he argued that the carcinogens in tobacco smoke must be the complex, tarry, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, rather than the (chemically simpler) inorganic constituents or the alkaloid nicotine”
    http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862006000600020&lng=en&nrm=iso
    Rose

  38. Anonymous says:

    Early attempts with tars produced by destructive distillation from tobacco leaves, rather than tobacco smoke condensates.
    The Production of Tumors by Tobacco Tars – 1941
    “At higher temperatures the destructive distillates of petroleum, human skin, and yeast cholesterol , turpentine , rice polishings and crude sugar, all were shown to be carcinogenic.
    Tobacco, like many of the above substances, is a complex mixture of chemicals, and by subjecting it to combustion and destructive distillation processes many workers have attempted to obtain carcinogenic substance.”
    “The still was filled with a.5 kg. of dry tobacco: the asbestos gasket, soaked in water-glass (liquid sodium silicate), put in place; and the lid fastened tightly so as to prevent the escape of fumes. The still was then slowly heated to 700° C.
    Six to 8 hours were required for a distillation. A straight-tubed water-cooled condenser leading into a filter flask was used to collect the water and tar, and the noncondensable products were led into a hood.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/1224.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=1
    Investigation into the Possible Carcinogenic Activity of Wood Smoke – 1942

    Click to access 680.full.pdf


    Explains the considerable difference between destructive distillation and normal burning in air.
    Mentions tobacco experiments.
    “Some, however, had been sufficiently impressed to try to produce cancer with tobacco tar on the skin of laboratory animals.
    Roffo succeeded in doing so in the Argentine in 1931, using rabbits, but his results were generally dismissed in the UK and the US on the grounds that the tobacco had been burnt at unrealistically high temperatures.
    Experiments in Britain were negative (Leitch, 1928; Passey, 1929) apart from one which produced one cancer in 50 animals and led Cooper et al (1932) to conclude that “tobacco tar is relatively unimportant in the causation of cancers”.
    http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhealth/27/9111806.htm
    Angel H Roffo
    “Reasoning by analogy from the production of cancer using coal tars, he argued that the carcinogens in tobacco smoke must be the complex, tarry, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, rather than the (chemically simpler) inorganic constituents or the alkaloid nicotine”
    http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862006000600020&lng=en&nrm=iso
    Rose

  39. Anonymous says:

    Good grief!
    Thinking of Alice Stewart’s findings, I daresay there could be a considerable length of time between the original trauma and the end result.
    So long in fact, that the possible original cause could have been entirely forgotten.
    I had forgotten all about Doll until I accidentally inhaled cement powder while building a wall, 4 years ago.
    You know, I’m sticking to my resolve.
    If it hasn’t been around for at least 300 years,in common use and recognisable form, it’s too soon to be sure.
    Rose

  40. Anonymous says:

    Good grief!
    Thinking of Alice Stewart’s findings, I daresay there could be a considerable length of time between the original trauma and the end result.
    So long in fact, that the possible original cause could have been entirely forgotten.
    I had forgotten all about Doll until I accidentally inhaled cement powder while building a wall, 4 years ago.
    You know, I’m sticking to my resolve.
    If it hasn’t been around for at least 300 years,in common use and recognisable form, it’s too soon to be sure.
    Rose

  41. Anonymous says:

    Good grief!
    Thinking of Alice Stewart’s findings, I daresay there could be a considerable length of time between the original trauma and the end result.
    So long in fact, that the possible original cause could have been entirely forgotten.
    I had forgotten all about Doll until I accidentally inhaled cement powder while building a wall, 4 years ago.
    You know, I’m sticking to my resolve.
    If it hasn’t been around for at least 300 years,in common use and recognisable form, it’s too soon to be sure.
    Rose

  42. timbone59 says:

    My own thoughts are this. Tobacco does contain elements which may cause lung cancer in an active smoker. There are however many additions. A smoker has to be genetically inclined. A smoker, even if genetically inclined, may not develop the cancer unless there are added factors, such as where they live, and their diet and fitness which is a major part of their immune system. Latest research from CRUK, when analysed, states that 0.3% of smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer every year, with the majority being in their late sixties and beyond. It is also useful to bear in mind that every single person dies of cancer of something if their heart does not stop before that.

  43. timbone59 says:

    My own thoughts are this. Tobacco does contain elements which may cause lung cancer in an active smoker. There are however many additions. A smoker has to be genetically inclined. A smoker, even if genetically inclined, may not develop the cancer unless there are added factors, such as where they live, and their diet and fitness which is a major part of their immune system. Latest research from CRUK, when analysed, states that 0.3% of smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer every year, with the majority being in their late sixties and beyond. It is also useful to bear in mind that every single person dies of cancer of something if their heart does not stop before that.

  44. timbone59 says:

    My own thoughts are this. Tobacco does contain elements which may cause lung cancer in an active smoker. There are however many additions. A smoker has to be genetically inclined. A smoker, even if genetically inclined, may not develop the cancer unless there are added factors, such as where they live, and their diet and fitness which is a major part of their immune system. Latest research from CRUK, when analysed, states that 0.3% of smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer every year, with the majority being in their late sixties and beyond. It is also useful to bear in mind that every single person dies of cancer of something if their heart does not stop before that.

  45. Pingback: Gabriela Segura, MD | Frank Davis

  46. Pingback: The Fallout Hypothesis | Frank Davis

  47. 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.