Top Cancer Doc: Nuclear radiation is the most carcinogenic thing that exists

Published: June 5th, 2011 at 9:48 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
30 comments


ITALIAN ONCOLOGISTS BACK ‘YES’ AT THE NUCLEAR REFERENDUM, AGI, June 4, 2011:

[...] From the ASCO congress in Chicago, the world’s most important oncology summit, AIOM (Italian association of medical oncology) [...]

“Nuclear radiation is the most carcinogenic thing that exists – said AIOM president Carmelo Iacono – and it cannot be kept under control, as the Fukushima tragedy proved. [...]“

Published: June 5th, 2011 at 9:48 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
30 comments

Related Posts

  1. “IAEA today admitted there is no such thing as ‘safe’ levels of radiation” — Allowable radiation standard based on ‘benefit’, not safety June 2, 2011
  2. Professor: Nuclear scientists claiming radioactivity is a healthy thing for people — An “incredible lie” (VIDEO) July 27, 2011
  3. Nuclear Radiologist: Don’t be fooled by paid industry “consultants” — Low doses of ionizing radiation do cause cancer April 8, 2011
  4. Significant rise in cancer risk within 5 years after exposure to ‘low-dose’ radiation — 12% increase after 40 millisieverts November 7, 2011
  5. Epidemiology Scientist: The slower you spread radiation dose, the more effectively it produces cancer and inherited defects — “Japan is going the very best way in the world for destroying the human race” (1993 VIDEO) April 25, 2012

30 comments to Top Cancer Doc: Nuclear radiation is the most carcinogenic thing that exists

  • Darth

    An obvious anti-nuclear type. Who in Hell will listen to him?


    Report comment

    • Any and all oncologists with the slightest ethics (and any real interest in saving lives) would naturally be completely “anti-nuclear”, given that oncology specifically deals with the health results (a global cancer epidemic starting 65 years ago) almost entirely caused by the nuclear industry.


      Report comment

      • Cassie

        It is a bit of a conflict of interest perhaps for them?
        Anti-nuk might interfere with their revenue stream?


        Report comment

        • Yes, good point. It could potentially be such a conflict of interest for those oncologists only interested in profiting from the nuclear industry “collateral damage” (being millions of global cancers and deaths), hence my reference to ethics. An ethical oncologist would naturally not allow the usual profit/power drive to rule over the fundamental motive to protect and save lives.


          Report comment

          • Jack

            “Ethical Oncologist”?
            They make a RICH living by PROLONGING the pain
            and suffering and BILLING of the client. Medical
            ETHICS involve getting every last Cent out of the
            dying. RADIATION treatments for thousands of
            dollars.


            Report comment

          • @ Jack: A lack of ethics is certainly true of perhaps most people in the medical profession, as it is structured to be un-ethical from the top down (global pharma and so on).

            However, some medical practitioners ARE in fact ethical. I am certain of this due to knowing a number of such people throughout my life. Indeed, it would seem that the head of the Italian association of medical oncology is one such ethical person – if he only wanted to make money, why is he revealing the primary cause behind cancer? Revealing the cause may lead to the “cure” (ie. removal of all nuclear power from the face of the Earth) and that would then lead to less money for him and his colleagues (in the long-term).


            Report comment

          • Secular

            It is such a relief that there are no conflicts on interest in the nuclear industry. They obviously have the interests of every living organism areally high priority. I hope your future melanomas bring you peace.
            (for the benefit of you shills posting here I am being sarcastic)


            Report comment

    • mothra

      It’s not that I’m anti-nuclear, it’s that I’m pro-everything else.


      Report comment

    • mothra

      It’s not just fatal cancer – but I wish it were just that:
      “There’s a huge other story that’s not being told here. Dr. Sam Epstein, professor of Occupational & Environmental Medicine at the School of Public Health, University of Illinois Medical Center, Chicago, is an internationally recognized authority on the toxic and carcinogenic effects of environmental pollutants in the air, the water and the workplace. His work shows that since the 1950s, in North America, there has been a 55% increase in cancer, when the statistics are standardized for the fact that people are living longer. Childhood cancer of the brain and nervous system – 40% increase since 1975; male colon cancer – 60% increase; breast cancer – 60% increase; brain cancer in adults – 80% increase; prostate cancer – 100% increase; testicular cancer – 100% increase; estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer -135% increase; non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma – 200% increase; testicular cancer among men aged 28-35 – 300% increase. In 1950, 1 in 20 women had breast cancer. Now it’s 1 in 8.”

      However:
      “The Adult Health Study (AHS) has greatly increased in importance in recent years as a result of the accumulation of an enormous body of data from serial medical examinations, with and without superimposed radiation aspects. Particularly noteworthy is the accumulating evidence of the radiation dose related increase in non-cancer disease morbidity, such as cardiovascular disease, hyperparathyroidism, thyroid diseases, uterine myoma, chronic liver disease, and cataract … Another unexpected finding is the retrospective evidence that radiation is associated with premature menopause, and this in turn, may result in earlier onset of other conditions, such as an increase in cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease. In addition, most recent findings suggest that diabetes mellitus increases with radiation dose among young survivors of Hiroshima.”

      Therefore:
      “Consequently both ICRP’s choice of a…


      Report comment

      • mothra

        …Therefore:
        “Consequently both ICRP’s choice of a biological endpoint as fatal cancer, and its current exclusiveness, are now in question, as well as the effective dose estimates for internal radiation emitters. In such a situation the Precautionary Principle should prevail. The choice of fatal cancer as the exclusive biological endpoint after ionizing radiation exposure is not scientifically acceptable. Equally unacceptable are estimates of equivalent effectiveness made without adequate backing by scientific research.”


        Report comment

    • SteveMT

      I will, for one.
      How do you kill a rapidly dividing, uncontrolled cancer cell? Radiation is one way, depending on its location. The aiming of the radiation beam is critical. Why? The surrounding normal cells will be killed just as quickly as the tumor cells if the beam is indiscriminately beam. Fukushima as a mass radiation beam that is being indiscriminately aimed at every living thing on this planet.


      Report comment

  • beachbum

    everybody will listen except those whose heads are up their asses.


    Report comment

  • moonkai

    Lol. Anti nuclear type ? So what is a pro nuclear type? Tell us what is good about it ? No really please pray tell and share your wisdom bout atomic energy.

    Greetings from Tokyo. My 7 and 9 yrs are dying for you to reassure them all will be fine. Have a good day.


    Report comment

    • Whoopie

      Such young kids, breaks my heart. Hugs…


      Report comment

      • moonkai

        Whoopie and Cassie

        Thank you for your prayers ! I sent my kids away from here! i am so thankful to have sent them abroad, even it hurts not to have them by my side! However, I feel terrible for all those poor kids in the North East! They don’t have a way out ! And they cannot leave their families behind! This goes way beyond “who is right or wrong in the nuclear pissing contest” … families are being ruined as I type these few words !! This is real life ! May the future have mercy on us all !


        Report comment

        • Red Mercury

          There are thousands (tens of?) of communities around the world who will welcome people fleeing the horror. If a particular approach (religion, philosophy, etc) is important say so up front and use the web to research for directories of communities to move to. Please save yourself.


          Report comment

        • Too True

          Thanks for protecting your children, who are most vulnerable since 3/11! That was very sensible and intelligent of you. It is understandable if you cannot leave as quickly yourself.
          http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radiationandchildren.pdf

          This points out that one of the problems for children is their rapid cell division, relatively small size, and that they are closer to the ground, where contamination collects–I didn’t think of their close proximity to the ground…
          Now that makes me more concerned about my pets!…


          Report comment

    • Cassie

      Moonkai:
      You are in our thoughts and prayers.
      Especially to your little ones.
      Cassie


      Report comment

  • roos

    these are the independent peole to listen to. cheers roos.

    gundersen and his wife are misinformation agents.

    Janette Sherman & alexy yablokov: http://sfbayview.com/2011/chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-25-years-later/

    Chernobyl: Consequences of the catastrophe 25 years later
    April 27, 2011
    by Janette D. Sherman, M.D., and Alexey V. Yablokov, Ph.D.
    Editor’s note: The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists asked Dr. Sherman, recognized worldwide for her expertise on Chernobyl, to write this article last year, then rejected it just before deadline, probably considering it too alarming. In it, she reports the widespread expectation of another nuclear power plant failure and the catastrophic consequences. Now, a few months later, the world commemorates the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl while watching the Fukushima meltdown.
    For more than 50 years, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have abided by an agreement that in essence allows them to cover each other’s back – sometimes at the expense of public health. It’s a delicate balance between cooperation and collusion.
    Signed on May 28, 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, the agreement states:
    “Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement,” and continues: The IAEA and the WHO “recognize that they may find it necessary to apply certain limitations for the safeguarding of confidential information furnished to them. They therefore agree that nothing in this agreement shall be construed as requiring either of them to furnish such information as would, in the judgment of the other party possessing the information, interfere with the orderly conduct of its operation.”
    The WHO mandate is to look after the health on our planet, while the IAEA is to…


    Report comment

    • Arnie Gundersen and wife are dealing mainly with the technicalities of the reactor itself and fallout. It is a foolish comment to call them misinformation agents.

      Yablokov dealt mainly with health effects of the fallout.


      Report comment

  • moonkai

    It must be awesome to live in lalaland ! You also have a greeting from my friend that is dealing with Thyroid cancer thx to Chernobyl. Yes we were living in France in 1986. No big deal. Nuclear has frontiers … However there is no frontier in denial. Sadly !!! Enjoy!


    Report comment

  • HoseB

    Can someone help me put all this into perspective?

    Recently watched “Countdown to Zero”, Lucy Walker’s documentary on the world’s nuclear arsenals. I believe it stated there are some 23,000 plus nuclear warheads in the world containing approximately 1700 tons of HEU.

    Somewhere over the last few months I believe I read that just one of the blown out reactors at Fukushima contains 100 tons of HEU. Are these numbers accurate?

    If they are, then we have been exposed to radioactive material equivalent to that found in some 1,350 nuclear weapons in just one of the disabled reactors.

    Also remember seeing information indicating the US exploded 331 bombs in the ocean and atmosphere before stopping atmospheric testing.

    Obviously, the detonation of a nuclear weapon and the melt down of a core as experienced at the Fukushima Daiichi plants is vastly different (probably more akin to the detonation of a “dirty bomb”).

    However, the sheer magnitude of the accident needs to be put in a perspective the average person can relate to. . .and that’s what I’m trying to do.

    So, any help in this is appreciated.


    Report comment

    • fireguyjeff

      HoseB:
      Good questions you present here.

      One perspective is that Fukushima is the Mother Of All Dirty Bombs. This one is not just a discrete singular event like what a terrorist (or false flag) dirty bomb would be like.

      This is the dirty bomb that for all practical purposes, doesn’t quit “exploding”. This is the dirty bomb that spews for the rest of this year, or longer, not for a minute, like the typical assumption of how a dirty bomb would happen.

      The typical dirty bomb would have far more effect psychologically on the general population vs nuclear “dirtiness”.

      Fukushima will have far reaching world wide health implications long in to the future, while the psychological impact is minimal for now due to the MSM refusing to cover it with any depth or detail. And the psychological impact will likely be minimal since the Pavlovian aspect won’t be there. When this mess really catches up with Ken and Barbie, there will be a mental disconnect because the present issues for them i.e. cancers etc will be from something in the past and “over there”.

      I am already dealing with cognitive dissonance here Oregon. I have already been reprimanded for worrying about something “that can not get here and never will. It is over there, so how can it get here? Don’t be so negative! We are just fine and will be.” This was just one example from a friend who has no science knowledge what so ever and wants none either. She is not stupid, just willfully ignorant.

      Your numbers seem to be in the right ball park for comparing to the nuclear test detonations (based on my memory of the details.

      Recall that the Hiroshima A bomb was accomplished with about 150 POUNDS (not tons!!) of enriched Uranium.
      Realistic estimates for efficiency are in the range of 1.5% to 2%
      That means that all of about 2 pounds of Uranium actually went fissile to make “The Bomb”. And the rest of the Uranium just became an addition as the dirty part. But still, we are talking 150…


      Report comment

  • Arnie Gundersen: Well, this event is – I have said it’s worse than Chernobyl and I’ll stand by that. There was an enormous amount of radiation given out in the first two to three weeks of the event. And add the wind and blowing in-land. This could be – it could very well have brought the nation of Japan to its knees, I mean there is so much contamination that luckily wound up in the Pacific Ocean as compared to across the nation of Japan. It could have cut Japan in half. But now the winds have turned, so they are heading to the south toward Tokyo and now my concern and my advice to friends that if there is a severe aftershock and the Unit 4 building collapses, leave. We are well beyond where any science has ever gone at that point and nuclear fuel lying on the ground and getting hot is not a condition that anyone has ever analyzed.

    http://www.chrismartenson.com/page/transcript-exclusive-arnie-gundersen-interview-dangers-fukushima-are-worse-and-longer-lived-we-


    Report comment

  • tony wilson

    an old but very good indian news report..
    a shame western media did not do frantic reports like this..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPuiEb7_fa4


    Report comment

  • anne

    Background on the HAARP Project
    By Rosalie Bertell
    http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/HAARPbg.html

    DEPLETED URANIUM IN THE HUMAN BODY: Sr Rosalie Bertell, PhD
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgQ79-oDX2o

    Weather Modification, Artificial Earthquake Technology and HAARP- Dr. Rosalie Bertell lecture
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=170gbkx6JDk


    Report comment

  • xdrfox

    Melanoma drugs advance: Separate studies show unprecedented gains in survival for those with deadly skin cancer
    BY MARILYNN MARCHIONE
    Associated Press
    Monday, June 6, 2011
    CHICAGO — They’re not cures, but two novel drugs produced unprecedented gains in survival in separate studies of people with melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, doctors reported Sunday.
    In one study, an experimental drug showed so much benefit so quickly in people with advanced disease that those getting…
    http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/06/melanoma-drugs-advance/

    How to spot skin cancer
    Physicians provide clues on how to spot three common types
    Posted June 6, 2011
    Dr. Jeffrey K. Moore of Deaconess Gateway Hospital and Dr. Anne Butsch of St. Mary’s Medical Center offer tips on how to spot the three most common types of skin cancer.
    An estimated 114,900 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in the U.S. in 2010 46,770 noninvasive and 68,130 invasive with nearly 8,700 resulting in death, according to the American Academy of Dermatology.
    One distinguishing factor that sets…
    http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/jun/06/no-headline—06a0xskincancer-box/?partner=RSS


    Report comment