Abstract
It has become increasingly clear in the last ten years that, in the UK, the scientific measurement and appraisal of human health risks, including pollution, are in the hands of the Government and establishment controlled organisations. In the area of drug-related illness, drug side-effects and medicine safety, profits are routinely put before health. The Chernobyl catastrophe, the greatest single pollution event ever, saw the Government responding with warnings which were too little and too late. Water and milk had been drunk, contaminated animals had been sold and eaten. Recently we have come within a hair's breadth of an ozone hole over Europe at a time when a General Election was in progress. Nothing was said: what information that was available came from the United Nations, from NASA, anywhere but from the UK Government. A recently leaked CEGB document shows levels of radioisotopic pollution in the Trawsfynydd lake to be different (and much higher) than those admitted to by Nuclear Electric pic and published by the Welsh Office. Details of the enormous release of radiation to the environment following the Windscale reactor fire in 1957 have only recently become available. At the time people could have been warned but were not.
More>>
Citation Formats
Busby, C C.
Radiation and cancer in Wales. The biological consequences of low-level radiation.
United Kingdom: N. p.,
1994.
Web.
Busby, C C.
Radiation and cancer in Wales. The biological consequences of low-level radiation.
United Kingdom.
Busby, C C.
1994.
"Radiation and cancer in Wales. The biological consequences of low-level radiation."
United Kingdom.
@misc{etde_20099794,
title = {Radiation and cancer in Wales. The biological consequences of low-level radiation}
author = {Busby, C C}
abstractNote = {It has become increasingly clear in the last ten years that, in the UK, the scientific measurement and appraisal of human health risks, including pollution, are in the hands of the Government and establishment controlled organisations. In the area of drug-related illness, drug side-effects and medicine safety, profits are routinely put before health. The Chernobyl catastrophe, the greatest single pollution event ever, saw the Government responding with warnings which were too little and too late. Water and milk had been drunk, contaminated animals had been sold and eaten. Recently we have come within a hair's breadth of an ozone hole over Europe at a time when a General Election was in progress. Nothing was said: what information that was available came from the United Nations, from NASA, anywhere but from the UK Government. A recently leaked CEGB document shows levels of radioisotopic pollution in the Trawsfynydd lake to be different (and much higher) than those admitted to by Nuclear Electric pic and published by the Welsh Office. Details of the enormous release of radiation to the environment following the Windscale reactor fire in 1957 have only recently become available. At the time people could have been warned but were not. It is no longer possible to believe what we are told. Or what we are not told. Subtle and serious hazards to human health may exist and be unknown to us. To those who read this and perhaps follow up some of the references, it may seem a difficult task to choose between the few heretical voices and the massive nuclear industry megaphone. I have often been asked a variation of the following question: 'If scientists cannot agree amongst themselves on the effects of radiation, how are mere laymen expected to choose in this complicated and difficult area?' And so radiobiology has become like a religion. You believe or you do not. Radiation causes cancer at low dose or it does not. This is not a necessary state of affairs. Enough data is now available for the answers to these questions to be fairly certain. It is the power and money of the nuclear profiteers and their establishment which supresses it. The real answer is to think for yourself. What is the most likely cause of nuclear-power-related clustering of cancers? Have you yourself noticed changes in cancer and leukemia rates or in congenital illness among the people you know and in particular among young people in the last twenty years? What could be causing them? Look at the bone-cancer increases in Wales (Fig. 1.3 of this report). What could be the cause? Why did they suddenly ban atmospheric nuclear bomb testing in the 1960s? There is considerable evidence pointing to links between childhood cancer and other illness and nuclear isotopic pollution. The difficulty has always been that the nuclear establishment and its apologists, including governments, have sought to prevent such evidence from appearing in the literature or in the media. A further problem has been that there have been few occasions when studies could be made which unequivocally analysed population responses to radioactive pollutants. Recently, the High Court case in which the Sellafield leukemia victims sued BNFL was lost because the judge decided that the link could not formally be proved: almost on the basis of weighing evidence on a spring balance. For this reason, the developing evidence from the Wales Radiation Cancer Laboratory, and in particular the bone-cancer increase alluded to in the first edition of this book, has become a critical piece of evidence of causation: a smoking gun in the hands of the nuclear polluters. For there is no other confounding cause in this instance. Wales populations, which were exposed to high levels of Strontium-90 and Plutonium in the 1960s have developed a 400 per cent excess of bone cancer relative to the England control group, twenty years after the dose was delivered. Both isotopes are known to cause bone cancer in humans and in animals. These recent developments have made necessary the revision of the original booklet. Chapter 1 of this second edition is an updating of the first edition. Chapter 2 covers in more detail the effects of low-level radiation in Wales, including discussion of the increases in bone cancer and the effects of Chernobyl. The second-event theory is reproduced as Chapter 3, which also includes a copy of the original paper to the International Journal of Radiation Biology and some of the responses which have been made to it, both by the referees for this journal and other authorities in the field.}
place = {United Kingdom}
year = {1994}
month = {Jul}
}
title = {Radiation and cancer in Wales. The biological consequences of low-level radiation}
author = {Busby, C C}
abstractNote = {It has become increasingly clear in the last ten years that, in the UK, the scientific measurement and appraisal of human health risks, including pollution, are in the hands of the Government and establishment controlled organisations. In the area of drug-related illness, drug side-effects and medicine safety, profits are routinely put before health. The Chernobyl catastrophe, the greatest single pollution event ever, saw the Government responding with warnings which were too little and too late. Water and milk had been drunk, contaminated animals had been sold and eaten. Recently we have come within a hair's breadth of an ozone hole over Europe at a time when a General Election was in progress. Nothing was said: what information that was available came from the United Nations, from NASA, anywhere but from the UK Government. A recently leaked CEGB document shows levels of radioisotopic pollution in the Trawsfynydd lake to be different (and much higher) than those admitted to by Nuclear Electric pic and published by the Welsh Office. Details of the enormous release of radiation to the environment following the Windscale reactor fire in 1957 have only recently become available. At the time people could have been warned but were not. It is no longer possible to believe what we are told. Or what we are not told. Subtle and serious hazards to human health may exist and be unknown to us. To those who read this and perhaps follow up some of the references, it may seem a difficult task to choose between the few heretical voices and the massive nuclear industry megaphone. I have often been asked a variation of the following question: 'If scientists cannot agree amongst themselves on the effects of radiation, how are mere laymen expected to choose in this complicated and difficult area?' And so radiobiology has become like a religion. You believe or you do not. Radiation causes cancer at low dose or it does not. This is not a necessary state of affairs. Enough data is now available for the answers to these questions to be fairly certain. It is the power and money of the nuclear profiteers and their establishment which supresses it. The real answer is to think for yourself. What is the most likely cause of nuclear-power-related clustering of cancers? Have you yourself noticed changes in cancer and leukemia rates or in congenital illness among the people you know and in particular among young people in the last twenty years? What could be causing them? Look at the bone-cancer increases in Wales (Fig. 1.3 of this report). What could be the cause? Why did they suddenly ban atmospheric nuclear bomb testing in the 1960s? There is considerable evidence pointing to links between childhood cancer and other illness and nuclear isotopic pollution. The difficulty has always been that the nuclear establishment and its apologists, including governments, have sought to prevent such evidence from appearing in the literature or in the media. A further problem has been that there have been few occasions when studies could be made which unequivocally analysed population responses to radioactive pollutants. Recently, the High Court case in which the Sellafield leukemia victims sued BNFL was lost because the judge decided that the link could not formally be proved: almost on the basis of weighing evidence on a spring balance. For this reason, the developing evidence from the Wales Radiation Cancer Laboratory, and in particular the bone-cancer increase alluded to in the first edition of this book, has become a critical piece of evidence of causation: a smoking gun in the hands of the nuclear polluters. For there is no other confounding cause in this instance. Wales populations, which were exposed to high levels of Strontium-90 and Plutonium in the 1960s have developed a 400 per cent excess of bone cancer relative to the England control group, twenty years after the dose was delivered. Both isotopes are known to cause bone cancer in humans and in animals. These recent developments have made necessary the revision of the original booklet. Chapter 1 of this second edition is an updating of the first edition. Chapter 2 covers in more detail the effects of low-level radiation in Wales, including discussion of the increases in bone cancer and the effects of Chernobyl. The second-event theory is reproduced as Chapter 3, which also includes a copy of the original paper to the International Journal of Radiation Biology and some of the responses which have been made to it, both by the referees for this journal and other authorities in the field.}
place = {United Kingdom}
year = {1994}
month = {Jul}
}