[hartreefock]

I've come across this video from the 1970s on mining uranium. I think you may find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V6mGhVPCcY

Despite the Geiger counter indicating high radiation levels, no protective gear is used.

[rerevisionist]

Well-spotted. It reminds me of Open University TV programmes! Ah - I just got to the end and IS the OU! Tantalising stuff about the 'uranium industry' and 'nuclear power industry'.

[NUKELIES]

My childhood dentist always covered me up in a lead blanket when I got an X-ray. That's pretty much my only experience having anything to do with radiation. It's amazing what we believe.

[mooninquirer]

Uranium is very weakly radioactive, so it is NOT that harmful to handle it. It would be like handling lead, which is poisonous in the chemical sense. So long as they do not eat it, and wash their hands, there should be no problem.

This is in contrast to the fission fragments of nuclear fission, or artificially created radioactive isotopes, creating by permitting other elements to "bathe" in the slow neutrons in a nuclear reactor. Some nuclear reactors serve this purpose --- to create radioactive isotopes. These will throw off alpha particles, beta particles and gamma radiation as they decay. Also, radium is very radioactive. Naturally occurring radium IS present in uranium ore, and a lot of the radiation from the uranium ore will come from radium. But there is only a tiny amount of radium in uranium ore. It was a very laborious process for Madame Curie to extract radium for uranium ore. She won the Nobel Prize for this in 1911. But even SHE never used any protection, and she was exposed to these radioactive substances all the time. Yet she lived to 67.

As far as dentists covering patients with lead vests, this might be because of fear of lawsuits. If the patient develops cancer, he could blame it on the dentist for not taking precaution, and even if the cancer is MORE likely to have been caused by something else. Doctors and dentists are not protected by the very important "assumption of risk" principle in tort law ---- because the patient is NOT an expert, he cannot have assumed any risk for what the dentist or doctor has done.

Then there is the issue is CONSENSUS MEDICINE. Often, doctors and dentists will have to follow a certain procedure even if it is harmful, because that is what the consensus of doctors and dentists want. Importantly, any lawsuit against doctors can only be based on whether he has followed consensus medicine. Think about the case of the ADA ( American Dental Association ) saying that sodium fluoride added to drinking water is good to fight cavities. There is very little evidence for this. See this article http://www.fluoridation.com/atomicbomb.htm

See this video about cancer, which also discusses problems with consensus medicine ---- google : A WORLD WITHOUT CANCER

[rerevisionist]

Bear in mind that X-rays can be generated indefinitely, if you have the equipment and electricity supply. (They are also generated by radioactive substances - as witness the discovery by Bequerel that his photographic plate was fogged). They can be dangerous; the following photo is always 'quoted' e.g. in paperbacks printed soon after 1945---

http://www.awesomestories.com/assets/xr ... ured-hands

Whose the hands are seems never to be stated; and it seems unexpected that the left hand is by far the worst affected.

One of the best commentators on nuke frauds (a Canadian who unfortunately hasn't yet posted here) claims there are x ray machines at US facilities where nuclear bombs are 'maintained' - he says they use them to generate the appearance of radiation in their hardware. (I don't personally know if this would work - I'm just quoting).

[FirstClassSkeptic]

One of the best commentators on nuke frauds (a Canadian who unfortunately hasn't yet posted here) claims there are x ray machines at US facilities where nuclear bombs are 'maintained' - he says they use them to generate the appearance of radiation in their hardware. (I don't personally know if this would work - I'm just quoting).

i have wondered if there werent X ray machines in Hiroshima on Nagasaki to dose people with to give them cancer.

Did you ever hear about Shephardic jewish children being given Xrays treatment on their head to kill head lice?

[mooninquirer]

I don't think ANY X-ray machines would be needed in Japan, because the Jews control the media, and when you control the media, you control the truth. The propagandists can just come up with any number they want, and falsely attribute ANY deaths to "deaths from cancer" to inflate the numbers. Also, according to the UN agency UNSCEAR, there have been no radiogenetic defects among the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Read the article Jesse posted under " Where's the radiation at Chernobyl ?"

Note that the UN is no longer a Zionist entity, whereas the mainstream news media IS very Zionist, and Israel is gearing up for a war with Iran. They want any excuse for the world to believe that nuke bombs are as dangerous as possible, since above ground testing is forbidden, and it is a better scare tactic for nuclear bombs. BEFORE the 1963 limited test ban treaty, the propagandists did not emphasize the radiation effects of nuke bombs, because that would lead to public outcries against above ground testing and lawsuits ---- so they emphasized the blast effects. In one stunning video, they even have people going into an area completely destroyed by a nuke explosion and having an outdoor cookout !

Whenever you see someone, or any organization changing their position so radically like this, you KNOW there is something wrong !

[NUKELIES]

Note that the UN is no longer a Zionist entity,

Please elaborate - I would like to know more.

[mooninquirer]

@ Jesse --- The UN was Zionist when it gave its approval for the state of Israel to be formed, but it has since 1967 acknowledged that Israel is illegally occupying the areas it stole. Israel receives MANY UN condemnations, often with the US as the only dissenting member. The UN is hated by the neo-cons, and note that the UN did NOT support war with Iraq. The UN DID give a very face saving consensus vote by all 15 members of the UN security council that Iraq should comply with UN mandates that it allow weapons inspectors, in the months before the war. This made Ariel Sharon and the Likudniks furious, and made the case for war with Iraq much more difficult. In the end, the only member of the UN security council supporting war was Britain. It certainly was an indication of something very surreal going on, because although Saddam was completely on his back, and totally humiliated and powerless before the whole world, there was a war anyway.

In Mearsheimer & Walt's "The Israel Lobby," it is revealed how angry were Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and all the Likudniks and neo-cons that Tony Blair was able to convince GW Bush that he should seek UN approval before going to war with Iraq.

Importantly, with respect to this issue, the IAEA of the UN has repeatedly, and RECENTLY stated that Iran is NOT developing nuclear weapons. That is the complete opposite of what Benjamin Netanyahu is saying, as well as every Jewish neo-con voice in the media.

All of this talk about the UN taking our guns is a bogus scare tactic, to get people to vote for a Republican presidential candidate who will much more likely than the Democrat, engage in a full scale war with Iran, Pakistan, Syria, etc. and approve of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. It IS true that we have to worry about a Democratic politicians taking our guns, but the UN has no jurisdiction whatsoever on this matter. The US is obligated to honor foreign treaties that the US Senate ratifies, but they are to refer to how the US deals with other countries, not about what is the law within the US. The minor exceptions are possibly with FOREIGN nationals, but even in that case, the UN has little say, and what is relevant is America's treaty with that foreign country.

Some scare mongering White nationalists, who I even think are really Jewish agents ( because scare tactics benefit the Jews in power ) are even suggesting that any time soon, there is going to be warfare in America, with UN troops dispatched, to "exterminate the White race." Examples are Scott Roberts of www.theforbiddentruth.net ( who also removed my comments and eventually kicked me off his site for suggesting that nuke bombs are a scare tactic that benefits Israel ).

If anything, the common Jew is fearful of what is going to happen in America if there is a war with Iran, and rioting, because they know that Jews in general will be blamed ( but this should be another thread of discussion ).

[rerevisionist]

mooninquirer - why not copy or move this last email, and supporting material from the two before, into your new thread? Highly relevant to the situation in US issue.