Nuclear power in UK, continued scam, uranium, Rothschilds
banana
build 6 new nuclear power stations in Britain. It is known by anyone
seriously interested in the matter that nuclear power is very injurious
to health. But it has also been a big financial scam. Rather than
'saving the government money' in the decades since it was introduced,
it's involved their running up huge comparative 'losses' by paying huge
amounts of money to their masters. This was mentioned in newspapers a
few years ago, perhaps it won't be mentioned again for some time.
Helping the super-rich make money is of course exactly what governments
are there for.
One notes right away the similarity of the pseudo-justifications
involved in the history of nuclear power in the UK (noting too that,
financially, the nuclear power project in the UK has from the outset by
no means been solely UK-based) to those which have been published in
support of subsequent scams involving not the development of a
*nationalised* industry (as nuclear power was for decades - or at least
power generation), but on the contrary, which have involved
*privatisation*. 'Cheaper electrical power' and 'more efficient rail
services', spouted politicians in the respective cases - 'that's what
our scientific and City advisers tell us'. In both cases, utter lies,
and whoopsadaisy, the super-rich just 'happen' to pocket billions.
With the Millennium Dome (yes, publicly backed by the Windsor family, as
was nuclear power) a billion pounds went 'whoosh' into the pockets of
construction companies and financiers, backed by senior government
ministers and figures from the 'great and good' and for that matter from
organised religion. The 'facilities' that were supposed to last for 20
years or more then vanished after less than a year because no-one was
interested. The Dome will now be knocked down and the site sold off. The
Japanese bank Nomura, which is big in the gambling industry (it owns
major bookmaker William Hill) pulled out of buying the site. Presumably
it found itself dealing with more powerful mafia interests than its own,
ones it didn't trust, and ones it couldn't do anything about if they
welshed. It was pretty much an open secret that the people running the
Dome couldn't even think of anything to put inside it that would draw
people in, and were thrashing around for any old sh*t that might
suffice. E.g. inside the head of the large human figure, visitors could
listen to tapes from old 'Blackadder' episodes with Rowan Atkinson. As
well as the money already pocketed, another effect will be that
commercial land prices will go up in the surrounding few square miles of
inner southeast London, and for that matter, given the transport links,
very probably also in Docklands. Meanwhile, 'costs' of building things
like the new British Library (or the Channel Tunnel) and other
developments turn out to be four or five times higher than the original
estimates on the basis of which government approved the plans (having
paid huge amounts, of course, to advisers who advised them to approve
the plans, advisers themselves not unconnected with the interests
actually financing the construction).
William Rees-Mogg referred to the Dome as one of the biggest government
scams (or 'failures of public policy', or some such circumlocution) for
decades. But he was wrong. Just look at the enormous percentage of GNP
that goes into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies and the
freemasons who run the NHS on their behalf - in a culture where
surprise, surprise, people are encouraged to go to see a quack on
average several times a year, mostly to get drugs.
Nuclear power isn't as big as the 'health' racket - this is in the UK,
I'm not sure about what the position is in France - but nonetheless it
is an enormous multi-decade megascam that makes the Dome look like a
small-fry local authority contract.
I'm posting a copy of this article partly because it's indicative of the
sheer gall of the ruling elite, and the absolute contempt with which
they run their public relations. It began to be admitted a few years ago
that nuclear power had never been 'profitable' in the UK. Or to put it
in better, proper, critical language, what it is about is the
redistribution of surplus value to a small elite within the ruling
class, using the State as an instrument.
It goes back to the 1950s, perhaps even to the late 1940s, and one thing
it involves is uranium mining rights in Canada, where the uranium comes
from to fuel nuclear power stations in the UK.
These rights were established by the Rothschilds with the enthusiastic
backing of the British and Newfoundland executive authorities of the
time. It's even admitted in the 'hagiographical' book 'The Rothschilds'
by Frederic Morton (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1964 [1962]). Newfoundland's
prime minister at the time, Joey Smallwood, called it "the biggest real
estate deal on this continent in this century". Churchill
enthusiastically approved, calling it a "grand imperial concept".
(On Smallwood, see <http://www.nextcity.com/contents/spring99/15smallwoo
d.html>. If this site is down, use the Google cache at:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Rg4FrW0be0g:www.nextcity.com/conte
nts/spring99/15smallwood.html+%22anthony+de+rothschild%22+1961&hl=en>
[this URL may have to be cut and pasted into a browser in two chunks]).
From the Guardian, 29 June 2001:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,514338,00.html>:
***BEGIN ARTICLE***
Plan for six nuclear stations
Special report: Britain's nuclear industry
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Friday June 29, 2001
The Guardian
British Nuclear Fuels is to put forward plans to the government to build
at least four, preferably six, new nuclear stations on the same sites as
its existing ageing Magnox power plants that are closing after 40 years
of service.
The plan will be put to the government's energy review announced by the
prime minister this week and chaired by the pro-nuclear energy minister,
Brian Wilson.
BNFL's plans, if accepted, would be a radical shift in British policy.
The country's last new nuclear station, at Sizewell, was an expensive
one-off which opened in 1996 in Suffolk at a cost of £2.3bn.
Not only would the new reactors be cheaper, the company believes it
could build a new station in 36 months, a record for a nuclear station.
The one at Dungeness in Kent took more than 10 years.
The prime minister's review and the pro-nuclear Bush administration are
likely to rescue the company, which yesterday announced record operating
losses of £210m.
BNFL believes it can revive its fortunes by building a series of nuclear
stations on both sides of the Atlantic.
By building six stations in the UK BNFL will tell the government it can
compete with gas on price and achieve the "diversity" of electricity
supply Mr Blair is seeking. Costs will be cut because the new reactors
could be plugged into the existing grid lines that serve the Magnox
reactors.
One of the sites mentioned by BNFL's chairman, Hugh Collum, yesterday
was Oldbury in Gloucestershire, where the Magnox station has already
closed. Work could begin almost immediately.
But the company emphasised that the plan would only work if the planning
system was altered so a series of stations could be build on a
"production line basis" one after another. Currently, nuclear power
provides 25% of the country's energy supply but this will reduce to 3%
by 2020 as nuclear stations close. BNFL believes it could get that back
up to 20%.
Norman Askew, the company's chief executive, said: "We have a new
design, the AP600 ... but we could not build a one-off and expect it to
be economic. We need a proper agreed plan, four to six, or more stations
if possible and build one after the other, to get economies of scale.
"We would need to build two series of AP 600s on both sides of the
Atlantic of slightly different design."
Mark Johnston, of Friends of the Earth, said: "We will fiercely oppose
any new proposals for nuclear power stations. Renewables can already
deliver more power for less subsidy and will overtake natural gas as the
preferred power producer.
"The two hurdles the nuclear industry has to get over are cost and what
to do with the waste. They appear to be unsurmountable by BNFL in the
current circumstances. It would need the government to reinstate a
substantial public subsidy regime to make it work."
***END ARTICLE***
--
banana
Euan Gray
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This is an article from today's Guardian, 29 June 2001, about plans to
>build 6 new nuclear power stations in Britain. It is known by anyone
>seriously interested in the matter that nuclear power is very injurious
>to health
To be pedantic, it is overall less harmful to human health than oil
and coal power. Adverse health incidents are relatively uncommon,
although of course when they do happen they can be (but are not
necessarily) pretty horrific. However, cf. Chernobyl and Three Mile
Island.
>But it has also been a big financial scam. Rather than
>'saving the government money' in the decades since it was introduced,
>it's involved their running up huge comparative 'losses' by paying huge
>amounts of money to their masters.
This was hardly intentional or known in advance.
>Helping the super-rich make money is of course exactly what governments
>are there for.
Since when? How about ditching the paranoid anti-capitalist conspiracy
and considering some facts?
>Meanwhile, 'costs' of building things
>like the new British Library (or the Channel Tunnel) and other
>developments turn out to be four or five times higher than the original
>estimates on the basis of which government approved the plans (having
>paid huge amounts, of course, to advisers who advised them to approve
>the plans, advisers themselves not unconnected with the interests
>actually financing the construction).
Actually, this is because government contracts usually overrun on cost
and schedule. No conspiracy, just incompetent management and
non-existent supervision.
>Just look at the enormous percentage of GNP
>that goes into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies and the
>freemasons who run the NHS on their behalf - in a culture where
>surprise, surprise, people are encouraged to go to see a quack on
>average several times a year, mostly to get drugs.
Perhaps you get a lot of drugs (it would explain a few things), but
the average person is discouraged from seeing the doctor more than
necessary. The NHS is permanently teetering on the edge of bankruptcy,
and there is pressure to reduce, not increase, costs.
>Nuclear power isn't as big as the 'health' racket - this is in the UK,
>I'm not sure about what the position is in France - but nonetheless it
>is an enormous multi-decade megascam that makes the Dome look like a
>small-fry local authority contract.
That's because it's controlled by the aliens through their
fellow-travelers in the CIA, with the consent of the Bilderbergers and
all supervised by MI6 under the direct control of Prince Philip. Diana
found out and threatened to blow the whole gaff to her Egyptian
boyfriend, so she had to die. Naturally, Neil Hamilton was about to
stumble on the links between Al Fayed and the MI6, so Prince Philip
had him bankrupted. The Labour election victory in 1997 was, of
course, stage managed to ensure that the Tories couldn't cover up
Hamilon's discoveries.
Sheesh.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Am I really the only libertarian republican atheist eurosceptic...?
http://www.euangray.com
Remove nospam to reply
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '22:00:54' on 'Fri, 29 Jun
2001', Euan Gray <eu...@nospameuangray.com> writes:
>On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:44:14 +0100, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>This is an article from today's Guardian, 29 June 2001, about plans to
>>build 6 new nuclear power stations in Britain. It is known by anyone
>>seriously interested in the matter that nuclear power is very injurious
>>to health
>
>To be pedantic, it is overall less harmful to human health than oil
>and coal power. Adverse health incidents are relatively uncommon,
>although of course when they do happen they can be (but are not
>necessarily) pretty horrific. However, cf. Chernobyl and Three Mile
>Island.
Exposure to radioactivity at the levels caused by normal operation of
nuclear power stations causes cancer, and a massively increased
prevalence of certain types of cancer. This has been known for decades.
The attempts to cover this up using payroll 'expert witnesses' have for
a long time been fairly blatant - for example scientists saying
increased prevalence in areas where nuclear power stations were mooted
but not built suggests that the operation of nuclear power stations was
not a factor in the causing of the increased prevalence of cancer (a
truly specious 'argument'). Any argument will do. In this case, as if
it's to do with an effect coming from the planners' drawing-boards? Duh!
It's reminiscent of the slyly decided upon rubbish about how yes there
may be a very small increased prevalence of cancer close to high-voltage
electricity cables (ah yes, worth some 'research' money from the
'industry') and perhaps it's due to the radioactive particles which hang
around cables. Imagine being told this and believing it! The truth is
that anyone living for more than a very short amount of time close to
say a 240kV cable is likely to get cancer. I hope you don't have any
mains-powered electrical devices close to you when you're sleeping,
either. And I hope your modem adaptor isn't too close to your body too.
Ever run a gaussmeter over domestic electrical appliances? I have. (The
transformers with massive throughput in power stations are much much
more efficient than those in many domestic appliances, and in absolute
terms give off only a tiny fraction of the field. (Do you know why
they're so inefficient? Because that - and ignorance too - are more
profitable). For analogous propaganda efforts to those of the nuclear
power generation and electricity distribution industries, see the bosses
from Big Tobacco who when asked 'does smoking cause lung cancer?' reply
(this is when they're under oath) 'it may'. More exactly, nukiller power
and electricity distribution and appliance manufacture haven't even
reached that stage yet; perhaps electricity will never do so, not as
long as the rulers stay ruling.
>>But it has also been a big financial scam. Rather than
>>'saving the government money' in the decades since it was introduced,
>>it's involved their running up huge comparative 'losses' by paying huge
>>amounts of money to their masters.
>
>This was hardly intentional or known in advance.
Whoopsadaisy.
>Since when? How about ditching the paranoid anti-capitalist conspiracy
>and considering some facts?
I've quoted several.
>>Meanwhile, 'costs' of building things
>>like the new British Library (or the Channel Tunnel) and other
>>developments turn out to be four or five times higher than the original
>>estimates on the basis of which government approved the plans (having
>>paid huge amounts, of course, to advisers who advised them to approve
>>the plans, advisers themselves not unconnected with the interests
>>actually financing the construction).
>Actually, this is because government contracts usually overrun on cost
>and schedule. No conspiracy, just incompetent management and
>non-existent supervision.
Whoopsadaisy, the bill was five times what we thought it would be. Sorry
sir. What would you say? 'Oh well, shall we make it seven times what you
said originally, just to make sure?'? Funny how the advisers - who get
paid enormous amounts, for example in the case of the British Rail
privatisation, hundreds of millions of pounds to Hambros Bank - never
get asked for their money back, even when it was 'proved' (do you think
they really care at the Athenaeum?) that the 'advice' was dud. No,
they'll get the contract for giving advice the next time round too. Cui
bono? There are bodies such as Cazenove, Rothschilds, HSBC, KPMG, PWC,
who are involved in a large number of all the major privatisations.
>>Just look at the enormous percentage of GNP
>>that goes into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies and the
>>freemasons who run the NHS on their behalf - in a culture where
>>surprise, surprise, people are encouraged to go to see a quack on
>>average several times a year, mostly to get drugs.
>
>Perhaps you get a lot of drugs (it would explain a few things),
Nope. I don't take either narcotics or pharmaceuticals, either illegal
or legal, and I don't drink alcohol either. Nor is there a TV set in the
house. I drink tea and coffee, and sometimes take an aspirin and codeine
tablet when I get under the weather.
Most people take far more drugs than they need to - annual flu
injections for instance. Duh! Ker-ching at Glaxo Wellcome! 'Yes sir,
I've had a look at your personal circumstances, and my professional
opinion is that these tablets are just right for you'. Really to
complete the picture quacks should offer financial advice too.
>but
>the average person is discouraged from seeing the doctor more than
>necessary.
Absolute rubbish. People, and especially women, on average succumb to
encouragement to see the quack (they're not 'doctors', they don't have
doctorates, they've only got bachelor's degrees) far more than
necessary. Mind you, a fair number of people end up permanently
'medicalised'.
>The NHS is permanently teetering on the edge of bankruptcy,
>and there is pressure to reduce, not increase, costs.
Yeah yeah, and 10% of income in the UK goes on national insurance for
starters, a large part of which goes to the NHS. Millions in an average
hospital get spent on, for example, routine scans in pregnancy; and in
surgeries on policies that are mostly harmful, such as mass vaccination.
Do you know how they get GPs to encourage as many as people as possible
to get vaccinated? That's right, they pay them a bonus if coverage is
over a certain percentage (98%, from memory).
>>Nuclear power isn't as big as the 'health' racket - this is in the UK,
>>I'm not sure about what the position is in France - but nonetheless it
>>is an enormous multi-decade megascam that makes the Dome look like a
>>small-fry local authority contract.
>
>That's because it's controlled by the aliens through their
>fellow-travelers in the CIA, with the consent of the Bilderbergers and
>all supervised by MI6 under the direct control of Prince Philip. Diana
>found out and threatened to blow the whole gaff to her Egyptian
>boyfriend, so she had to die. Naturally, Neil Hamilton was about to
>stumble on the links between Al Fayed and the MI6, so Prince Philip
>had him bankrupted. The Labour election victory in 1997 was, of
>course, stage managed to ensure that the Tories couldn't cover up
>Hamilon's discoveries.
>
>Sheesh.
Why say it then if it's sheesh? What's the point? Bilderberg's a real
conference. I saw a UFO once, BTW, about 20 years ago - to be exact, I
was one of several people who one night saw several large orange balls
in an area where others have also reported seeing them - I thought it
was military then and I think it was military now. Not a matter of
little green men or 'greys' or whatever it is. It's interesting how what
quite a few people come out with who haven't really thought deeply about
what kind of a society this is, and where it's going, often tends to
function as actively confusionist, nolens volens. Illustrates the
importance of will-power.
You didn't say anything about the information I posted about the
Rothschilds cornering the supply of uranium to the UK nuclear power
industry BTW. Frederic Morton's book on the Rothschilds is practically a
hagiography.
--
banana
anton
banana wrote in message ...
>In article <3b3cf6d8...@news.btconnect.com>, posted to
>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '22:00:54' on 'Fri, 29 Jun
>2001', Euan Gray <eu...@nospameuangray.com> writes:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:44:14 +0100, banana
>><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>This is an article from today's Guardian, 29 June 2001, about plans to
>>>build 6 new nuclear power stations in Britain. It is known by anyone
>>>seriously interested in the matter that nuclear power is very injurious
>>>to health
>>
>>To be pedantic, it is overall less harmful to human health than oil
>>and coal power. Adverse health incidents are relatively uncommon,
>>although of course when they do happen they can be (but are not
>>necessarily) pretty horrific. However, cf. Chernobyl and Three Mile
>>Island.
>
>Exposure to radioactivity at the levels caused by normal operation of
>nuclear power stations causes cancer, and a massively increased
>prevalence of certain types of cancer. This has been known for decades.
Source?
> The truth is
>that anyone living for more than a very short amount of time close to
>say a 240kV cable is likely to get cancer.
Source?
> Millions in an average
>hospital get spent on, for example, routine scans in pregnancy;
Many people (not all) would prefer to abort a foetus that is going
to turn into a severely disabled baby. The scans pick some of
these up, and some other possible complications of pregnancy too.
What's your point?
--
Anton
Anonymous2
"banana" <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message W4uMHKBy...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> The truth is
> that anyone living for more than a very short amount of time close to
> say a 240kV cable is likely to get cancer.
I remember an atomic/nuclear physics lecturer/researcher at uni
(in 1992) who once talked about the possible cancer-causing
effects of high-intensity electromagnetic fields.
Ike
UK,
> >I'm not sure about what the position is in France - but nonetheless
it
> >is an enormous multi-decade megascam that makes the Dome look like
a
> >small-fry local authority contract.
>
> That's because it's controlled by the aliens through their
> fellow-travelers in the CIA, with the consent of the Bilderbergers
and
> all supervised by MI6 under the direct control of Prince Philip.
Diana
> found out and threatened to blow the whole gaff to her Egyptian
> boyfriend, so she had to die. Naturally, Neil Hamilton was about to
> stumble on the links between Al Fayed and the MI6, so Prince Philip
> had him bankrupted. The Labour election victory in 1997 was, of
> course, stage managed to ensure that the Tories couldn't cover up
> Hamilon's discoveries.
>
> Sheesh.
Why the big sheesh? Its all true!
Euan Gray
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Exposure to radioactivity at the levels caused by normal operation of
>nuclear power stations causes cancer, and a massively increased
>prevalence of certain types of cancer. This has been known for decades.
It has also been known for decades that the level of background
radiation fluctuates across the country dependent largely on the
nature of the lcoal bedrock. In the vicinity of Aberdeen, for example,
the background radiation count is relatively high since the bedrock is
largely granite, which contains significant levels of uranium.
Southern England, lying mainly on chalk and limestone, has a low level
of background radiation.
>The truth is
>that anyone living for more than a very short amount of time close to
>say a 240kV cable is likely to get cancer
There is no evidence for this.
>I hope you don't have any
>mains-powered electrical devices close to you when you're sleeping,
>either
Strange, but I do. I also live only a few miles from a nuclear power
plant.
>transformers with massive throughput in power stations are much much
>more efficient than those in many domestic appliances, and in absolute
>terms give off only a tiny fraction of the field
I see you know little physics.
>For analogous propaganda efforts to those of the nuclear
>power generation and electricity distribution industries, see the bosses
>from Big Tobacco who when asked 'does smoking cause lung cancer?' reply
>(this is when they're under oath) 'it may'.
Smoking does NOT necessarily cause cancer. That is to say, in case you
don't understand English, that a smoker will not inevitably develop
cancers as a result of smoking. It is possible to smoke and not
develop cancer, although it is of course fair to say that smoking
(significantly) increases the risk of developing some forms of cancer.
However, that does not mean "smoking causes cancer", which is
logically equivalent to stating that driving cars kills people. Yes,
it can, but it will not inevtiably do so.
To say "it may" in answer to the smoking and cancer question is
technically perfectly accurate, although it is disingenious.
BTW, I do not smoke, although I used to.
>Nope. I don't take either narcotics or pharmaceuticals, either illegal
>or legal, and I don't drink alcohol either
Maybe you should start...
>Absolute rubbish. People, and especially women, on average succumb to
>encouragement to see the quack (they're not 'doctors', they don't have
>doctorates, they've only got bachelor's degrees) far more than
>necessary.
Yeah? My wife doesn't. They discourage patients from making frivolous
calls on the doctor's time, and frequently complain in public that
unnecessary consultations for petty complaints divert resources from
treating those in more serious need.
>Yeah yeah, and 10% of income in the UK goes on national insurance for
>starters, a large part of which goes to the NHS
The NHS costs about GBP70 billion per annum, which is equivalent to
about 7% of GDP or 17% of government expenditure. This is
unsustainably high, hence the calls from the government to reduce
costs by introducing private companies to the NHS.
>Millions in an average
>hospital get spent on, for example, routine scans in pregnancy; and in
>surgeries on policies that are mostly harmful, such as mass vaccination.
>Do you know how they get GPs to encourage as many as people as possible
>to get vaccinated? That's right, they pay them a bonus if coverage is
>over a certain percentage (98%, from memory).
Mass vaccination is not "mostly harmful". It is also cheaper than mass
treatment of infected cases. Maternity scans can detect abnormalities
before birth (that's what they're for) and so can help reduce the
subsequent cost of treating marginally viable fetuses, permit early
cheap treatment, or permit termination in the case of severe handicap
(subject of course to the parent's wishes)
J&K Copeland
"Euan Gray" <eu...@nospameuangray.com> wrote in message
news:3b3e616...@news.btconnect.com...
---snip---
> >The truth is
> >that anyone living for more than a very short amount of time close to
> >say a 240kV cable is likely to get cancer
>
> There is no evidence for this.
Would it help to point that in the US, there are tens of thousands of people
that have lived close to high voltage power lines for decades and that
they've be studied to death trying to find some elevated risk of cancer,
with no result.
No? Didn't help?
Oh, well...
James...
Never let the facts interfere with a good conspiracy.
anton
Euan Gray wrote in message <3b3e616...@news.btconnect.com>...
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Am I really the only libertarian republican atheist eurosceptic...?
>http://www.euangray.com
No.
Except I'm not sure about the republicanism.
--
Anton
Euan Gray
<irony>
But we need a Republic. How else can we stop Prince Philip and MI6
controlling the Bilderberg fascists and their alien cow-mutilating
bodyguards? You know it makes sense.
</irony>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Am I really the only libertarian republican atheist eurosceptic...?
http://www.euangray.com
Remove nospam to reply
Minnie Sicleous
wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 01:08:18 +0100, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Exposure to radioactivity at the levels caused by normal operation of
>>nuclear power stations causes cancer, and a massively increased
>>prevalence of certain types of cancer. This has been known for decades.
>
>It has also been known for decades that the level of background
>radiation fluctuates across the country dependent largely on the
>nature of the lcoal bedrock. In the vicinity of Aberdeen, for example,
>the background radiation count is relatively high since the bedrock is
>largely granite, which contains significant levels of uranium.
>Southern England, lying mainly on chalk and limestone, has a low level
>of background radiation.
>
The issue in question is not one of absorbed dose from external
radiation. It is the possibilty of ingesting into the body radioactive
elements which will continue to irradiate organs from within for years
on end. Recent research has found a correlation between leukeamia
clusters, nuclear installations and seashores. Where do they dump the
waste? How much has gone into the sea around Windscale (sorry
*Sea*scale) since 1955? Go figure.
In Aberdeen the granite is of a dense none permeable consistency. When
the Uranium decays the gamma rays escape and put up the background
dose, but the decay products cannot escape. This is fortunate because
the decay of Uranium produces radioactive isotopes which emit high
energy alpha particles which lose all their energy in a tiny distance
when they encounter human tissue and do tremendous damage.
In Cornwall the granite there does not have this desirable property,
people have absorbed very high doses of radiation and there are
government schemes to protect the public.
Officials confuse the public by referring to "Background Radiation"
whereas the real hasard is from lumps of radioactive crud you breathe
in and will keep on radiating that same peice of lung tissue with
alphas 'till you die, or radioactivity you ingest within your food
which might well be metabolised in your digestion and wind up being
concentrated in one of your organs, or your bones. Remember Iodine
131, remember Strontium 90. You should do, take a look at these..
http://content.sciencewise.com/resources/Reporter/Nuclear_Power_Plants/greenpeace_197.pdf
http://ccnr.org/open_letter.html
http://193.51.164.11/htdocs/monographs/Vol78/Vol78-radionuclides.html
Extract follows;
Intakes of radionuclides originating from the nuclear industry,
released either accidentally or deliberately, e.g. krypton-85, are
also normally low but can be high under some circumstances. For
instance, intake that is much higher than normal may occur among
persons living close to the sites of releases of nuclear fuel
reprocessing effluents, e.g. in West Cumbria, United Kingdom, or the
Techa River in the Russian Federation, since the wastes may contain
fission products such as caesium-137 and strontium-90 and fuel-derived
components such as plutonium-239, plutonium-241 and americium-241.
Reactor accidents such as those at Chernobyl and Windscale resulted in
the release of more volatile fission products into the environment,
including iodine and caesium isotopes, and the exposed populations had
much higher than normal intakes of these radionuclides.
<Quoted abstract ends>
Well, ain't that a thought to conjour with
Minnie
-
Go to http://members.ud.com/vypc/cancer/ and
volunteer to help Cancer Research at Oxford Uni.
by donating your otherwise wasted CPU clock cycles!
Howard Beale
> Maternity scans can detect abnormalities
> before birth (that's what they're for) and so can help reduce the
> subsequent cost of treating marginally viable fetuses, permit early
> cheap treatment, or permit termination in the case of severe handicap
Not if you live in a country like Ireland
--
Howard Beale
"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"
Euan Gray
<how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>> Maternity scans can detect abnormalities
>> before birth (that's what they're for) and so can help reduce the
>> subsequent cost of treating marginally viable fetuses, permit early
>> cheap treatment, or permit termination in the case of severe handicap
>
>Not if you live in a country like Ireland
>
OK then, but they do in countries where 2,000 year old books of dodgy
metaphysical speculation don't control moral debate...
Joshua Holmes
: On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 08:34:25 +0100, in uk.politics.misc,
: ("anton" <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com>) wrote:
:
:>Euan Gray wrote in message <3b3e616...@news.btconnect.com>...
:>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:>>Am I really the only libertarian republican atheist eurosceptic...?
: I think libertarianism, republicanism and atheism come hand in hand.
Well, as a libertarian and a Christian, I tend to disagree. :)
Try http://www.lewrockwell.com, which has a lot of libertarian
Christian writing (and plenty of good secular pieces as well).
: Monarchism, authoritarianism and religion tend to go along with each
: other as well.
Well, of the three major totalitarian regimes last century, only
one was connected to religion, and even that connection was tenuous at
best (I mean Nazi Germany vs. Soviet Russia and Communist China).
Authoritarian governments are connected to man's wicked lust for power;
religion was just a means to an end.
--
Joshua Holmes
jdho...@force.stwing.upenn.edu
James Johnson
news:<3b3cf6d8...@news.btconnect.com>...
> >Just look at the enormous percentage of GNP
> >that goes into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies and the
> >freemasons who run the NHS on their behalf - in a culture where
> >surprise, surprise, people are encouraged to go to see a quack on
> >average several times a year, mostly to get drugs.
hey leave the freemasons out of it!!! we are too busy creating the new
world order (tm) to worry about fleecing the NHS out of a few quids ..
seriously .. i know these guys and they couldn't organise a piss up in
a brewery let along run the NHS (or come to think of it .. now that
you mention it .. the NHS *is run* by people who couldn't organise a
piss up in a brewery ...)
Howard Beale
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2001 17:00:20 GMT, "Howard Beale"
> <how...@REMOVEmad-as-hell.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Maternity scans can detect abnormalities
> >> before birth (that's what they're for) and so can help reduce the
> >> subsequent cost of treating marginally viable fetuses, permit early
> >> cheap treatment, or permit termination in the case of severe handicap
> >
> >Not if you live in a country like Ireland
> >
> OK then, but they do in countries where 2,000 year old books of dodgy
> metaphysical speculation don't control moral debate...
Don't underestimate the power of these cult followers. The looney brigade in
Ireland helped scupper the Nice Treaty over abortion.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '00:15:19' on 'Sun, 1 Jul
2001', J&K Copeland <jc...@kc.rr.com> writes:
>"Euan Gray" <eu...@nospameuangray.com> wrote in message
>news:3b3e616...@news.btconnect.com...
>---snip---
>> >The truth is
>> >that anyone living for more than a very short amount of time close to
>> >say a 240kV cable is likely to get cancer
>>
>> There is no evidence for this.
>
>Would it help to point that in the US, there are tens of thousands of people
>that have lived close to high voltage power lines for decades and that
>they've be studied to death trying to find some elevated risk of cancer,
>with no result.
>
>No? Didn't help?
>
>Oh, well...
Yes the electricity industry has what has been called a 'bottomless
fund' to counter the truth in this matter.
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '23:55:50' on 'Sat, 30 Jun
2001', Euan Gray <eu...@nospameuangray.com> writes:
>On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 01:08:18 +0100, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>transformers with massive throughput in power stations are much much
>>more efficient than those in many domestic appliances, and in absolute
>>terms give off only a tiny fraction of the field
>
>I see you know little physics.
No you don't see that at all. What I wrote was wholly correct. Run a
gaussmeter over, say, a transformer used for a modem or in a
mains-powered radio, and you will detect a much higher field strength
than if you run it over a massive transformer in a power station.
<snip>
>>Absolute rubbish. People, and especially women, on average succumb to
>>encouragement to see the quack (they're not 'doctors', they don't have
>>doctorates, they've only got bachelor's degrees) far more than
>>necessary.
>
>Yeah? My wife doesn't. They discourage patients from making frivolous
>calls on the doctor's time, and frequently complain in public that
>unnecessary consultations for petty complaints divert resources from
>treating those in more serious need.
Yes, these people who are thought to have hugely more skill and
knowledge than they actually do have, who are in effect poorly-trained
lackeys of transnational pharmceutical corporations who learnt how to
swagger around with stethoscopes around their necks when they were about
20, and who have successfully achieved a huge amount of cultural
engineering since the mid-19th century - or rather, their masters have -
and especially since the modern medical system was set up by the
Rockefellers in the early 20th century, often complain a lot.
>>Yeah yeah, and 10% of income in the UK goes on national insurance for
>>starters, a large part of which goes to the NHS
>
>The NHS costs about GBP70 billion per annum, which is equivalent to
>about 7% of GDP or 17% of government expenditure. This is
>unsustainably high, hence the calls from the government to reduce
>costs by introducing private companies to the NHS.
An utterly ludicrous statement. Privatisation is to increase profit.
There is no good reason to say that 7% of GDP or 17% of government
expenditure is unsustainably high. You're just asserting that without
stating any reason. In any event, a large proportion of this goes to the
pharmaceutical companies for drugs of which the effect is at best
neutral and often harmful.
'There Is No Alternative' to having McDonalds restaurants built at
hospitals, eh? The only 'sustainable' 'solution'? Buzzwords to hide the
fundamental conflict of interest.
It's *policy*. We're not supposed to realise, but the rulers *rule*, and
they rule *actively* and *strategically*, in their own interests. They
are *not* lurching from 'crisis' to 'crisis'.
NHS privatisation is very very juicy for the banks and insurance
companies and pension funds waiting in the wings. They are mainly
looking to get their hands on the money that currently goes on national
health insurance (we're talking Lloyds, Barclays, General Accident,
Norwich Union, etc., also Boots, very likely organisations such as the
Automobile Association too - think *brands*), but they are also involved
in land speculation. If I know what I'm talking about, which I do, the
aim is to get more not less of GNP spent on 'health'. This means
lowering wages and raising profits. Mind you, of course they also get a
return on government bonds they buy as part of the nationalised set-up.
>>Millions in an average
>>hospital get spent on, for example, routine scans in pregnancy; and in
>>surgeries on policies that are mostly harmful, such as mass vaccination.
>>Do you know how they get GPs to encourage as many as people as possible
>>to get vaccinated? That's right, they pay them a bonus if coverage is
>>over a certain percentage (98%, from memory).
>
>Mass vaccination is not "mostly harmful". It is also cheaper than mass
>treatment of infected cases.
It's *not* mass vaccination which has caused the decline in the
prevalence of various diseases. It's better sanitation anbd perhaps even
in some cases 'natural' decline.
>Maternity scans can detect abnormalities
>before birth (that's what they're for)
Why don't you read up on the harm caused by routine scans? For instance,
there is an increased prevalence of left-handedness among those who have
been subjected in the womb to several scans. That means there's a
physical effect on the brain, although of course it's rarely put like
that. BTW TENS scans are dangerous too.
Sell a machine to hospital by means of kickbacks there or to the health
board, and the company makes several million pounds and doubtless more
every year in repair, maintenance and upgrade contracts. MONEY. PROFIT.
Don't think the bosses of pharmaceutical companies are any less greedy
or amoral or self-serving than the bosses of tobacco companies or
weapons companies. They aren't.
--
banana
J&K Copeland
To be blunt, there is a class of American lawyers, that would gladly relieve
them of the "bottomless" fund if could find a shred of evidence. As a
matter of fact, mostly the corporations with fat cash reserves find
themselves as the targets. There's no reason to sue paupers.
James..
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '13:06:43' on 'Tue, 3 Jul
2001', J&K Copeland <jc...@kc.rr.com> writes:
>"banana" <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:BBcZpqAF...@borve.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <rYt%6.88823$R7.15...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>, posted to
>> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '00:15:19' on 'Sun, 1 Jul
>> 2001', J&K Copeland <jc...@kc.rr.com> writes:
>>
>> >"Euan Gray" <eu...@nospameuangray.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3b3e616...@news.btconnect.com...
<snip>
>> Yes the electricity industry has what has been called a 'bottomless
>> fund' to counter the truth in this matter.
>> --
>> banana
>
>To be blunt, there is a class of American lawyers, that would gladly relieve
>them of the "bottomless" fund
Here's to them. They've certainly made dents in the tobacco industry,
albeit winning scant compensation for the hundreds of millions of deaths
caused by the bosses of that industry, and one notes that there have yet
to be successful criminal prosecutions on top of the civil ones. But
it's easier for capitalism to replace tobacco with alternative drugs
than it is for it to replace electrical power.
--
banana
banana
2001', Euan Gray <eu...@nospameuangray.com> writes:
>On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 01:08:18 +0100, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>People, and especially women, on average succumb to
>>encouragement to see the quack (they're not 'doctors', they don't have
>>doctorates, they've only got bachelor's degrees) far more than
>>necessary.
>
>Yeah? My wife doesn't.
I wanted to come back on this. It's not only that poor treatment often
causes health problems to be permanent. More than that, when a working
class woman aged over her late 40s (and many people are permanently
medicalised younger than that, often *much* younger than that) goes to
the quack or the hospital for something, she is often *assumed* to be on
prescribed psycho-dope. People who aren't, tend to get spoken to with
disbelief if, when asked what 'medication' they're on, they explain that
they're not on any 'medication'. The patronising attitude experienced
including from senior nurses, is extreme.
Anybody serious about social criticism must be committed to eroding the
'respect' that is given to medics. They're one of the most 'respected'
sections of the rich, and they're just as much part of the rich as a
whole, and as self-serving both as individuals and as a specific
section, as any other part of the rich. And the medical system shits on
working class people just as much as the school system does or the tax
system, or the media, or what have you. Most working class people,
although they get no public voice and it's not admitted in the media,
know very well that medics line their pockets, cover up for each other,
cover up their ignorance, and swagger around like arrogant f*ckers; and
'golf' jokes are commonplace (why did X die? oh the surgeon was probably
playing golf); but whatever residual respect there is, must be eroded
further. Which is not to say that one shouldn't use them, simply that
one should be on one's guard and take as little shit as possible from
them.
Interesting that no-one came back on my information that the uranium
mines supplying UK nuclear power stations were all controlled by the
Rothschilds from the outset.
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '07:03:19' on 'Sat, 30 Jun
2001', anton <anto...@SPAMbtinternet.com> writes:
>banana wrote in message ...
>>In article <3b3cf6d8...@news.btconnect.com>, posted to
>>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '22:00:54' on 'Fri, 29 Jun
>>2001', Euan Gray <eu...@nospameuangray.com> writes:
<snip>
>> Millions in an average
>>hospital get spent on, for example, routine scans in pregnancy;
>
>Many people (not all) would prefer to abort a foetus that is going
>to turn into a severely disabled baby. The scans pick some of
>these up, and some other possible complications of pregnancy too.
>What's your point?
The point is that routine scans cause health problems. There are
survivors' organisations, just as there are with regard to the pertussis
vaccine (for the damage caused by which, BTW, millions of pounds have
been paid out in damages, yet it's still policy to vaccinate as many
children as possible - ker-ching!) And we're talking about a position
where it is not uncommon for pregnant women in the UK to get 3 or 4 or 5
routine scans. These scans cause lasting effects on the brain.
The reason why quacks recommend scans is that the higher-ups have told
them to do so. (And the main reason why the higher-ups *have* told them
to do so is that there's profit in it. If they could get the same amount
of profit through having a big car-park built outside the hospital, they
would). They don't have the intelligence to form an opinion for
themselves, they've got the editors of the BMJ to do that for them
(which doesn't exactly go against The Lancet, owned by Elsevier, through
which control is exercised over world scientific medical and legal
publishing). In the 1950s librium was marketed to general practitioners
with the slogan 'whatever the diagnosis, Librium'. Things have got more
subtle since then, that's all, and low-down quacks more schizo. Low-down
quacks have to be allowed to keep up the pretence that they're 'in the
know', after all, they're the first point of contact for patients. But
the controllers still know that they're in control, and control is still
the same in its nature and aims. Have a look at the text at
<http://www.bmjpg.com/template.cfm?name=bmjgroup_abt>. The role of the
BMJ and other BMJPG publications is described with such statements as
"Doctors are overwhelmed with information. They suffer from the
information paradox whereby they are drowning in information and yet
cannot find the information they need when they need it." See what I
mean. In actual fact a GP will prescribe dogshit if he's paid enough to
do so.
The reason they're supposed to believe to be the sole reason that
routine scans are encouraged is that disabilities in the foetus would be
detected and a woman could then choose to have an abortion if she
wanted, however they don't say this explicitly. What a sick game.
Matters of life, death, abortion, etc. - far too important to let the
'proles' deal with, without being mucked about, eh? They never say
'Look, if you wouldn't have an abortion even if the foetus were
disabled, then we recommend avoiding having the scan and thereby
avoiding the risk of raising the likelihood of brain damage'. It's hard
to overestimate the amount of contempt that these charlatans have for
their patients. It's as if it's a matter of 'if you believe what I tell
you, then you deserve contempt, and if you don't, then you're a trouble-
maker with mental problems'.
That there is a covert eugenics policy in the UK is another point. As is
the fact that people who suffer from Down's Syndrome often get denied
the treatment that is necessary to save their lives, have plugs pulled
on them. People even only a little way up the social hierarchy like to
see themselves as part of officialdom, in the same team as their bosses,
and relating to those at the bottom as if they were cattle. (Being
encouraged to view things with the aid of some of the aggregated and
averaged financial information regarding the administration of the
system encourages them in such an outlook). Idiots that many of them
are, many of them believe in the moronic ideas of sociobiology and of
the genetic determination of place in the social pecking order - which
entire discourse/ideology obscures the reality of what the pecking order
actually is about, and how it is maintained. This relates to some extent
to the prevalence of 'anti-conspiracism' among many in the middle levels
of society. People above or below those levels know much better.
--
banana