Sierra Club claims tritium causes cancer
Eric Gisin
Like most nuclear scaremongering, they don't give the level of radioactivity or the risk.
The only number is "5X background levels", which I assume is practially nothing.
http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=2245401
Radioactive waste contaminating Canadian water supply: Report
Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service Published: Friday, November 20, 2009
OTTAWA -- Nuclear facilities and power plants are contaminating local Canadian food and water with
radioactive waste that increases risks of cancer and birth defects, says a new report to be
released on Friday.
The report, Tritium on Tap, produced by the Sierra Club of Canada, warned that radioactive
emissions from various nuclear plants across the country have more than doubled over the past
decade. The figures were based on statistics compiled by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
which measured pollution coming from the plants.
Although Canadian guidelines have suggested that the existing levels of tritium in the water are
safe, the report cites recent peer-reviewed studies, including a recent review by the UK's
Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters, that suggest the opposite.
"Once in our body, tritium enters our DNA, fat, proteins and carbohydrates - and that is where it
does its damage from close range," said the Sierra Club report. "It is a carcinogen and causes
birth defects."
The report noted that other jurisdictions such as the European Union and California have drinking
water guidelines for tritium that are hundreds of times stronger than Canada's guidelines. A recent
report by the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council, released in May, has also suggested more
stringent drinking water standards to restrict tritium.
With some radioactive pollution getting into the ground and locally produced food, Mike
Buckthought, who wrote the Sierra Club report, said the best solution is to eliminate pollution
from nuclear reactors by promoting more renewable forms of energy.
"We need to phase out nuclear power and look for safer alternatives such as wind and solar energy,"
said Mr. Buckthought, who is the national climate change campaigner for Sierra Club.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has confirmed a "controlled release" of tritium into the Ottawa
River from December 2008 to February 2009 but said this leak did not pose any risk to the
environment because it respected the existing regulations. However, the Sierra Club said tests of
the water done by a lab at the University of Waterloo revealed tritium levels that were five times
higher than in water at other locations without any nearby nuclear plants.
Mr. Buckthought said that AECL has also collected about 4.5 tonnes of water contaminated by tritium
that leaked from the reactor over the spring and summer. He said it would put the population at
risk if this waste is released into the river.
Chom Noamsky
> This is about the isotope reactor at Chalk River, not a power plant.
> Like most nuclear scaremongering, they don't give the level of
> radioactivity or the risk.
> The only number is "5X background levels", which I assume is practially
> nothing.
It would be practically nothing if not for the nature of tritium.
Tritium bonds naturally with water molecules, which means it can get
into every cell of the human body just as easily as ordinary water can.
Ionizing radiation inside the cell is usually not a good thing when
it comes to DNA integrity.
As for risk... why don't we feed you tritiated water and find out? I
bet all those scientists tired of experimenting on mice and could use a
real human subject.
Eric Gisin
Again, do you have any evidence that tiny quantities of T cause cancer?
BTW, head over to news:alt.global-warming were the biggest science fraud ever is being exposed.
Or here:
http://news.google.com/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=ca&cf=all&ncl=dxsEnXw-id9-ZYMlr1psD9-eM64PM
"Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message news:rNBNm.54267$PH1.3879@edtnps82...
Liberals are vermin
> This is about the isotope reactor at Chalk River, not a power plant.
> Like most nuclear scaremongering, they don't give the level of radioactivity or the risk.
> The only number is "5X background levels", which I assume is practially nothing.
>
> http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=2245401
>
> Radioactive waste contaminating Canadian water supply: Report
> Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service Published: Friday, November 20, 2009
>
> OTTAWA -- Nuclear facilities and power plants are contaminating local Canadian food and water with
> radioactive waste that increases risks of cancer and birth defects, says a new report to be
> released on Friday.
>
> The report, Tritium on Tap, produced by the Sierra Club of Canada, warned that radioactive
> emissions from various nuclear plants across the country have more than doubled over the past
> decade. The figures were based on statistics compiled by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
> which measured pollution coming from the plants.
So what? Has anyone checked the reports out of the Chernobyl area?
Apart from the original radiation release that killed dozens of
workers who worked on the plant after the explosion, there has been
ZERO EVIDENCE of ANY mutation, cancers or other problems associated
with the wildlife and plant life that has been exposed. Radiation
levels far in excess of what they thought was needed to induce
mutations. Plus, outfits like the Sierra Club caused DDT to be banned
(boo hoo, some bird eggs got thinned) which resulted in the deaths by
malaria of millions (50 million est) Africans and South Asians.
Lastly, this is just an onslaught of anti-nuke lunacy by the usual
scumbag leftist, enviroqueers because they HATE the idea of a new
nuclear power boom to replace fossil fuels. Their ultimate goal isn't
to replace fossil fuels, it isn't to combat mythological global
warming, it is to RID the planet of as many humans as possible.
Chom Noamsky
DDT usage only leads to resistant strains of whatever it is used to
control. The resurgence of bed bugs is a prime example, as DDT stopped
being effective against these pests 50 years ago.
I never stop getting a kick out of people who use humanitarian causes to
justify poisons.... *as if they actually care*
Chom Noamsky
> Tritium is a weaker beta emitter than the K40 already in your body.
> Again, do you have any evidence that tiny quantities of T cause cancer?
Do you have any proof that smoking causes cancer? To this day there
exists only a strong correlation and that correlation is good enough to
conclude that smoking is bad for you. Even without identifying specific
causative factors, the mountain of evidence is big enough to arrive at a
conclusion. The tobacco industry used the scientific defense for
decades, in that nobody has ever proven directly that smoking causes cancer.
But indirect evidence matters. Population "A" smokes; population "B"
does not; population "C" is exposed to second-hand smoke. Populations
"A" and "C" experience more health problems that "B". What conclusion
would you arrive at? Even when the best health sciences fail, the
science of statistics has something to say.
What does the science of statistics say about ionizing radiation?
Generally, the more you are exposed to the more likely you are to
develop cancer.
We already have too many Fred Singers in this world, people who are
technically correct but generally wrong.
Ouroboros Rex
Lie.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=chernobyl+mutations&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g2
Radiation
> levels far in excess of what they thought was needed to induce
> mutations. Plus, outfits like the Sierra Club caused DDT to be banned
> (boo hoo, some bird eggs got thinned) which resulted in the deaths by
> malaria of millions (50 million est) Africans and South Asians.
Lie. DDT was never banned for malaria abatement, ever.
Duncan Patton a Campbell
DDT is still effective. It was the fact that threatened the Bald Eagle
that got it banned in the the "developed" wierld. And the Sierra Club
is populated with Luddites who promote a kind of neo-feudalism with themselves
occupying the "Manor": richoid elitists.
Dhu
--
Duncan Patton a Campbell is Dhu
Eric Gisin
DDT is still used in African homes to repel mosquitos, and is far more effective than netting.
"Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message news:J1DNm.54274$PH1.44690@edtnps82...
Eric Gisin
"Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message news:dyDNm.54275$PH1.33825@edtnps82...
marcodbeast
> Chimpsky, you truely are a retarded green fascist. DDT is still used in
> African homes to repel mosquitos, and is far more effective than netting.
Sorry, you are a known liar.
Chom Noamsky
> DDT is still effective. It was the fact that threatened the Bald Eagle
> that got it banned in the the "developed" wierld. And the Sierra Club
> is populated with Luddites who promote a kind of neo-feudalism with themselves
> occupying the "Manor": richoid elitists.
I wish it was something as simple as environmental elitism. Have you
heard what happens with indiscriminate use of antibiotics? The
resistant strains of bacteria take over and the drugs no longer work.
Your local hospital is now the best place anywhere to get infected with
a superbug. The process is almost identical to the way DDT resistance
develops in insects.
BTW, the problem in eagles wasn't caused by using DDT to fight
disease-carrying mosquitos, it was caused by using DDT to improve the
bottom lines of the agriculture industry. Growers indiscriminately
dumped the stuff on crops to make the crops more profitable.
Duncan Patton a Campbell
BTW that's exactly what happened with antibiotics, too.
Anything in the public commons (as were most of the good
antibiotic) will get trashed by the greed-heads over using
it. This is why regulation is required for capitalism to
function in a non-terminal mode.
Duncan Patton a Campbell
> Eric Gisin wrote:
>> Chimpsky, you truely are a retarded green fascist. DDT is still used in
>> African homes to repel mosquitos, and is far more effective than
>> netting.
>
> Sorry, you are a known liar.
>
Sorry but you are wrong and Eric is right on this one.
Dhu
>
>
>> "Chom Noamsky" <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote in message
>> news:J1DNm.54274$PH1.44690@edtnps82...
>>> Liberals are vermin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So what? Has anyone checked the reports out of the Chernobyl area?
>>>> Apart from the original radiation release that killed dozens of
>>>> workers who worked on the plant after the explosion, there has been
>>>> ZERO EVIDENCE of ANY mutation, cancers or other problems associated
>>>> with the wildlife and plant life that has been exposed. Radiation
>>>> levels far in excess of what they thought was needed to induce
>>>> mutations. Plus, outfits like the Sierra Club caused DDT to be
>>>> banned (boo hoo, some bird eggs got thinned) which resulted in the
>>>> deaths by malaria of millions (50 million est) Africans and South
>>>> Asians. Lastly, this is just an onslaught of anti-nuke lunacy by the
>>>> usual scumbag leftist, enviroqueers because they HATE the idea of a
>>>> new nuclear power boom to replace fossil fuels. Their ultimate goal
>>>> isn't to replace fossil fuels, it isn't to combat mythological global
>>>> warming, it is to RID the planet of as many humans as possible.
>>>
>>> DDT usage only leads to resistant strains of whatever it is used to
>>> control. The resurgence of bed bugs is a prime example, as DDT
>>> stopped being effective against these pests 50 years ago.
>>>
>>> I never stop getting a kick out of people who use humanitarian causes
>>> to justify poisons.... *as if they actually care*
--
Chom Noamsky
> FUcking troll. Stop evading the question, or admit low-level radiation
> does no harm.
As with smoking there is a strong correlation between radiation exposure
and bad health. The body of evidence is large enough that specifics
don't matter. In fact, the statistical evidence alone is good enough
for governments and individuals to sue tobacco companies in courts of
law and win.
Some people insist that unless there is a smoking gun there is no way to
lay blame for a pile of dead bodies. Even though heaps of statistics
show that smokers suffer ill health more than non-smokers, the defenders
of toxic industry forward technical claims that there is no proof
linking the two. They are correct, but the pile of dead bodies is still
there.
Here we have another toxic industry called nuclear energy and its
associated products. Eric asks, but how much tritium exposure is toxic?
If Eric knew he would tell us, but he doesn't know and wants to
promote what he admits is his own personal assumption. Common sense
dictates that it's best to err on the side of caution when dealing with
unknowns.
Good health is the most precious thing a person can have. The Eric
Gisins of the world want to take that away with their clever cognitive
distortions and fallacious logic.
Chom Noamsky
> Chimpsky, you truely are a retarded green fascist. DDT is still used in
> African homes to repel mosquitos, and is far more effective than netting.
Do you and this other guy genuinely care if DDT saves lives? Your posts
are extremely political in nature and rabidly anti-green, which tells me
you don't give a shit about malaria and are probably just a useful idiot
for industry. "Rich", of whatever the fuck he calls himself, thinks if
millions of African die or starve its their own fault for over breeding,
but a DDT ban is a crime against humanity.
You guys are a couple of phonies of the most amateur kind.
Chom Noamsky
>
>> Eric Gisin wrote:
>>> Chimpsky, you truely are a retarded green fascist. DDT is still used in
>>> African homes to repel mosquitos, and is far more effective than
>>> netting.
>> Sorry, you are a known liar.
>>
>
> Sorry but you are wrong and Eric is right on this one.
Like granny on The Beverly Hillbillies always used to say, "better
livin' through chemistry." That generally works for me until the better
livin' part comes at the expense of other living things. The criteria
for any valid technical solution should be "better living for all." DDT
just doesn't fit that criteria. DDT doesn't eradicate malaria, it
eradicates the malaria vector. A bat can eat its own weight in
mosquitos in two nights, want to get rid of the vector then promoting
the local bat population would be a good start. Of course there is no
magical "product" to sell and consume, which eliminates corporate
interest in the "solution", so you won't be hearing solutions like this
coming from the Eric Gisins, or insane little fuckers like "Rich."
These people don't actually care about solutions, just being able to
make a buck off people.
Pete
> Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> >> Sorry, you are a known liar.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry but you are wrong and Eric is right on this one.
>
> Like granny on The Beverly Hillbillies always used to say, "better
> livin' through chemistry." That generally works for me until the better
> livin' part comes at the expense of other living things. The criteria
> for any valid technical solution should be "better living for all." DDT
> just doesn't fit that criteria. DDT doesn't eradicate malaria, it
> eradicates the malaria vector. A bat can eat its own weight in
> mosquitos in two nights, want to get rid of the vector then promoting
> the local bat population would be a good start. Of course there is no
> magical "product" to sell and consume, which eliminates corporate
> interest in the "solution", so you won't be hearing solutions like this
> coming from the Eric Gisins, or insane little fuckers like "Rich."
> These people don't actually care about solutions, just being able to
> make a buck off people.
>
>
DDT is the answer, if you want to wipe out idiots.
The big problem with right wing idiots and the environment?
They?re idiots.
DDT was never banned for fighting Malaria. DDT was banned for agricultrual
use.
DDT is useless because mosquitoes became numb to it.
However, I see no problem with feeding DDT to DDT advocates who say that it?s
harmless. Why not? :)
Pete
> You guys are a couple of phonies of the most amateur kind.
>
>
I like Gisin. He?s a Canadian who lives off of single payer health care, yet
pretends to be a Libertaian and says ?it?s all socialist�.
He?s an IT geek. They?re dime-a-dosen.
Eric is a jack ass. A phony libertarian.
If he met up with Lambourn? They would sniff each other and be at odds over the
butt end.
Pete
Gisih is a pathetic Jackass.
And Eric, if you want to sue me for Libel. Look me up.
I will own you.
Benj
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> > Tritium is a weaker beta emitter than the K40 already in your body.
> > Again, do you have any evidence that tiny quantities of T cause cancer?
> But indirect evidence matters. Population "A" smokes; population "B"
> does not; population "C" is exposed to second-hand smoke. Populations
> "A" and "C" experience more health problems that "B". What conclusion
> would you arrive at? Even when the best health sciences fail, the
> science of statistics has something to say.
Note that this shows only a correlation and not causality. I don't
know why so many people with political axes to grind always use
statistics to jump to unjustified conclusions...Oh that's right
statistics don't lie but liars use statistics.
> What does the science of statistics say about ionizing radiation?
> Generally, the more you are exposed to the more likely you are to
> develop cancer.
But science DOES say something about ionizing radiation. What is the
"safe" dose? Is you dental ex-ray "safe"? Are mammograms "safe"?
Notice all this big uproar over the new guidelines to reduce
mammograms to every two years. The major media obviously on the side
of Malthus is trying to keep the radiation flowing. So what is the
"safe" level? Ask your doctor or dentist. They all KNOW the real
answer. There is NO safe radiation level! Period. Hence all
radiation is a compromise choice between the benefits you get from the
radiation and the dangers from it. Of course tritium leakage from a
reactor isn't a compromise since the tritium isn't supposed to be
leaking in the first place.
Chom Noamsky
> On Nov 20, 4:07 pm, Chom Noamsky <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote:
>> Eric Gisin wrote:
>>> Tritium is a weaker beta emitter than the K40 already in your body.
>>> Again, do you have any evidence that tiny quantities of T cause cancer?
>
>> But indirect evidence matters. Population "A" smokes; population "B"
>> does not; population "C" is exposed to second-hand smoke. Populations
>> "A" and "C" experience more health problems that "B". What conclusion
>> would you arrive at? Even when the best health sciences fail, the
>> science of statistics has something to say.
>
> Note that this shows only a correlation and not causality. I don't
> know why so many people with political axes to grind always use
> statistics to jump to unjustified conclusions...Oh that's right
> statistics don't lie but liars use statistics.
I knew some clever person was going to come on and say "but but but
correlation isn't causation". No, it is not. The point I was making is
that the overwhelming amount of evidence pretty much negates the need to
identify specific causes. Why do smokers pay higher health insurance
premiums in the US? Specific causes of bad health in smokers is
absolutely irrelevant, all the industry is concerned about is the cost
of providing health care to smokers, which is generally more than
non-smokers. Home insurance for smokers is also more expensive based on
the statistical fact that smokers burn down more houses than
non-smokers. So when you say "...shows only a correlation and not
causality" you are technically correct but generally wrong in light of
the evidence.
>> What does the science of statistics say about ionizing radiation?
>> Generally, the more you are exposed to the more likely you are to
>> develop cancer.
>
> But science DOES say something about ionizing radiation. What is the
> "safe" dose? Is you dental ex-ray "safe"? Are mammograms "safe"?
> Notice all this big uproar over the new guidelines to reduce
> mammograms to every two years. The major media obviously on the side
> of Malthus is trying to keep the radiation flowing. So what is the
> "safe" level? Ask your doctor or dentist. They all KNOW the real
> answer. There is NO safe radiation level! Period. Hence all
> radiation is a compromise choice between the benefits you get from the
> radiation and the dangers from it. Of course tritium leakage from a
> reactor isn't a compromise since the tritium isn't supposed to be
> leaking in the first place.
Precisely, well put. What I'm against is people like Gisin deciding what
level is safe based on some flakey "anti-greenie" political agenda. He
knows radiation is risky, but it's a risk he's willing to let you take.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Nov 20, 12:29 pm, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is about the isotope reactor at Chalk River, not a power plant.
> > Like most nuclear scaremongering, they don't give the level of radioactivity or the risk.
> > The only number is "5X background levels", which I assume is practially nothing.
>
> >http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=2245401
>
> > Radioactive waste contaminating Canadian water supply: Report
> > Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service Published: Friday, November 20, 2009
>
> > OTTAWA -- Nuclear facilities and power plants are contaminating local Canadian food and water with
> > radioactive waste that increases risks of cancer and birth defects, says a new report to be
> > released on Friday.
>
> > The report, Tritium on Tap, produced by the Sierra Club of Canada, warned that radioactive
> > emissions from various nuclear plants across the country have more than doubled over the past
> > decade. The figures were based on statistics compiled by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
> > which measured pollution coming from the plants.
>
> So what? Has anyone checked the reports out of the Chernobyl area?
> Apart from the original radiation release that killed dozens of
> workers who worked on the plant after the explosion, there has been
> ZERO EVIDENCE of ANY mutation, cancers or other problems associated
> with the wildlife and plant life that has been exposed. Radiation
> levels far in excess of what they thought was needed to induce
> mutations. Plus, outfits like the Sierra Club caused DDT to be banned
> (boo hoo, some bird eggs got thinned) which resulted in the deaths by
> malaria of millions (50 million est) Africans and South Asians.
The idiot Sierra Club is why the people who know how enginnering
works, work on Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots,
, 4D Holographics, UAVs, Drones, and the 21st Century.
Rather than anything in the idiot Canada Market anyway.
> Lastly, this is just an onslaught of anti-nuke lunacy by the usual
> scumbag leftist, enviroqueers because they HATE the idea of a new
> nuclear power boom to replace fossil fuels. Their ultimate goal isn't
> to replace fossil fuels, it isn't to combat mythological global
> warming, it is to RID the planet of as many humans as possible.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robert Higgins
I hadn't heard of any WHO efforts to increase bat populations in
Africa to control malaria. Could you give a cite?
I M @ good guy
How would you increase bat populations? :-)
Dig more caves?
Robert Higgins
That's why asked. It seemed like one of those "All you have to do
is..." things that are either impractical or impossible.
tadchem
> This is about the isotope reactor at Chalk River, not a power plant.
> Like most nuclear scaremongering, they don't give the level of radioactivity or the risk.
> The only number is "5X background levels", which I assume is practially nothing.
>
> http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=2245401
>
> Radioactive waste contaminating Canadian water supply: Report
> Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service Published: Friday, November 20, 2009
>
> OTTAWA -- Nuclear facilities and power plants are contaminating local Canadian food and water with
> radioactive waste that increases risks of cancer and birth defects, says a new report to be
> released on Friday.
>
> The report, Tritium on Tap, produced by the Sierra Club of Canada, warned that radioactive
> emissions from various nuclear plants across the country have more than doubled over the past
> decade. The figures were based on statistics compiled by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
> which measured pollution coming from the plants.
>
> safe, the report cites recent peer-reviewed studies, including a recent review by the UK's
> Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters, that suggest the opposite.
>
> "Once in our body, tritium enters our DNA, fat, proteins and carbohydrates - and that is where it
> does its damage from close range," said the Sierra Club report. "It is a carcinogen and causes
> birth defects."
>
> The report noted that other jurisdictions such as the European Union and California have drinking
> water guidelines for tritium that are hundreds of times stronger than Canada's guidelines. A recent
> report by the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council, released in May, has also suggested more
> stringent drinking water standards to restrict tritium.
>
> With some radioactive pollution getting into the ground and locally produced food, Mike
> Buckthought, who wrote the Sierra Club report, said the best solution is to eliminate pollution
> from nuclear reactors by promoting more renewable forms of energy.
>
> "We need to phase out nuclear power and look for safer alternatives such as wind and solar energy,"
> said Mr. Buckthought, who is the national climate change campaigner for Sierra Club.
>
> Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has confirmed a "controlled release" of tritium into the Ottawa
> River from December 2008 to February 2009 but said this leak did not pose any risk to the
> environment because it respected the existing regulations. However, the Sierra Club said tests of
> the water done by a lab at the University of Waterloo revealed tritium levels that were five times
> higher than in water at other locations without any nearby nuclear plants.
>
> Mr. Buckthought said that AECL has also collected about 4.5 tonnes of water contaminated by tritium
> that leaked from the reactor over the spring and summer. He said it would put the population at
> risk if this waste is released into the river.
Just wait until they find out that naturally occurring carbon-14 in
food is a thousand times more potent as a mutagen than tritium,
plutonium, strontim-90, cobalt-60, or anything else because much of
the carbon gets directly incorporated *INTO* the DNA before it decays
into nitrogen-14, resulting in a 100% probability of a mutation. ("At
Closest Range", I. Asimov, 1974)
When any other radioisotope decays in the human body, its chance of
causing a mutation is comparable to the chance of a blind man shooting
out a candle from 10 meters away with a one-shot pistol.
Then tell them that the CO2 injected into the atmosphere by burning
fossil fuels is 100% free of carbon-14.
The reduction of radiogenic cancers requires growing our food in an
atmosphere where all the carbon dioxide comes from fossil fuels.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Yousuf Khan
> This is about the isotope reactor at Chalk River, not a power plant.
> Like most nuclear scaremongering, they don't give the level of
> radioactivity or the risk.
> The only number is "5X background levels", which I assume is practially
> nothing.
One has to distinguish how exactly tritium is "bad for you". Here there
are two ways: (1) it's radioactively poisonous to you, or (2) it's
chemically poisonous to you.
For #1, with a half-life of 12 years, tritium is very unlikely to decay
inside your body, before you've gotten rid of it already. I can't
imagine there being the same molecules of regular water inside your body
that you had from 12 years ago, let alone molecules of tritium water.
For #2, being chemically poisonous, this one might be more plausible.
It's been shown that deuterium water is bad for you, if taken in
unnatural amounts. So tritium water might also be similarly bad for you.
However, deuterium water (heavy water) in a natural concentration is
easy enough for the body to deal with, since it's incredibly overwhelmed
by normal protium water. By the same token, heavy water overwhelms
concentrations of tritium water ("heavier water"?). If the body can deal
with low concentrations of heavy water, then it should be able to deal
with even lower concentrations of heavier water.
Yousuf Khan
Peter Webb
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:s5nfg593jnii8nd5a...@4ax.com...
By increasing mosquito populations?
I M @ good guy
That will work, in almost any eco system, food
supply does affect population when other conditions
are favorable.
Duncan Patton a Campbell
There are plans for bat houses about, much like bird houses.
Dhu
tj Frazir
cancer cant dive.
180 feet mix gas dive ..
but a virus cant dive because its bouancy is allso its lung and skin .
you want to live ,,
people in tonga south pacific dive and live to be110 .
God made you to dive 100 feet and up to clean you.
because no virus has ever been passed from land to sea the virus dont
ajust its bouyancy much and neads to use its shell as a lung.
Cancer gets cushed and cant live more then 4 minuts at 180 feet . but
your on helium and the cancer cant mix gas because it got crushed.
people are like crabs ..not like virus