How does someone look suffering from cancer in the final stage?
Can not walk, eat, drink, talk …
As somone old, “dying natural…”
The pro nuclear New York Times says in their latest Cancer article: “Why Everyone Seems to Have Cancer”SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/sunday-review/why-everyone-seems-to-have-cancer.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=OP_WES_20140105
SEEMS to have Cancer.
A total Denial of the increase of Cancer.
“According to the National Cancer Institute, cancer incidence (all sites) in the US increased by 55% between 1950 and 1995; the trends in Europe and other industrialised nations are similar. Non-smoking related cancers are responsible for about 75% of the overall increased incidence of cancer since 1950, and cannot be explained in terms of better detection or ageing” http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/cancer-gate.php
The same New York Times said 1996: “Chernobyl “compressed several thousand years of evolution into a decade” and “Inherited Damage Is Found In Chernobyl Area Children: changes in DNA in sperm and eggs. Such mutations are passed on from generation to generation.” SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/science/chernobyl-s-voles-live-but-mutations-surge.html
AND, also from New York Times 1996: “Radiation at any level is a uniquely potent cause of chromosome mutations that can lead to so-called irregularly inherited disorders like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, Alaheimer’s disease and many, many more.” http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/25/nyregion/l-even-background-levels-of-radiation-are-harmful-922897.html
The World Health Organisation also fakes history and statistics: “The second category involves dozens of manipulations of data, among them: averaging exposures over entire populations and ignoring local sources of concentrated contamination; ending studies after 10 years thereby excluding long term morbidity and mortality; qualifying five year survival as “cure”, only considering cancer, those still alive and the three most affected countries; claiming decreases in childhood cancers when in fact children have become adults with cancer and therefore no longer appear in that database.” SOURCE: http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who
ONE radiograph during pregnancy: 20 % increase for cancer probability before the child is 10 years old. Two radiographs during pregnancy: 28 %. Three: 70 %. FOUR:…. 100 PERCENT. There is NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION EXPOSURE: http://books.google.de/books?id=aAoAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=cancer+stewart+xray+1970+radiographs&source=bl&ots=UGZYt0TZGo&sig=ENE9wYZjjNs3Rh2XyptdZwP3Ucw&hl=de&ei=7545Tu6iF8aAOsLrvbMG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
This goes with 100 years old knowledge: In 1914 Thomas Boveri found that Genomic Instability causes Malignancy of Cancer – and that Genomic Instability is also caused by RADIATION “quote: “existence of cancers produced by X-rays” : http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/Supplement_1/1.full
“The genomic instability is passed on in the genes and increases exponentially with each generation” = what New York Times said 1996 and what Boveri found out.
SEEMS to have?
Alexei Yablokov (Russia) Doctor of Biological Sciences, advisor to the Russian Academy of Sciences, said: Among of the main effects of the Chernobyl disaster is to be found in the increase of ilnesses’ incidence and prevalence:
• increase in cancers;
• accelerated aging; ACCELERATED AGING!
Earlier onset of cancer = Accelerated Aging = Radiation Effect.
Accelerated aging! And this why we find diseases of the old in children. Perfect Example: Thyroid Cancer – see below: Who understands the thyroid cancer phenomenon? A frightening text:
There are two main findings. Only the first will be understood and is always mentioned, by doctors, media: 1) The increase of thyroid cancer, in children. And: The increase of cysts and other changes.
Not so understood: These are usually the precursor of cancer. Digested? Well,
then there is 2) Thyroid Cancer WAS uncommon. Totally. One out One Million. Before the Atomic Age (During the period 1935 – 1944: less than one in a million cases, it was declining …
It increased 5 fold since 1945). AND: It was a cancer of OLD people. NOT children. Dear readers, friends. Nuclear Reactors make us more mortal – They lead to an earlier onset of diseases that only older people had. It is a kind of an accelerated evolution. Now it becomes clear why are more and more ill, and also EARLIER. Diseases – of which no one knows WHY. Alzheimer’s, dementia, diabetes type 1, Preemies, mental illness, autism, stillbirths… And these few generations living and born since the nuclear age, are only one second of a long journey. If the invisible disguises itself by taking the shape of The Known… it is no wonder, experts fail to blame the real offender. Parents pay the killer of their children, with the monthly electricity bill. Nuclear Safety and dose limits allow peaceful murder. Victims of the nuclear cellular apocalypse are simply called “cancer patients.” Then even laws are passed, so is not reported on nuclear issues. I ask: Who dares to look into it’s face and rip the mask away? If the self-evident became an offense. If you do, you’re welcome. We can not count on experts per se, but on the new thinking. Remember what Einstein said: the possibility of a chain reaction “never occurred to me”.
The latest total schizophrenic saying of the New York Times sound like IAEA policy: IAEA protecting against Truth and irradiating People: https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/iaea-protects-against-truth-and-irradiates-people/
They say Cancer and Radiation are not the problem: Resettlement of people in irradiated areas is ok, “overcoming” the situation by ignoring the situation is important, Rehabilitation means: Restoration. NOT of the people, but of the IRRADIATED land, into “normality”. Radiation is forced ON the people, INTO the people, by calling it normality, and encouraging the people to come back. This program is fed by the IAEA annual budget of over 300 millon EUR and by the nuclear industry: http://www.iaea.org/About/budget.html
“it is recognized by the World Health Organization that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the primary responsibility for encouraging, assisting and coordinating research and development and practical application of atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world without prejudice to the right of the World Health Organization to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting and coordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects. ” http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf20.shtml#note_c
Einstein also said: “The splitting of the atom has changed everything except our way of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe”. Albert Einstein http://www.icucec.org/files/art-chernobylrem.pdf
This is why we confuse symbol with reality. Experts and media (as New York Times above) see the waves NOT THE OCEAN!
> If a radiation-caused cancer is not fatal, it is not counted in the IAEA’s figures
> If a cancer is initiated by another carcenogen, but accelerated or promoted by exposure to radiation, it is not counted.
> If an auto-immune disease or any non-cancer is caused by radiation, it is not counted.
> Radiation-damaged embryos or foetuses which result in miscarriage or stillbirth do not count
> A congenitally blind, deaf or malformed child whose illnesses are are radiation-related are not included in the figures because this is not genetic damage, but rather is teratogenic, and will not be passed on later to the child’s offspring.
> Causing the genetic predisposition to breast cancer or heart disease does not count since it is not a “serious genetic disease” in the Mendelian sense.
> Even if radiation causes a fatal cancer or serious genetic disease in a live born infant, it is discounted if the estimated radiation dose is below 100 mSv [mSv= millisievert, a measurement of radiation exposure. One hundred millsievert is the equivalent in radiation of about 100 X-Rays].
> Even if radiation causes a lung cancer, it does not count if the person smokes — in fact whenever there is a possibility of another cause, radiation cannot be blamed.
> If all else fails, it is possible to claim that radiation below some designated dose does not cause cancer, and then average over the whole body the radiation dose which has actually been received by one part of the body or even organ, as for instance when radio-iodine concentrates in the thyroid. This arbitrary dilution of the dose will ensure that the 100 mSv cut-off point is nowhere near reached. It is a technique used to dismiss the sickness of Gulf War veterans who inhaled small particles of ceramic uranium which stayed in their lungs for more than two years, and in their bodies for more than eight years, irradiating and damaging cells in a particular part of the body. SOURCE: http://exacteditions.theecologist.org/read/resurgence/vol-29-no-7-november-1999-5368/28/3
Radioactive Atoms are SMALLER than any GMO or Virus. Plus: Virus are mutated by radioactive atoms. “It is well known that radiation can cause mutations in bacteria and viruses. Andrei Sakharov, the famous Russian physicist, described in his 1992 Memoirs that even at low levels radiation could increase mutations of bacteria and viruses. His predictions, which were originally made in 1958, have come true and we are seeing new ailments such as Reye’s syndrome which first appeared in 1963, and Legionnaires’ disease, which is caused by a bacteria that was not threatening prior to 1976. AIDS may be related to a mutated virus combined with a weakened immunity in a generation born after the first nuclear weapons were detonated.” http://www.nuclearreader.info/chapter1.html
Prof. Dr. Hedy fritz-niggli, Switzerland: “Ionizing radiation produces the same mutations as they occur naturally. The former, however, gives rise to coarser changes of chromosome structure. Mutations are irreversible injuries. Smallest doses may cause harm.The present stage of our knowledge does not permit an accurate statement on the kind of mutation. We can only see extreme changes of ion-density exercise influence the number of the mutations produced. At the various stages of the formation of germcells sensitivity to radiation is different. Water content and oxygen tension of the environments bear on the number of mutations produced. Anoxybiosis protects against radiation effects so that these occur mainly indirectly.Germ cells of various age respond in a different way to ion-density and to changes in environment.” https://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0029-1212990
In 1970 he said:
10 milli gray create 2 point mutations among 1,000 gametes. These are one seventieth ofl the natural mutation rate. If you take all chromosome mutations 10 milli gray produce one-tenth of the total mutation rate. If each year the maximum allowable dose is reached (5 mSv) the genetic mutation rate is increased in 30 years (one generation) by a fifth.
I add: We don’t see the primarily “BIG” mutations, with many legs. Instead it’s what we do not see: The genetically induced malignancy. And this takes time. This is how Fukushima and Chernobyl “work”.