05 January 2008

Resoures used in the nuclearconsult.com report


Arthur WB (1989): Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-in
by Historical Events, Economic Journal, No. 99.
Arthur WB (1996): Increasing Returns and the New World of Business,
Harvard Business Review, July-Aug.
Bijker, W (1995): Of Bicycles, Bakelite and Bulbs: toward a theory of
sociotechnical change, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Brown N, Michael M (2003): A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting
prospects and prospecting retrospects, Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, 15(1) 3-18.
Carbon Trust (2006): Future Marine Energy: Results of the Marine Energy
Challenge: Cost competitiveness and growth of wave and tidal stream energy,
The Carbon Trust, London.
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2003): External Costs:
research results on socio-economic damages due to electricity and transport,
Brussels, 2003.
CERRIE (Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters) (2004):
Report of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters
(CERRIE), CERRIE, DoH, Defra, London.
CERRIE (Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters) (2004):
CERRIE Minority Report 2004, SOSIUMI Press, Aberystwyth.
CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) (2006): Managing
our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoRWM’s recommendations to government,
CoRWM, November.
CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) (2007): Ethics and
Decision making for Radioactive Waste, February.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1986): First Report: The Implications of the New Data on the Releases from
Sellafield in the 1950's for the Conclusions of the Report on the Investigation
of the Possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumbria, HMSO,
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1988): Second Report: Investigation of the Possible Increased Incidence of
Leukaemia in Young People Near the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment,
Caithness, Scotland, HMSO, London.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1989): Third Report: Report on the Incidence of Childhood Cancer in the
West Berkshire and North Hampshire Area, in Which are Situated the Atomic
Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston and the Royal Ordnance
Factory, Burghfield, HMSO Books, London.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1994): Fourth Report: The Incidence of Cancer and Leukaemia in Young
People in the Vicinity of the Sellafield Site, West Cumbria: Further Studies
and an Update of the Situation Since the Publication of the Report of the
Black Advisory Group in 1984, DoH, Wetherby.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1998): Fifth Report: The Incidence of Cancer and Leukaemia in the Area
Around the Former Greenham Common Airbase. An Investigation of a
Possible Association with Measured Environmental Radiation Levels, NRPB,
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(1999). Sixth Report. A reconsideration of the possible health implications of
the radioactive particles found in the general environment around the
Dounreay Nuclear Establishment in the light of the work undertaken since
1995 to locate their source. National Radiological Protection Board, March
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(2004). Ninth Report. Advice to Government on the review of radiation risks
from radioactive internal emitters carried out and published by the Committee
Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE). National
Radiological Protection Board, October 2004.
COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment)
(2005): Tenth Report. The incidence of childhood cancer around nuclear
installations in Great Britain. Health Protection Agency, June 2005.
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2007): Energy the Danish way,
David et al (1996): Standardisation, Diversity and Learning: strategies for the
coevolution of technology and industrial capacity, International Journal of
Industrial Organization, 14, 181-201, 1996.
David P (1985): Clio and the Economics of QWERTY, American Economic
Review, 75:332-7
Defra and Devolved Administrations (2007) Managing Radioactive Waste
Safely: a framework for implementing geological disposal, public consultation,
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (20030: Energy White Paper: our
energy future - creating a low carbon economy, HMSO, London, March 2003.
Available (16/7/6) at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/ energy-policy/energywhite-
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), Carbon Trust (2004): Renewables
Innovation Review, 2004.
DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2006): The Energy Challenge: report
of the UK Government Energy Review, DTI London, July 2006. Available
(16/7/6) at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file31890.pdf
Department of Trade and Industry (2007): The Future of Nuclear Power,
Consultation Document, May.
EC (European Community) (2001): Energy Green Paper, Towards a
European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply, European Commission
ECRR (European Committee on Radiation Risk) (2003): Health effects of
ionising radiation exposure at low doses for radiation protection purposes,
Regulators Edition, Brussels, 2003.
ECRR (European Committee on Radiation Risk) (2006): Chernobyl 20 Years
On, Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident, Documents of the ECRR, 2006.
Elliott (2007): Supporting Renewables: Feed-in tariffs and quota/trading
systems' in Elliott. D (ed): Sustainable Energy, Palgrave, London.
German Childhood Cancer Registry (GCCR) for Federal Office for Radiation
Protection (2007): Cancer risk for children near German power plants,
Grubb M (1997): Technologies, energy systems and the timing of CO2
emissions abatement: an overview of economic issues, Energy Policy, 25(2),
1997: 159-172.
Hughes T (1983): Networks of Power: electrification in western society 1880-
1930, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Hughes T (1994): Technological Momentum, in M. Smith, L. Marx, Does
Technology Drive History, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1994.
Jackson Consulting (2007) Siting new nuclear power stations: availability and
options for government, Discussion paper for DTI expert group, Jackson
Consulting Limited.
Khadim MA, Marsden SJ, Goodhead DT, Malcomson AM, Folkard M, Prise
KM, Micheal BD (2001): Long-term genomic instability in human lymphocytes
induced by single-particle irradiation, Radiation research, No. 155, pp. 122-6.
King D (2006): Why we have no alternative to nuclear power. The
Independent, 13th July 2006.
Landau R, Taylor, Wright (1996): The Mosaic of Economic Growth, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, 1996.
Large J (2006): Decommissioning Nuclear Plants - Openings for the Terrorist
Threat, 10th Global Conference & Exhibition on Decommissioning Nuclear -
Taking Experience Forward, London 20-22 November 2006,
Large J (2007): Assessments of the Radiological Consequences of Releases
from Existing and Proposed French EPR/PWR Nuclear Power Plants,
February 2007, http://www.largeassociates.com/3150%20Flamanville/r3150-
MacDonald (2003): Uranium: Sustainable Resource or Limit to Growth ? Colin
MacDonald, World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium, September 2003
(published in Nuclear Energy Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 99-05, 2004).
MacKerron et al (forthcoming): Climate of Urgency: Empowering Energy
Policy, Palgrave, London, forthcoming 2008.
Misa et al (2003): Modernity and Technology, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Mitchell C (2007): The Political Economy of A Sustainable Energy, Palgrave,
London, 2007.
Mokyr J (1992): The Lever of Riches: technological creativity and economic
progress, Oxford.
MPA (Major Projects Association) (2006): A New Generation of UK Nuclear
Power Plants: are we ready? Institute of Civil Engineers, February 2006.
Morgan WF, Day JP, Kaplan MI, McGee EM , & Limoli CL (1996): Genomic
instability induced by ionising radiation, Radiation Research, Vol. 146, pp.
OECD (2004): Uranium 2003: Resources, Production and Demand, a Joint
Report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic
Energy Agency.
Patterson W (1999): Transforming Electricity, Earthscan, London, 1999
PIU (Performance and Innovation Unit) (2001): Working Paper on Generating
Technologies: Potentials and cost reductions to 2020, UK Cabinet Office,
London, 2001.
PIU (2002): The Energy Review, Performance and Innovation Unit, Cabinet
Office, London.
PMSU (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit) (2002): The Energy Review, UK
Cabinet Office, February. Available (16/7/6) at: http://
Rosenberg (1982): Inside the Black Box: technology and economics,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
Runci, P J (2003): Renewable energy policy in Germany, an overview and
assessment, JGCRI, University of Maryland
Sauter and Watson (2007): Strategies for Deployment of Microgeneration:
implications for social acceptance, Energy Policy, 35(5), pp2770-2779, 2007.
SDC (Sustainable Development Commission) (2006): The Role of Nuclear
Power in a Low Carbon Economy, Sustainable Development Commission,
London, March 2006.
Smith and Stirling (2007): Moving Outside or Inside? Objectification and
Reflexivity in the Governance of Socio-technical systems, Journal of
Environmental Policy and Planning, 8(3-4), September 2007, pp.1-23
Smythe, D. (2007): Consultation Exercise: geological disposal of nuclear
waste, statement to Defra consultation exercise, October.
Soerenson (2000): Renewable Energy, Academic Press, New York, 2000.
Stewart A & Kneale G (2000): A bomb survivors: factors that may lead to a reassessment
of the radiation hazard, International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol
29, pp 708-714.
Stirling A (1997): Limits to the Value of External Costs, Energy Policy,
Stirling A (1997b): ‘Multicriteria Mapping: mitigating the problems of
environmental valuation?’, chapter in J. Foster (ed), Valuing Nature:
economics, ethics and environment, Routledge, London, 1997.
Stirling A (2003): Stirling, Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution: some
instrumental implications from the social sciences, in F. Berkhout, M. Leach, I.
Scoones (eds), ‘Negotiating Change’, Elgar, 2003.
Stirling A (2005): Opening Up or Closing Down: analysis, participation and
power in the social appraisal of technology, in M. Leach, I. Scoones, B.
Wynne, ‘Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of
engagement’, Zed, London, pp.218-231.
Stirling A (2007): A General Framework for Analysing Diversity in Science,
Technology and Society, Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(15), August
2007, pp.707-719.
Stirling A (2008): Diversity and Sustainable Energy Transitions: multicriteria
diversity analysis of electricity portfolios, chapter for M. Bazilian et al, (eds),
Portfolio-Based Electricity Planning: Enhancing Energy Diversity and Security
– A Tribute to Shimon Awerbuch, Elsevier, forthcoming 2008.
Sundqvist et al (2004): Electric Power Generation: Valuation of Environmental
Costs, in C.J. Cleveland (ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy, Academic Press, San
Diego, 2004.
Sullivan Judgement (2007): The Queen on the Application of Greenpeace Ltd.
Versus Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Judgement, Thursday 15
February given in the High Court of Justice Administrative Division.
UKERC (2007): Final Report on Dti-Defra scenarios and sensitivities, using
the UK Markal and Markal-Macro energy system models, UK Energy
Research Centre/ Policy Studies Institute, London, May 2007.
UNSCEAR (2000): Sources and effects of ionising radiation, Report to the
General Assembly, with scientific annexes, UN, New York.
De Vries et al (2007): Renewable Energy Resources: their global potential for
the first half of the 21st Century at a global level – an integrated approach,
Energy Policy, 35, 2007:2590-2610.
Walker W (2000): Entrapment in Large Technical Systems: institutional
commitment and power relations, Research Policy, 29 (7-8) 833-846.
WEA (World Energy Assessment): (2000): Energy and the Challenge of
Sustainability, United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2000.
WEC (World Energy Council) (1994): New Renewable Energy Resources – a
guide to the future, Kogan Page, London, 1994.
Wicks M (2005): Grasping the Nuclear Nettle, Observer, 4 December.
Winner, 1977 L. Winner, Autonomous Technology: technics out of control as a
theme in political thought, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Yablokov AV (2006): The Chernobyl Catastrophe – 20 years After, a metareview,
in: Chernobyl, 20 Years On, ECRR, 2006.


Downloadable copies of this report, and further information on the
Energy Review consultation can be found on the website:


Demos (2004): See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move
upstream, Demos, London.
Demos (2005): Start with people: How community organizations put citizens in
the driving seat, Demos, London.
Involve (2005): People and Participation: How to put citizens at the heart of
decision-making, Involve, London.
Involve (2006): The Nanotechnology Engagement Group, Policy Report 1,
Involve, London.
Power Inquiry (2006): Power to the People: The report of Power – an
independent inquiry into Britain’s democracy, The Power Inquiry, York.
Tyndall Centre (2005): De-carbonising the UK: Energy for a climate conscious
future, Tyndall Centre.

Academics say safety concerns of new generation of nuclear plants not yet addressed.

A group of U.K. scientists and academics Friday condemned as undemocratic and possibly illegal the British government's plans to force through a new generation of nuclear power stations to meet Britain's energy needs for the next 30 years.

They warn that questions about the risks from radiation, disposal of nuclear waste and vulnerability to a terrorist attack have not been addressed - even though the government was ordered last February to repeat a public consultation on energy supply, after its exercise was declared unlawful by a high court judge.

Friday the nuclear consultation group, made up of 17 energy economists and several of the government's independent advisers on nuclear waste, condemned the methods used in the second attempt to gather public and expert opinion.

"We are profoundly concerned that the government's approach was designed to provide particular and limiting answers,"
said Paul Dorfman, a spokesman for the independent group, which includes professors of Oxford, Sussex, and Lancaster universities, and Rutgers in the U.S. "Those answers risk locking in U.K. energy to an inflexible and vulnerable pathway that will prove unsustainable," he added.

In an 87-page report, the group says: "Significant issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way or resolved in practice. It has left the government vulnerable to legal challenge and may lead to hostility and mistrust of any future energy decision," the paper warns.

Contributors include Andy Stirling, director of science at the Science Policy Research Unit, Jerome Ravetz, fellow of the Institute for Science and Civilization at Oxford University, Dave Elliott, co-director of energy and research at the Open University, Gordon Walker, chair of environment at Lancaster University, and Frank Barnaby, at the Oxford Research Group.

The report comes as the government prepares to give the go-ahead next week for a major expansion of nuclear power, which could herald the building 20 reactors by private firms. Prime minister Gordon Brown is convinced, as was Tony Blair, nuclear power is needed to ensure energy security and to limit carbon emissions.

The intervention could trigger fresh legal action, however. Thursday Greenpeace, whose challenge to the energy review was upheld last year, said it would wait to see the government's formal response on Tuesday before deciding whether to return to the courts. A new court case could delay the start of building stations by a further year.

The government is expected to insist it has a mandate. In meetings in the autumn, more than 1,000 people were asked their view of nuclear power after seeing videos and taking part in discussion: 44% said power firms should have the option to build nuclear; 36% said no.

A Department for Business and Enterprise spokeswoman said:

"We gave people five months to respond, longer than the average three to four month consultation period. We have received 2,700 responses from the extensive consultation, which included public meetings across the U.K., a written consultation document, and a website. Time is pressing. We need to make a decision on whether we should continue to get some of our electricity from nuclear, which is a low carbon form of making energy."

Green groups said the questions were loaded and the information presented biased and inaccurate. A complaint was made to the Market Research Standards Board alleging the market research firm involved broke the code of conduct.

A Greenpeace letter sent to the Treasury solicitors before Christmas says: "It would be unlawful for the government to make a decision to build new nuclear power stations without knowing what will happen to the new radioactive waste."

The consultation response will be a statement by energy secretary John Hutton, followed in days by an energy bill.

Intellpuke says: Ever since then prime minister Tony Blair announced a push for nuclear power, the British government, hand-in-hand, if you will, with the nuclear industry, has been trying to rush the decision and push forward with construction as rapidly as possible. Yet its first "citizen review" was found woefully lacking by a British high court which, in essence, said many of the governments statements about nuclear power and safety were inaccurate and misleading. Now, it sounds as if the second round of "citizen review" is equally lacking in objectivity regarding construction methods and safety. Contrary to what the nuclear industry would have people believe, nuclear power is not a "clean" energy. It is, in fact, about the most toxic and lethal form of energy humans have come up with. All it will take is one construction error in a key area or one successful terrorist attack because security was not adequate to create a disaster in Britain, or anywhere else that will rival, if not surpass that of Chernobyl. Just one such blunder would not only make the immediate vicinity of the incident a "dead zone" but spread that dead zone across a surprisingly large area downwind from the incident.

You can read this article by Guardian environment editor John Vidal, reporting from Manchester, England, in context here:

You can also find a link to the independent group's full 87-page report, in PDF format, at the link to this article. you can find it at

and this is its executive summary:

The public mistrust of policy decision-making on issues involving nuclear risk
is a defining issue. In order to overcome this mistrust, government has
consulted with the public about the potential role of nuclear power in future
energy policy - the idea is to weigh expert knowledge with every-day
knowledge to arrive at a democratic and balanced view. Here, the practice
and purpose of this public dialogue, and the models of engagement to enable
it, are core to the relationship between government and the public in a modern
In order to overcome the widespread belief that institutions wishing to impose
their arbitrary actions upon the public may be secretive, all the key framing
propositions and assumptions underpinning the nuclear power consultation
need to be made explicit in any case that is put forward for new nuclear power
stations. To access true public opinion about such a high-stakes issue, the
public consultation should have been clear, integrated, independent, and
conducted over a long enough time-frame. Failure to do so has left the
government vulnerable to legal challenge and may lead to hostility and
mistrust of any future energy policy decision.
Even in the most technical and sophisticated forms of analysis, it seems that
the answer you get depends on the way you frame the question. We suggest
that the key assumptions underpinning the government’s approach to the
2007 nuclear consultation remain open to critical analysis. We are profoundly
concerned that these framing assumptions were designed to provide
particular and limited answers - and those answers risk locking in UK energy
futures to an inflexible and vulnerable pathway that will prove unsustainable.
This report discusses the form and function of the nuclear consultation, and
then addresses the issues and challenges that were elided and obscured
during that consultation. We conclude that the government erred in asking the
public to take a decision ‘in principle’ for more nuclear power when significant
‘what if’ issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way, or resolved in
practice. These issues include uncertainty about: nuclear fuel supply and
manufacture, vulnerability to attack, security and nuclear proliferation,
radiation waste, radiation risk and health effects, reactor decommissioning,
reactor design and siting, cost of electricity generating technologies, energy
distribution models, true renewable and energy efficiency modelling.
We take no satisfaction that our Conclusions and Recommendations to
government are based on the understanding that the 2007 nuclear power
consultation has failed. Poor consultation practice wastes people’s time and
can seriously undermine people’s trust in government. The extent of mistrust
of the institutions and the institutional culture underpinning nuclear power
underlines that this is a public mood that, although not immutable, has been
deeply entrenched by long and discouraging experience. Although a broader,
deeper, even-handed consultation may have appeared an inconvenience to
certain sectors of the nuclear industry, a truly involving process would have
produced a better result for everyone by generating greater social consensus
and trust in the eventual outcome.


The Untold Nuclear War

For the past year and a half or so I have been intensely studying the cesspool that is US foreign affairs. I have learned all sorts of surprising facts that were never taught to me in school. Facts like, since 1945 our government has attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, engaged in unprovoked military invasion of some 20 sovereign nations, worked to crush more than 30 populist movements which were fighting against dictatorial regimes and etc., doesn’t easily roll off an American teachers tongue. (2)

I wonder how much more peaceful the world would have been this past fifty years or so if it were not for our foreign policy.

I have seen the results of the 2003 “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign. I have seen the photos of the burned and mutilated; I have seen the photos of the dead lying lifeless among the rubble; and I have seen how bombs, smart or otherwise, do not discriminate between children and combatants. It leaves a distinct impression to see a photo of a man holding a little girl whose foot is hanging from her leg by only a few strands of flesh. Or the image of a dead Iraqi boy whose entire back of his head was blown off leaving the remainder of his head looking like some strange Hollywood prop. “Mission accomplished.

However, nothing I have seen or read prepared me for the “untold nuclear war.” I am not referring to atomic or nuclear bombs that engulf entire cities in flames; I am referring to depleted uranium munitions.

Depleted uranium, or DU, is a by-product of the production of enriched uranium fuel for nuclear reactors and weapons. Basically it’s nuclear waste. In order to be used in reactors or bombs, natural uranium has to be processed by removing less than 1/2 of 1% of a special kind of uranium called U-235. This U-235 is the stuff nuclear weapons go “boom” with or nuclear reactors create electricity with. What’s left from this process, depleted uranium, mainly U-238, is still very radioactive and dangerous to life. In other words, there’s nothing depleted about depleted uranium. (3)

As one can imagine, if you only get less than 1/2 of 1% of U-235 from the uranium you process, you are going to have a lot of waste. Some “genius” wanted to put this waste to “good” use and their solution was to put it in military bullets, shells, missiles, and bombs, because, as it was discovered, DU enhances a projectiles ability to pierce armor and fortifications.

The DU is placed inside the missile or bomb. When the munition explodes upon impact, the dense depleted uranium ignites at high temperatures which is highly effective in cutting through armor - like a hot knife through butter. Thus DU is used in armor-piercing bullets, missiles and in “bunker-busters.” DU is even used in tank armor because of its density, as in the case of the M1A1 Abrams tank.

So, What’s So Bad About DU?

DU emits three types of radiation. They are: (3) (4)

1. Alpha Particles. These particles are blocked by objects, as light is blocked by a sheet of paper. We are protected from alpha particles by our skin, unless alpha radiation is inhaled, ingested or absorbed into the blood stream through scratches and wounds, then it is highly dangerous. It is also chemically toxic.

2. Beta Particles (high speed electrons). These particles can penetrate human skin to a depth of 1 cm.

3.Photon Particles (x-rays and gamma rays). These particles can pass completely through a human body.

Natural uranium apparently can pass harmlessly through our bodies. What makes DU so sinister is what takes place upon explosion. During explosion, DU ignites and 40% to 70% is aerosolized into a fine spray which then contaminates the air, soil and water around the target area. These particles, which are smaller than viruses or bacteria, can enter the lungs via breathing, enter the blood stream via open wounds or enter organs via ingestion from contaminated food and water supplies. The impact of DU munitions convert the uranium from a heavy metal into a ceramic heavy metal, which makes it virtually insoluble and therefore difficult to excrete. (3) (5) (6)

Aside from being radioactive, DU is toxic as well, much in the same way that mercury or lead is toxic to our bodies. This explains the “double whammy” effect DU victims get. First they suffer from the toxicity of DU in their bodies. Once they recover, they then get cancer. This, in part, explains many of the strange maladies that our Gulf War I and II veterans suffer from.

DU causes a vast array of illness and disease from acute skin rashes, severe headaches, muscle and joint pain, general fatigue, to major birth defects, infection, depression, cardiovascular disease, brain tumors and every other type of cancer. Furthermore, uranium replaces calcium, thus destroying teeth and bones.(3) (5)

If a person inhales depleted uranium it will first attach itself to the trachea and stick to lung tissue. As DU is virtually insoluble, it won’t easily dissolve in the bloodstream. It clings to the respiratory system for years, even decades, irradiating and damaging surrounding tissue and organs. Gradually the DU passes through the lung-blood membranes and into the bloodstream and lymphatic system. The radiation mutates cells, causing cancers, leukemia, lymphoma, congenital disorders and birth defects. (3)

If DU enters a persons bloodstream via the mouth, open wounds or shrapnel, it will circulate freely through the body, emitting radiation as it travels. Some DU particles will concentrate in the lymph nodes and cause lymphatic cancer. It damages the immune system by hastening the death of white blood cells and impairing their ability to attack bacteria. Other particles cause low-level cell irradiation in the bone marrow and in the stem cells the body creates there. Stem cells are the progenitors of all other cells that the body manufactures in order to renew itself. Stem cells are very vulnerable. When bombarded with alpha particles, their DNA falls apart potentially affecting every organ. The result is sort of like trying to build a home with inferior materials; things fall apart. (3)

DU dust falls indiscriminately everywhere over the area it reaches. Its contamination affects every living thing and cannot be remediated.

- Dr. George Wald, Professor of Biology and Nobel Laureate. (5)

The Department of Defense says there is no scientific evidence of any increased health risks from exposure to DU, including cancer and leukemia. Furthermore, there was no problem in the Persian Gulf War and there is no potential hazard in the Balkans - except under very limited circumstances. (7)

The DOD also references the much-cited Institute of Medicine Report, which studied the effects of uranium workers. The problem with that reference is it has nothing to do with depleted uranium, nor does it study the effects of DU in uncontrolled battle conditions. (7)

Furthermore, US government and Pentagon statements about DU don’t match up. While they minimize the danger of DU, in 1995 a US Army Environmental Policy Institute Report stated, “If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical complications. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological...Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposure.” Also, according to Sara Flounders, co-director of the International Action Center and coordinator of the DU Education Project, claims that Army training manuals require anyone who comes within 75 feet of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain to wear respiratory and skin protection. (1) (7)

Another piece of information that completely contradicts the Pentagon’s “DU is safe” statements is the Army’s technical bulletin on guidelines for a safe response to handling accidents with DU. The bulletin warns firefighters that “significant concentrations of DU oxide dust could be expelled from the fire in the event of an explosion...” And further, “Keeping out of the downwind plume, or wearing a self-contained breathing apparatus, will provide adequate respiratory protection.” The report even states that “emergency response personnel who sustain minor injuries but are also contaminated with DU should be decontaminated prior to treatment of minor injuries...” This is all great for the firefighter, but what about the soldier who unknowingly comes in contact with this stuff in the battlefield? What about the civilians? (4)

What Do Independent Scientists Say About DU?

The chief researcher, Asaf Durakovic, at the Nuclear Research Center in Canada reported finding high levels of DU in urine and blood samples in Gulf War Veterans ten years after the war. Dr. Durakovic states that much of the ill-defined Gulf War Syndrome is related to DU radiation and/or toxicity. He is critical of the US Defense Department and the British Ministry of Defense because they have consistently refused to test Gulf War Veterans for DU. (7)

The Answer My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind

Microscopic and sub-microscopic DU particles are capable of being swept up into the air and, as radioactive atmospheric dust, carried by winds, many, many miles away.

In 1979, depleted uranium escaped from the National Lead Industries factory near Albany, NY. They were manufacturing DU munitions for the US military. The particles traveled 26 miles and were discovered in a laboratory filter by Dr. Leonard Dietz, a nuclear physicist. The factory was shut down in 1980 for releasing .85 pounds of DU dust into the atmosphere every month and involved a 100 million dollar clean-up. But, why the clean-up if there is no harm from DU like the Pentagon says?

Dr. Chris Busby, Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk tested radiation levels in the wake of the 2003 “hearts and minds” campaign, “Shock and Awe.” Dr. Busby recorded that uranium particles traveled 2,400 miles in nine days from Iraq to Aldermaston, England. This US made radioactive cloud quadrupled Europe’s atmospheric radiation levels. This contradicts Pentagon denials that DU contamination spreads far beyond the target sites struck. Dr. Busby stated, “This research shows that rather than remaining near the target, as claimed by the military, depleted uranium weapons contaminate both locals and whole populations hundreds to thousands of miles away.” (5) (8) (9)

340 tons of DU munitions were used in the first Gulf War in 1991. In 1999, a similar amount was used in Yugoslavia. Since the last count, more than 1,000 tons have been used in Afghanistan and more than 3,000 tons in Iraq. (3) (5)

The Story of Dr. Doug Rokke

Dr. Doug Rokke was an US Army contractor in the first Gulf War. Rokke’s job was to decontaminate shot-up vehicles and tanks. Some of these vehicles went back to
the US; others were considered too radioactive to move and were buried in a giant hole in the ground.

In an interview with reporter Julie Flint, Rokke said, “The US Army made me their expert. I went into the project with the total intent to ensure they could use uranium munitions in war, because I’m a warrior. What I saw as director of the project led me to one conclusion: Uranium munitions must be banned from the planet, for eternity, and medical care must be provided for everyone - those on the firing end and those on the receiving end.”

Rokke suffers from serious health problems. He has brain lesions, lung and kidney damage, reactive airway disease, permanent skin rashes, neurological damage and cataracts. In November of 1994, government doctors finally agreed to test him - three and a half years after he fell ill while he was director of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project. Doctors found Rokke to have 5,000 times the permissible level of radiation in his body.

Rokke’s team in Iraq was made of 100 employees. These people were devastated by exposure to DU dust. “When we went to the Gulf, we were all really healthy,” said Rokke, “However, after performing clean-up operations in the desert...30 staff members died, and most others developed serious health problems.”

In his papers describing his findings, Rokke recorded levels of contamination that were 15 times the Army’s permissible levels in tanks hit by DU and up to 4.5 times such levels in clothing exposed to DU.

Rokke went on to say, “After everything I’ve seen, everything I’ve done, it became very clear to me that you just can’t take radioactive wastes from one nation and just throw it into another nation. It’s wrong. It’s simply wrong...”

“One way or another, the Pentagon will pay a price. Using DU is a war crime. It’s that simple. Once you’ve scattered all this stuff around, and then refuse to clean it up, you’ve committed a war crime.”

The Story of Sgt. Michael Lee Tosto, US Army

Sgt. Michael Tosto died “mysteriously” in Baghdad on June 17, 2003. He was 24 years old.

The Army told Tosto’s family that he died from pulmonary edema (fluid accumulation and swelling in the lungs) and pericardial effusion (accumulation of fluid in the sac that contains the heart), or cardiac failure, after showing flu-like symptoms. After Michael’s funeral, a fellow soldier contacted Michael’s wife Stephanie and told her that his buddy started coughing up blood and his lips turned blue and was dead within 48 hours after the first symptoms.

Inhaling depleted uranium causes pulmonary edema. Symptoms are bleeding lungs, bronchial pneumonia and vomited blood. Pericardial effusion is a common cause of death among leukemia patients. Sgt. Tosto’s military autopsy exhibited elevated levels of white blood cells. Exposure to DU can cause lymphocytic leukemia.

At her husband’s funeral, Stephanie Tosto, noticed his wedding ring was missing. The Army explained that Sgt. Tosto’s belongings were missing due to possible contamination. Contaminated with what? The Army also issued new dog tags for Michael’s funeral. What was wrong with the old ones? Were the originals contaminated too? And why didn’t the Army immediately contact Mrs. Tosto at the emergency number her husband was carrying?

The Story of Wilder Gutierrez Rubbio

UPI reported in December of 2005 that Wilder Gutierrez Rubio, 38, had died a few hours after returning home to Lima, Peru. He had been diagnosed by doctors at Ibn Sina Hospital in Baghdad with severe leukemia, which they attributed to depleted uranium exposure, even though he had served in Baghdad only a short time. Gutierrez was part of a contingent of Latin Americans recruited by a US company to provide security for Baghdad’s Green Zone.

The Story of Captain Terry Riordon, Canadian Armed Forces

Captain Riordon served in the first Gulf War. He passed away in April 1999 at the age of 45. He left Canada a very fit man who did cross-country skiing and ran in marathons. Upon his return only two months later he could barely walk.

Terry returned to Canada in 1991 with a documented loss of motor control, chronic fatigue, respiratory difficulties, chest pain, difficulty breathing, sleep problems, short-term memory loss, testicle pain, body pains, aching bones, diarrhea and depression. He suffered for eight years, struggling with the military bureaucracy and the system to get proper diagnosis and treatment.

We know that Captain Riordon suffered from depleted uranium, because he donated his body to the Uranium Medical Research Center. It was because of this donation that the UMRC could obtain conclusive evidence that inhaling fine particles of DU dust completely destroyed Riordon’s health.

The Story of the Unborn

The most horrific and devastating effects of depleted uranium is on unborn children.

Nothing can prepare anyone for the sight of hundreds of preserved fetuses that barely resemble human children. Iraq is now seeing babies with terribly foreshortened limbs, with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors where their eyes should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or without eyes or without limbs, and even without heads. Significantly, some of the defects are almost unknown except for in textbooks showing the babies born near A-bomb test sites in the Pacific. Some of the photos of these fetuses and newborns can be seen on the US Citizens for a Safer Foreign Policy website link: www.uscsfp.org/id20.html

Support Our Troops!

In the first Iraq war, the ground offensive lasted only 100 hours. During the Gulf War the US military incurred: 467 individuals wounded in action, 148 killed in battle, and 145 killed in other than battle (i.e. accidents). Therefore, the total number of US Gulf War casualties was 760 at the time of redeployment. (10)

The February 2006 Gulf War Veterans Information System Report published by the Department of Veterans Affairs states that 609,198 served in the Gulf War conflict. As of February 2006, 260,209 veterans had filed claims for benefits based on service-connected injuries and illnesses caused by Gulf War combat related duties. Department of Veterans Affairs officials have processed 228,513 claims for medical care, compensation, and pension, determining that for 200,107 veterans their injuries and illnesses are service connected, caused by Gulf War exposures and injuries. Consequently they have been awarded lifetime medical care, compensation, and pensions based on the extent of their medical problems. (10) (11) (12)


All this from what the Department of Defense still calls a “mystery disease.”

Neither the VA or the DOD have provided the clear research needed to answer the basic question: What part did DU play in causing death and illness among so many Gulf War Veterans?

If we really “supported our troops,” we would take those stupid magnets off our cars, demand our soldiers home now, give them and all veterans the care they deserve, while taking those who authorized and condoned the use of depleted uranium and ship them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

A Long-Term Problem

In the Army technical bulletin I mentioned earlier, it states that tanks, vehicles and etc. that have been destroyed by DU munitions must be surveyed and if necessary, decontaminated to the normal, background level of radiation. Scott Peterson, a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, reported on May 15, 2003 about taking Geiger counter readings at several sites in Baghdad. Near the Republican Guard Palace where US troops stood guard and over 1,000 employees walked in and out of the building, his radiation readings were the “hottest” in Iraq, at nearly 1,900 times background radiation levels.

At a roadside vegetable stand, children played on a burnt-out Iraqi tank. There Peterson’s Geiger counter registered nearly 1,000 times normal background radiation. (1) (4) (13)

On August 4, 2003, the Seattle Post Intelligencer reported elevated radiation levels at six sites from Basra to Baghdad. One destroyed tank near Baghdad had 1,500 times the normal background radiation. (13)

What must be considered, which makes Iraq War II more significant, was unlike Iraq War I which took place mostly in rural areas, Iraq War II took place mostly in urban areas. Not even those in the Green Zone are safe in Iraq with DU in the air, ground and water. If any of this makes you feel queasy, it should, depleted uranium has a radioactive life of 4.5 billion years. (5)

On August 21, 2006 our President said that many Democrats want to leave Iraq "before the job is done.” “I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done,” he said, but “if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned.” (14)

No Mr. President, we’ve already lost our soul as a nation.

“Mission accomplished.”

But here’s how we can start getting back our soul: go to www.senate.gov and www.house.gov to obtain the information you need to call, e-mail or fax your representatives in Congress.

Tell them about depleted uranium and how you feel about it.

Demand we outlaw DU.

Demand we leave Iraq.

Demand we stop the lip service and start honestly supporting our troops.

And finally, share this information with others.

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” - Hermann Goering (15)

1. “The Truth About Depleted Uranium Weaponry” By Vincent L. Guarisco (www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6143.htm)

2. “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower” By William Blum; Common Courage Press

3. “Depleted Uranium for Dummies” By Irving Wesley Hall (www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12452.htm)

4. Department of the Army Technical Bulletin: Guidelines for Safe Response to Handling, Storage, and Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions or Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium; July 1996; TB-1300-278

5. “The Threat of Depleted Uranium Exposure” By Stephen Lendman (www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13433.htm)

6. “Depleted Uranium - Far Worse Than 9/11” By Doug Westerman (www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleID=2374)

7. “Depleted Uranium: The American Legacy” By Sara S. DeHart, MSN, Ph.D. and Louis Farshee, MA (www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2291.htm)

8. “GI’s, Beware Radioactive Showers!” By Irving Wesley Hall (www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12861.htm)

9. “Have DU Will Travel: Iconoclast Interview with Chris Busby” By W. Leon Smith (The Lone Star Iconoclast News)

10. “Gulf War Casualties” By Doug Rokke (www.rense.com/general29/gulf.htm)

11. “VA Data Confirms Massive Delayed Gulf War I Casualties” By Denise Nichols (www.traprockpeace.org)

12. Department of Veterans Affairs: Gulf War Veterans Information System; February 2006

13. “Another US War Crime? Iraqi Cities ‘Hot’ with Depleted Uranium” By Sara Flounders (www.globalresearch.ca)

14. “Bush: Iraq Straining US Psyche” By AP & Reuters; published by MSNBC.com; 08/21/2006
15. Wisdom Quotes (www.wisdomquotes.com/001993.html)

01 January 2008

Poison From Depleted Uranium Munitions Site Lingers

New study shows people who lived near or worked at former munitions factory in Colonie have depleted uranium in their bodies

by Jordan Carleo-Evangelist

COLONIE, NY - Former workers at a Cold War-era munitions plant and nearby residents still carry traces of toxic depleted uranium in their bodies, a team of scientists said Wednesday.1206 03

The findings, unveiled at a news conference, seem to contradict an earlier assessment by the federal government that deemed it impossible to measure contamination because it had been so long since the emissions ended.

Contrary to that 2004 assessment by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the scientists from England and the University at Albany say they can now show that more than two decades later, people still carry the radioactive metal in their bodies.

The state shuttered the former NL Industries plant in 1984.

Because the contamination can still be detected, a study could be done to track down the thousands of people who could have been exposed, the researchers said. But additional financial resources are needed to pay for the pricey tests, they said.

“Our new work, using better methodology, shows that we can overcome this difficulty,” said Randall Parrish, a professor at the University of Leicester.

The findings will soon be published in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

Neighbors and former employees have demanded more detailed analysis of the cancers, immune disorders and other illnesses they say have plagued their families.

Almost three months ago, the Army Corps of Engineers completed the major phase of its $190 million cleanup at the former plant at 1130 Central Ave., originally operated by the National Lead Co.

Now, the scientists and members of an activist group, Community Concerned about NL Industries, are calling for federal funding to study the scope and effects of the contamination.

“There’s never been a careful study of a population known to be exposed to depleted uranium,” said David Carpenter of the Institute for Health and the Environment at UAlbany. “Somebody needs to step in and really answer the question, ‘What are the health effects?’ ”

A spokesman for Gov. Eliot Spitzer said the report “should prompt the federal government to do more testing and monitoring.

“We support the community’s request and urge the Army Corps of Engineers to address these serious concerns,” said the spokesman, Michael Whyland.

Previous cancer studies by the state Department of Health, activists said, were overly broad and inconclusive.

An estimated 5 to 10 metric tons of uranium dust was spewed from the plant’s smokestacks between the late 1950s and early 1980s as it manufactured armor-piercing projectiles and burned the waste in a furnace.

Parrish has also tested British soldiers believed to have been exposed on battlefields to depleted uranium weapons. The weapons produce dust on impact, leading some to believe it could be linked to illnesses known collectively as Gulf War syndrome.

In about 800 tests of soldiers, Parrish said he was hard-pressed to detect a single urine sample containing depleted uranium. In Colonie, all five former NL employees tested positive at “very high levels.” About two dozen people were tested in all.

Roughly 20 percent of the residents or nearby workers also tested positive at lesser levels, Parrish said. The scientists cautioned that the small size of their study prevents extrapolating the results to a wider population, but it provides compelling evidence that more research needs to be done.

“A lot of my co-workers died young,” said Mike Aidala, 70, who worked at the plant from 1958 to 1980, starting as a janitor and working his way up. “Whether the plant was the reason, I’ll never know.”

Aidala, who also is an Albany County legislator, was among those who tested positive for depleted uranium.

Tony Impellizzeri, 59, who grew up on Yardboro Avenue just behind the plant, said he knows about 45 people in the neighborhood stricken with cancer. Impellizzeri said he hopes the current research will prompt action, unlike previous instances “where nothing seems to happen.”

The scientists also said they found depleted uranium in dust in four buildings around the 11.2-acre site — in some cases at levels that exceed the Army Corps’ cleanup standard for soil.

The extent of the contamination in other buildings is not clear, and the danger it poses could depend on whether that dust is disturbed, said John G. Arnason, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at UAlbany.

The Army Corps has finished removing contaminated soil from the site and has submitted a plan to state environmental regulators to monitor groundwater. That plan could be ready for public comment by spring, said James Moore, the project’s manager for the Army Corps.

Moore said he had not been briefed on the research and noted that the Army Corps had not been charged with cleaning inside neighboring buildings.

In the 1980s, the Department of Energy cleaned about 53 neighboring properties, but the work was limited mostly to the exterior of the buildings and yards.

“It was like Love Canal,” Impellizzeri said. “They should have knocked down all these buildings on Yardboro Avenue and started over again.”

Carleo-Evangelist can be reached at 454-5445 or by e-mail at jcarleo-evangelist@timesunion.com.

© 2007 The Times Union

The Hidden Dangers of Cell Phone Radiation - Part 1
By Sue Kovach (from Life Extension Magazine
Every day, we’re swimming in a sea of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) produced by electrical appliances, power lines, wiring in buildings, and a slew of other technologies that are part of modern life. From the dishwasher and microwave oven in the kitchen and the clock radio next to your bed, to the cellular phone you hold to your ear — sometimes for hours each day — exposure to EMR is growing and becoming a serious health threat.But there’s a huge public health crisis looming from one particular threat: EMR from cellular phones — both the radiation from the handsets and from the tower-based antennas carrying the signals — which studies have linked to development of brain tumors, genetic damage, and other exposure-related conditions. Yet the government and a well-funded cell phone industry media machine continue to mislead the unwary public about the dangers of a product used by billions of people. Most recently, a Danish epidemiological study announced to great fanfare the inaccurate conclusion that cell phone use is completely safe.George Carlo, PhD, JD, is an epidemiologist and medical scientist who, from 1993 to 1999, headed the first telecommunications industry-backed studies into the dangers of cell phone use. That program remains the largest in the history of the issue. But he ran afoul of the very industry that hired him when his work revealed preventable health hazards associated with cell phone use.In this article, we look at why cell phones are dangerous; Dr. Carlo’s years-long battle to bring the truth about cell phone dangers to the public; the industry’s campaign to discredit him and other scientists in the field; and what you can do to protect yourself now.

Cell Phones Reach the Market without Safety Testing

The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when communications technology that had been developed for the Department of Defense was put into commerce by companies focusing on profits. This group, with big ideas but limited resources, pressured government regulatory agencies — particularly the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — to allow cell phones to be sold without pre-market testing. The rationale, known as the “low power exclusion,” distinguished cell phones from dangerous microwave ovens based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At that time, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high power strong enough to heat human tissue. The pressure worked, and cell phones were exempted from any type of regulatory oversight, an exemption that continues today. An eager public grabbed up the cell phones, but according to Dr. George Carlo, “Those phones were slowly prompting a host of health problems.”

Today there are more than two billion cell phone users being exposed every day to the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) — dangers government regulators and the cell phone industry refuse to admit exist. Included are: genetic damage, brain dysfunction, brain tumors, and other conditions such as sleep disorders and headaches.1-9 The amount of time spent on the phone is irrelevant, according to Dr. Carlo, as the danger mechanism is triggered within seconds. Researchers say if there is a safe level of exposure to EMR, it’s so low that we can’t detect it.

The cell phone industry is fully aware of the dangers. In fact, enough scientific evidence exists that some companies’ service contracts prohibit suing the cell phone manufacturer or service provider, or joining a class action lawsuit. Still, the public is largely ignorant of the dangers, while the media regularly trumpets new studies showing cell phones are completely safe to use. Yet, Dr. Carlo points out, “None of those studies can prove safety, no matter how well they’re conducted or who’s conducting them.” What’s going on here? While the answer in itself is simplistic, how we got to this point is complex.

Flawed Danish Study Reports Cell Phones are Safe

In December, 2006, an epidemiological study on cell phone dangers published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute sent the media into a frenzy.10 Newspaper headlines blared: “Danish Study Shows Cell Phone Use is Safe,” while TV newscasters proclaimed, “Go ahead and talk all you want — it’s safe!” The news seemed to be a holiday gift for cell phone users. But unfortunately, it’s a flawed study, funded by the cell phone industry and designed to bring a positive result. The industry’s public relations machine is working in overdrive to assure that the study get top-billing in the media worldwide.

According to Dr. George Carlo, the study, by its design, could not identify even a very large risk. Therefore, any claim that it proves there’s no risk from cell phones is a blatant misrepresentation of the data that will give consumers a very dangerous false sense of security.

“Epidemiological studies are targets for fixing the outcome because they’re observational in nature instead of experimental,” Dr. Carlo explains. “It’s possible to design studies with pre-determined outcomesthat still fall within the range of acceptable science. Thus, even highly flawed epidemiological studies can be published in peer-reviewed journals because they’re judged against a pragmatic set of standards that assume the highest integrity among the investigators.”

Key problems with the study are:

  1. There are few discernable differences between who was defined as cell phone users and who wasn’t. Thus, people defined as exposed to radiation were pretty much the same as those defined as not exposed to radiation. With few differences, it’s nearly impossible to find a risk.
  2. Users were defined as anyone who made at least one phone call per week for six months between 1982 and 1995. So any person who made 26 calls was a cell phone user and therefore considered exposed to radiation. Those with less than 26 calls were non-users. In reality, the radiation exposure between users and non-users defined in this manner is not discernable.
  3. The “exposed” people used ancient cell phone technology bearing little resemblance to cell phones used today. The results, even if reliable, have no relevance to the 2 billion cell phone users today.
  4. From 1982 to 1995, cell phone minutes cost much more than today and people used their phones much less. Thus there was very little radiation exposure.
  5. During the study’s time frame, people likely to use their cell phones the most were commercial subscribers. Yet this highest exposed group, in whom risk would most easily be identified, was specifically excluded from the study.
  6. There were no biological hypotheses tested in the study. It was therefore only a numbers game. Ignored were mechanisms of disease found in other studies of cell phone radiation effects, including genetic damage, blood-brain barrier leakage, and disrupted intercellular communication. The study did not discuss any research supporting the notion that cell phones could cause problems in users.
  7. The study itself was inconsistent with cancer statistics published worldwide addressing the Danish population. This study showed a low risk of cancer overall, when in fact Denmark has some of the highest cancer rates in the world. This inconsistency suggested that something in the data does not add up.

The cell phone industry constantly guards its financial interests, but unfortunately, an unwitting public can be harmed in the process, says Dr. Carlo. “Industry-funded studies in many cases now produce industry-desired outcomes. By tampering with the integrity of scientists, scientific systems and public information steps over the lines of propriety that are appropriate for protecting business interests — especially when the casualty of the interference is public health and safety.”

To learn more about the dangers of cell phones and to read Dr. George Carlo’s full formal analysis of the Danish cell phone study, visit the Safe Wireless Initiative website at www.safewireless.org.

Lawsuit Prompts Safety Studies

In 1993, the cell phone industry was pressured by Congress to invest $28 million into studying cell phone safety. The cause of this sudden concern was massive publicity about a lawsuit filed by Florida businessman David Reynard against cell phone manufacturer NEC. Reynard’s wife, Susan, died of a brain tumor, and he blamed cell phones for her death. Reynard revealed the suit to the public on the Larry King Live show, complete with dramatic x-rays showing the tumor close to where Susan held her cell phone to her head for hours each day.

The next day, telecommunications stocks took a big hit on Wall Street and the media had a field day. The industry trade association at the time, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), went into crisis mode, claiming thousands of studies proved cell phones were safe and what Reynard and his attorney said was bunk. TIA reassured the public that the government had approved cell phones, so that meant they were safe. The media demanded to see the studies, but, says Dr. Carlo, “The industry had lied. The only studies in existence then were on microwave ovens. At that time, 15 million people were using cell phones, a product that had never been tested for safety.”

Dr. Carlo Heads Cell Phone Research

Cell Phone Radiation: What You Need to Know

  • Originally developed for the Department of Defense, cell phones devices were never tested for safety. They entered the marketplace due to a regulatory loophole.
  • Questions about cell phone safety arose in the early 1990s, when a businessman filed a lawsuit alleging that cell phones caused his wife’s death due to brain cancer.
  • To address the questions surrounding cell phone safety, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR). Dr. George Carlo was appointed to head WTR’s research efforts.
  • Under Dr. Carlo’s direction, scientists found that cell phone radiation caused DNA damage, impaired DNA repair, and interfered with cardiac pacemakers.

  • European research confirmed Dr. Carlo’s findings. Studies suggest that cell phone radiation contributes to brain dysfunction, tumors, and potentially to conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, neurodegenerative disease, and behavioral and psychological problems.
  • Dr. Carlo brought safety information about cell phones to the public through his book, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, and by creating the Safe Wireless Initiative and the Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry.
  • The best protection against cell phone radiation is keeping a safe distance.
  • Always use a headset to minimize exposure to harmful cell phone radiation.

Forced to take action, the cell phone industry set up a non-profit organization, Wireless Technology Research (WTR), to perform the study. Dr. Carlo developed the program outline and was asked to head the research. Oversight of the issue was charged to the FDA, though it could have and probably should have gone to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which fought hard for jurisdiction. But the industry had enough influence in Washington to get whatever overseer it wanted. It simply didn’t want to tangle with EPA because, says Dr. Carlo, “… the EPA is tough.”

“Anything that’s ever made a difference in terms of public health has come from the EPA,” he says. “But safety issues that are covered in corruption and questions seem to always have a connection to the FDA, which has been manipulated by pharmaceutical companies since it was born.”

When called to help with the cell phone issue, Dr. Carlo was working with the FDA on silicone breast implant research. The choice of Dr. Carlo to head WTR seemed unusual to industry observers. An epidemiologist whose expertise was in public health and how epidemic diseases affect the population, he appeared to lack any experience in researching the effects of EMR on human biology. Based on this, a premature conclusion was drawn by many: Dr. Carlo was an “expert” handpicked by the cell phone industry, and therefore his conclusions would only back up the industry’s claim that cell phones are safe.

Dr. Carlo, however, refused to be an easy target. He quickly recruited a group of prominent scientists to work with him, bulletproof experts owning long lists of credentials and reputations that would negate any perception that the research was predestined to be a sham. He also created a Peer Review Board chaired by Harvard University School of Public Health’s Dr. John Graham, something that made FDA officials more comfortable since, at the time, the agency was making negative headlines due to the breast implant controversy. In total, more than 200 doctors and scientists were involved in the project.

Strict Study Guidelines

Once all involved agreed on what was to be done, Dr. Carlo presented the study’s stakeholders in the industry, the government, and the public with a strict list of criteria for moving forward.

“The money had to be independent of the industry — they had to put the money in trust and couldn’t control who got the funds,” he says. “Second, everything had to be peer reviewed before it went public, so if we did find problems after peer review, we could use that information publicly to recommend interventions.”

A third requirement was for the FDA to create a formal interagency working group to oversee the work and provide input. The purpose of this was to alleviate any perception that the industry was paying for a result, not for the research itself. But the fourth and last requirement was considered by Dr. Carlo to be highly critical: “Everything needed to be done in sunlight. The media had to have access to everything we did.”

The Research Begins

The program began, but Dr. Carlo soon discovered that everyone involved had underlying motives.”The industry wanted an insurance policy and to have the government come out and say everything was fine. The FDA, which looked bad because it didn’t require pre-market testing, could be seen as taking steps to remedy that. By ordering the study, law makers appeared to be doing something. Everyone had a chance to wear a white hat.”

Dr. Carlo and his team developed new exposure systems that could mimic head-only exposure to EMR in people, as those were the only systems that could approximate what really happened with cell phone exposure. Those exposure systems were then used for both in vitro (laboratory) and in vivo (animal) studies. The in vitro studies used human blood and lymph tissue in test tubes and petri dishes that were exposed to EMR. These studies identified the micronuclei in human blood, for example, associated with cell phone near-field radiation. The in vivo studies used head only exposure systems and laboratory rats. These studies identified DNA damage and other genetic markers.

Says Dr. Carlo: “We also conducted four different epidemiological studies on groups of people who used cell phones, and we did clinical intervention studies. For example, studies of people with implanted cardiac pacemakers were instrumental in our making recommendations to prevent interference between cell phones and pacemakers. In all, we conducted more than fifty studies that were peer-reviewed and published in a number of medical and scientific journals.”

Industry Seeks to Discredit Findings, Scientists

But manipulation by the industry had begun almost immediately at the start of research. While Dr. Carlo and his team had never defined their research as being done to prove the safety of cell phones, the industry internally defined it as an insurance policy to prove that phones were safe. From the outset, what was being said by the cell phone industry in public was different from what was being said by the scientists behind closed doors.

The pacemaker studies were a harbinger of bad things to come. Results showed that cell phones do indeed interfere with pacemakers, but moving the phone away from the pacemaker would correct the problem. Amazingly, the industry was extremely upset with the report, complaining that the researchers went off target. When Dr. Carlo and his colleagues published their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997,11 the industry promptly cut off funding for the overall program. It took nine months for the FDA and the industry to agree on a scaled-down version of the program to continue going forward. Dr. Carlo had volunteered to step down, since he was clearly not seeing eye-to-eye with the industry, but his contract was extended instead, as no one wanted to look bad from a public relations standpoint.

The research continued, and what it uncovered would be a dire warning to cell phone users and the industry’s worst nightmare. When the findings were ready for release in 1998, the scientists were suddenly confronted with another challenge: the industry wanted to take over public dissemination of the information, and it tried everything it could to do so. It was faced with disaster and had a lot to lose.

Fearing the industry would selectively release research results at best, or hold them back at worst, Dr. Carlo and his colleagues took the information public on their own, creating a highly visible war between the scientists and the industry. An ABC News expose on the subject increased the wrath of the industry.

According to Dr. Carlo, “The industry played dirty. It actually hired people to put negative things about me and the other scientists who found problems on the internet, while it tried to distance itself from the program. Auditors were brought in to say we misspent money, but none of that ever held up. They tried every angle possible.”

This included discussions with Dr. Carlo’s ex-wife to try to figure out ways to put pressure on him, he says. Threats to his career came from all directions, and Dr. Carlo learned from Congressional insiders that the word around Washington was that he was “unstable.” But all the character assassination paled in comparison to what happened next.

Toward the end of 1998, Dr. Carlo’s house mysteriously burned down. Public records show that authorities determined the cause of the blaze was arson, but the case was never solved. Dr. Carlo refuses to discuss the incident and will only confirm that it happened. By this time, enough was enough. Dr. Carlo soon went “underground,” shunning the public eye and purposely making himself difficult to find.

Why Cell Phones are Dangerous

A cellular phone is basically a radio that sends signals on waves to a base station. The carrier signal generates two types of radiation fields: a near-field plume and a far-field plume. Living organisms, too, generate electromagnetic fields at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level; this is called the biofield. Both the near-field and far-field plumes from cell phones and in the environment can wreak havoc with the human biofield, and when the biofield is compromised in any way, says Dr. Carlo, so is metabolism and physiology.

“The near field plume is the one we’re most concerned with. This plume that’s generated within five or six inches of the center of a cell phone’s antenna is determined by the amount of power necessary to carry the signal to the base station,” he explains. “The more power there is, the farther the plume radiates the dangerous information-carrying radio waves.”

A carrier wave oscillates at 1900 megahertz (MHz) in most phones, which is mostly invisible to our biological tissue and doesn’t do damage. The information-carrying secondary wave necessary to interpret voice or data is the problem, says Dr. Carlo. That wave cycles in a hertz (Hz) range familiar to the body. Your heart, for example, beats at two cycles per second, or two Hz. Our bodies recognize the information-carrying wave as an “invader,” setting in place protective biochemical reactions that alter physiology and cause biological problems that include intracellular free-radical buildup, leakage in the blood-brain barrier, genetic damage, disruption of intercellular communication, and an increase in the risk of tumors. The health dangers of recognizing the signal, therefore, aren’t from direct damage, but rather are due to the biochemical responses in the cell.

Here’s what happens:

  • Cellular energy is now used for protection rather than metabolism. Cell membranes harden, keeping nutrients out and waste products in.
  • Waste accumulating inside the cells creates a higher concentration of free radicals, leading to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction.
  • Unwanted cell death occurs, releasing the micronuclei from the disrupted DNA repair into the fluid between cells (interstitial fluid), where they are free to replicate and proliferate. This, says Dr. Carlo, is the most likely mechanism that contributes to cancer.
  • Damage occurs to proteins on the cell membrane, resulting in disruption of intercellular communication. When cells can’t communicate with each other, the result is impaired tissue, organ, and organism function. In the blood-brain barrier, for example, cells can’t keep dangerous chemicals from reaching the brain tissue, which results in damage.

With the background levels of information-carrying radio waves dramatically increasing because of the widespread use of cell phones,Wi-Fi, and other wireless communication, the effects from the near and far-fields are very similar. Overall, says Dr. Carlo, almost all of the acute and chronic symptoms seen in electrosensitive patients can be explained in some part by disrupted intercellular communication. These symptoms of electrosensitivity include inability to sleep, general malaise, and headaches. Could this explain the increase in recent years of conditions such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and anxiety disorder?

“One thing all these conditions have in common is a disruption, to varying degrees, of intercellular communication. When we were growing up, TV antennas were on top of our houses and such waves were up in the sky. Cell phones and Wi-Fi have brought those things down to the street, integrated them into the environment, and that’s absolutely new. The recognition mechanism, where protein vibration sensors on the cell membrane pick up a signal and interpret it as an invader, only works because the body recognizes something it’s never seen before.”

As to increases in brain tumors tied to cell phone use, it’s too early to tell due to a lack of hard data, says Dr. Carlo. “We’re never going to see that in time to have it matter. Here in the US, we’re six years behind in getting the brain tumor database completed, and currently the best data are from 1999. By the time you see any data showing an increase, the ticking time bomb is set.”

Epidemic curve projections, however, indicate that in 2006, we can expect to see 40,000 to 50,000 cases of brain and eye cancer. This is based on published peer-reviewed studies that allow calculation of risk and construction of epidemic curves. By 2010, says Dr. Carlo, expect that number to be between 400,000 and 500,000 new cases worldwide.

“This means we’re on the beginning curve of an epidemic, with epidemic defined as a change in the occurrence of a disease that is so dramatic in its increase that it portends serious public health consequences,” says Dr. Carlo. “This is what’s not being told to the public. One of the things that I suggest to people who use a cell phone is to use an air tube headset. If you use a wired headset, the current moving through the wire of the headset attracts ambient informational carrying radio waves and thereby increases your exposure.”

Gauss Meters: Detecting Electromagnetic Radiation

Invisible electromagnetic radiation surrounds us each day, emanating from diverse sources such as power lines, home wiring, computers, televisions, microwave ovens, photocopy machines, and cell phones.

While undetectable to the eye, scientists have proposed that electromagnetic radiation may pose serious health effects, ranging from childhood leukemia to brain tumors.

As scientists continue to unravel the precise health dangers of electromagnetic radiation, it makes good sense to avoid these potentially dangerous frequencies as much as possible. A gauss meter is a useful tool you can use to measure electromagnetic radiation in your home and work environments.

Using the gauss meter at varied locations, you can easily detect electromagnetic radiation “hot spots” where exposure to these ominous frequencies is the greatest. Armed with this crucial information, you can then avoid these areas, re-arranging furniture or electronic devices as needed in order to avoid unnecessary exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

Raw Vegan Radio offers products to help combat the negative effects of cell phone use.

speedlinking: Starting the New Year with many post links ...

These first from Center for American Progress ...

Nuclear & Biological Weapons

  • Contain and Engage

    A New U.S. Strategy for Iran
    Joseph Cirincione and Andrew Grotto outline five options and an effective strategy for resolving the nuclear crisis with Iran.

Top Five Nuclear Issues of 2007
by Joseph Cirincione, Alexandra Bell, December 28, 2007
Looking back at 2007 and ahead to 2008 reveals nuclear threats but also opportunities, write Joseph Cirincione and Alexandra Bell

Bloggingheads: A Would-Be Messiah
by Joseph Cirincione, December 16, 2007

A Diplomatic About-Face: Bush Writes Kim. Should Iran Be Next?
by Andrew J. Grotto, Joseph Cirincione, December 6, 2007
After sending a letter to North Korea’s leader, what’s stopping the president from engaging Iran, ask Grotto and Cirincione.

Nuclear Shock Therapy: New Report Refutes White House Case for War with Iran
by Joseph Cirincione, Andrew J. Grotto, December 4, 2007
White House war fever is checked just in time by its own intelligence agencies, write Joseph Cirincione and Andrew Grotto.

A Report Half Empty: Iran Needs to Level with the IAEA
by Joseph Cirincione, Andrew J. Grotto, November 16, 2007
The International Atomic Energy Agency deserves more answers from Iran on its nuclear development program, argue Joseph Cirincione and Andrew Grotto.

Cassandra’s Conundrum
by Joseph Cirincione, November 1, 2007

The Nuclear Catch
by Joseph Cirincione, William W. Keller, Gordon R. Mitchell, October 11, 2007

The Middle East's Nuclear Surge
by Joseph Cirincione, Uri Leventer, August 21, 2007
Joe Cirincione and Uri Leventer argue that Iran's still-developing nuclear program is already sending ripples through the Middle East.

Atomic Echoes
by Joseph Cirincione, August 7, 2007
Joseph Cirincione looks back on the rise of nuclear arsenals and discusses why we may be ready to heed the original warnings of nuclear scientists.

Nuclear Summer
by Joseph Cirincione, Uri Leventer, July 23, 2007
Cirincione and Leventer discuss this summer’s dramatic reminder of all four nuclear threats and the harbinger of a fifth.

Arms Control's New Movement
by Joseph Cirincione, July 18, 2007

China's Proliferation Policies and Practices: Testimony of Joseph Cirincione
July 12, 2007
Senior CAP Fellow Joseph Cirincione testifies on China's proliferation and the impact of trade policy on defense industries in the U.S. and China.

Smarter Sanctions for Iran
by Andrew J. Grotto, July 12, 2007
Legislation to broaden sanctions against Iran will only work if it is focused on clear international objectives, argues Andrew Grotto.

Resolving the Deadliest Nuclear Threats
by Joseph Cirincione, May 10, 2007
Cirincione outlines a strategy for addressing nuclear threats from terrorism, fuel technology, new weapon states, and existing arsenals.

Get Smart on Ballistic Missiles
by Joseph Cirincione, Andrew Wade, May 8, 2007
Detailed analysis of ballistic missile arsenals shows that the U.S.’ enormous anti-missile budget could be better spent.

Global Ballistic Missile Arsenals, 2007
by Andrew Wade, May 8, 2007

How to Resolve the Iranian Nukes Crisis, In Just Three Steps
April 30, 2007
Confused about the Iranian nukes crisis? Here's an explanation of the situation and how CAP's experts think we should handle it.

Toxic Trains and the Terrorist Threat
April 2, 2007
New report outlines how water utilities can get chlorine gas off of railways and out of American communities.

Countering Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions
by Andrew J. Grotto, March 28, 2007
Andrew Grotto argues that U.N. sanctions are a good first step, but the U.S. must maintain this international unity to end the Iran nuclear crisis.

The Value of a Unified U.N. Security Council
by Spencer P. Boyer, March 23, 2007
Spencer Boyer explains the negotiations that led to important U.N. Security Council resolutions on the nuclear crises in North Korea and Iran.

Iraq: Nuclear Boomerang
by Joseph Cirincione, March 21, 2007

We Got Tubed—Again
by Joseph Cirincione, March 20, 2007

Change of Course
March 19, 2007

Curbing the Iran Nuclear Crisis
March 14, 2007
CAP’s Joseph Cirincione and Andrew Grotto propose a strategy to combine containment with diplomacy to curb Iran’s enrichment of uranium.

Is the North Korea Deal Worth Celebrating?
by Andrew J. Grotto, March 11, 2007

A New Strategy for Iran
March 7, 2007
New CAP report detailing a strategy for resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis receives warm reception from Iran experts

Hurry Up Please It's Time
March 5, 2007

Pragmatism Trumps Ideology on North Korea
by Andrew J. Grotto, February 23, 2007
The deal cut with North Korea is only a first step toward a grander bargain that will require White House pragmatists to win out over the ideologues.

North Korean Pressure Points
by Joseph Cirincione, February 13, 2007
Joe Cirincione details the six factors that led to a nuclear deal with North Korea--and that could ensure its implementation.

Breakthrough in Sight: U.S. Talks with North Korea Get Serious
by Joseph Cirincione, Andrew J. Grotto, January 18, 2007
Reversing course, Bush administration tries direct negotiations with Pyongyang to curb North Korea's nuclear weapons program. It's about time.

Still Not Ready
by Andrew J. Grotto, December 14, 2006
Study shows that states need better public health infrastructure and closer coordination; Andy Grotto that can only happen with federal guidance.

Dismal Legacy of 109th Congress
December 12, 2006
Incoming congressional leaders have plenty on their plate to fix after the 109th Congress leaves town with budgeting woefully incomplete.

A Nonproliferation Disaster
by Daryl G. Kimball, Joseph Cirincione, December 11, 2006
U.S.-India nuclear deal blows a hole in the fabric of U.S. nonproliferation law, write Daryl G. Kimball and Joseph Cirincione.

Ask The Expert: Facing Iran
by Graham Webster, December 5, 2006
Cirincione outlines the need for an updated nonproliferation agreement and major changes to the hazardous Bush administration approach.

Committee Hearing Calls for Direct Talks with North Korea
by Rachel Weise, November 17, 2006
Direct negotiations are clearly not a partisan issue, but the only feasible option to deal with the threat of a nuclear Korean peninsula.

Fix the Nuclear Trade Deal with India
November 15, 2006
A lame duck session is no time to consider the Bush administration's nuclear assistance deal with India. This pact requires more review.

Building an Effective Strategy in Iran
November 14, 2006
U.S. has nothing to lose and everything to gain from entering into direct diplomacy with Iran.

Tough Diplomacy Works: Pyongyang Responds to Sticks and Carrots
by Joseph Cirincione, November 1, 2006
Cirincione argues U.S. must jettison "regime change" rhetoric in favor of proven diplomatic solutions to nuclear proliferation in Northeast Asia.

Practical Alternatives
by Joseph Cirincione, October 20, 2006
But a tough policy of containment directed at North Korea and Iran, and a change of course in Iraq, would do the trick.

The Failure of Regime Change
by Joseph Cirincione, October 16, 2006
Bush foreign policy fails America, but it’s not too late to change course.

Who's Next to Go Nuclear?
by Andrew J. Grotto, October 15, 2006

Stop North Korea Now
by Joseph Cirincione, October 9, 2006
Military, economic, and diplomatic moves must be taken to protect U.S. interests, regional peace, and global nonproliferation.

North Korea Nuclear Timeline
by Rachel Weise, October 9, 2006
Virtually all of North Korea’s nuclear growth has occurred under conservative administrations known for their "strength" on defense.

Kim's Latest Gambit
October 4, 2006
North Korea’s latest nuclear threat, if acted on, would have grave consequences. The Bush administration needs to change course.

Enhancing Biosecurity
September 26, 2006
New bill takes an important step towards countering the twin threats of natural pandemics and biological terrorism.

Time to Talk to Iran
September 19, 2006
Sanctions are needed to get Iran's attention, but negotiations are equally important before considering military action.

How Safe is America from a Terrorist Attack?
September 6, 2006
A bipartisan survey of national security experts says U.S. is less safe now than after 9/11 due to failed Bush administration policies.

Regime Change Won't Work
September 5, 2006
Sanctions may be needed to get Iran's attention, but negotiations are equally important to resolution.

The Stakes are Raised
July 25, 2006

Crib Sheet: North Korea's Missile Tests
by Andrew J. Grotto, July 6, 2006

Biosecurity Action Plan
June 28, 2006

Countering Pandemic Disease and Biological Terrorism
June 22, 2006

Biosecurity Action Plan
by Andrew J. Grotto, June 20, 2006

Nuclear Proliferation Status, 2006
by Joseph Cirincione, June 9, 2006

Missile Crisis?
June 6, 2006

Achieving Biosecurity
May 23, 2006

Containing Pandemic Flu
May 8, 2006

Preventing Toxic Terrorism
April 24, 2006
New report outlines safer alternatives that would prevent a catastrophic chemical release from harming millions of Americans.

Crib Sheet: Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
by Andrew J. Grotto, April 24, 2006

Crib Sheet: Nukes and India
March 14, 2006

Iraq's Hot Properties
by Andrew J. Grotto, September 1, 2005

Sixty Years Later: Hiroshima and the Bomb
by Andrew J. Grotto, August 6, 2005

Sixty Years Later
August 3, 2005

Defusing the Threat of Radiological Weapons
by Andrew J. Grotto, July 27, 2005

The Einstein-Russell Manifesto, 50 Years On
by Jonathan D. Moreno, July 5, 2005

A Korean Primer on Nuclear Anxiety
by Lawrence J. Korb, Peter Ogden, May 31, 2005

Agenda for Security: Controlling the Nuclear Threat
by Andrew J. Grotto, March 3, 2005

Nuclear Bunker-Busters and Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
by Andrew J. Grotto, February 22, 2005

Bush Failing at Nuclear Security
by Lawrence J. Korb, January 4, 2005

The Road to Nuclear Security
by Lawrence J. Korb, Peter Ogden, December 16, 2004

How to Approach Iran
December 13, 2004

Bring the IAEA Back In
by Max Bergmann, November 23, 2004

Iran, the IAEA and the UN
by Andrew J. Grotto, November 1, 2004

Failing Grades: America's Security Three Years After 9/11
September 9, 2004

Bookmarked 9/11 Commission Report
August 2, 2004

Lack of American Leadership Impeding Nonproliferation Efforts
August 2, 2004

June 8, 2004

Toward a Progressive Strategy on North Korea
April 28, 2004

Going Critical: The First North Korean Nuclear Crisis
by Joel S. Wit, Daniel Poneman, Robert L. Gallucci, April 20, 2004

Only Real Negotiations Can Test North Korea
by Ivo H. Daalder, February 24, 2004

Response to President Bush's Speech on WMD Proliferation
February 11, 2004

Statement of Bob Boorstin
February 11, 2004

The Korean Nuclear Crisis: Finding a Solution
February 5, 2004

U.S. Policy and the Iranian Nuclear Question
February 4, 2004

THEN & NOW: Heeding & Ignoring Intel Warnings On Weak WMD Evidence
February 3, 2004

State of the Union: National Security
January 21, 2004