|
And in
about 6 weeks, June 2nd, Nevada will once again be a test site,
trying to determine how “small” a bomb will work on Iran. Pentagon to test huge 700-ton ‘bunker
buster’, code named "Divine Strake" It will be an
open-air chemical explosion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033001735.html Anyone still
doubt the influence of radical Biblical theocrats on this administration? kwc Colorado was
indeed a nuclear test site on Sept. 10/69 at 21:00. It was an underground
explosion. New Mexico
has had 3, one in July/45, then in Dec/61 and Dec/67 Mississippi
had two, Dec/66 and Oct/64 Alaska had
three; Nov/71, Nov/69, Oct/65 The website
where you can get the horrific numbers of testing performed is: http://www.ga.gov.au/oracle/nukeexp_form.jsp
also
informative is: www.shundahai.org/nuke_weapons_issues.html
From '45-'63
the US performed 215 atmospheric tests, mostly in Nevada,
and allegedly 0 after '63. 815 total underground tests took place, again
mostly in Nevada, from '45-96, and from 70-96 the average was 15-20 per annum. Atmospheric
favorite test sites, apart from Nevada, were Johnson Is., Christmas Is.(with
UK), Pacific Ocean (also included underwater), S. Atlantic, Enewetak and Bikini
Islands. The late 40's and early to mid '50's were especially popular for
Nevada's atmospheric type. '62 was a popular year for both. The fallout,
particularly from the disproportionate Nevada numbers, would have hit pretty
much everywhere since testing was done year round, but most of it was done in
warmer months when winds would carry it to the east--neighboring Utah and
Colorado... Also, it
seems that on Navajo Nation in Arizona there were an estimated 1100 abandoned
uranium mines after the crash of the uranium boom in the 80's. There wasn't
much effort to clean up. A N. Arizona
University biochemist, Diane Sterns, has shown that uranium sticks to DNA, and
that its binding triggers a whole slew of protein replication errors, some of
which lead to various cancers. Findings were published in Mutagenisis and
Molecular Carcinogenesis journals. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060307010324data_
A Dr. Rosalie
Bertell, in The Ecologist, Nov.99, v.29, no.7 estimated 376 million cancers,
235 genetic defects, and 587 teratogenic effects from nuclear testing. She also
claimed there had to be at least 1 million others adversely affected by
electricity production from nuclear plants, 20% of which caused premature
cancer deaths. All conjecture on her part, no doubt.... That we all
live in dangerous times seems unfortunately to coincide with the unchecked
greed of the previous and present centuries. Industrialism was bad enough.
The point at which nuclear testing began seriously undermined our
remaining sense of safety to be found on this earth. It is imperative that the
world disarm. It does not have to be an unsafe world for any good reason.
We are on the same page if what you call the common myth is that living
with unnatural threats is now supposed to be acceptable. Natalia -----
Original Message -----
To: 'Darryl
and Natalia' ; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006
9:09 PM Subject: RE:
[Futurework] Nuclear Fallout in Colorado Hi, Natalia, Rocky Mountain Flats affects the area between Denver and Boulder –
not the whole state by any means. Uranium mining is carried out in the western
part of the state, and does represent a danger to miners and those who live
close to tailings. But the bulk of the state is not exposed. There have never
been nuclear bombs detonated in Colorado. People live and work in those areas
where there may be an environmental hazard for the same reason that people work
in steel mills, or in a bureaucracy, or as advertising hacks: they can earn
income and sustain their families. Most people, I suppose, want what the Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan
Ashrawi calls the ‘quiet miracle of a peaceful life.’ Few of us have the
privilege of living lives without compromise, without dangers and
discomforts. Few of us have the ability to see beyond the common myth. Cheers, Lawry From:
Darryl and Natalia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] All
mail scanned by NAV Actually
I was implying the opposite: that people do know, but continue to settle down
in Colorado anywhere, anyhow. People
keep trying to move there, many from Canada. It's not just about the Rocky
Flats though; a lot of nuclear testing and manufacturing has and still takes
place in the state; some major bombs were allowed to be detonated there (and in
Nevada) in past decades, and I doubt that activity has altogether
stopped because of the terrain that it is. Drinking the water let alone
breathing the air would negate for me any sane reason to set foot in either
state, yet folks claim its dry air is good for their lungs. To live there, one
risks becoming a casualty of experimentation in that nasty, slow death kind of
way as a diurnal experience, coupled with the hovering threat of catastrophic
accidents that would really, really hurt. Not
like deciding on Florida, where you can always drink bottled water from
Colorado springs, right??? Speaking
from the lovely fault line island that is worth the risk because
unlike the rest of the continent, it will stay afloat! Natalia ----- Original Message -----
To: 'Darryl
and Natalia' ; [email protected] Sent:
Monday, April 17, 2006 3:51 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Nuclear Fallout in Colorado Why in the world, Natalia, do you assert that people are ‘totally
oblivious’ to Rocky Flats? Cheers, Lawry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Darryl and Natalia All
mail scanned by NAV People
may like Colorado weather, but really, are they totally oblivious
to its extremely hazardous corporate/government activity? For decades,
it's been on the list to avoid for its nuclear wasteland. What gives? Natalia A.V. KREBS,
PROGRESSIVE POPULIST - On February 14 some 12,000 |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
