, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Atomic Veterans VA 2012
This is from an official 1995 US government document (under Bill Clinton) on human radiation experiments:
In August 1947, General Groves urged Major General Paul Hawley, the director of the medical programs of the Veterans Administration, to address medical problems related to the military’s use of atomic energy. Soon thereafter, Hawley appointed an advisory committee, manned by Stafford Warren and other medical researchers. The advisers recommended that the VA create both a “publicized” program to promote the use of radioisotopes in research and a “confidential” program to deal with potential liability claims from veterans exposed to radiation hazards. The “publicized” program soon mushroomed, with Stafford Warren, Shields Warren, and Hymer Friedell among the key advisers. By 1974, according to VA reports, more than 2,000 human radiation experiments would be performed at VA facilities, 48 many of which would work in tandem with neighboring medical schools, such as the relationship between the UCLA medical school, where Stafford Warren was now dean, and the Wadsworth (West Los Angeles)VA Hospital.” “AdvisoryCommittee onHumanRadiation Experiments, Final Report, October 1995https://archive.org/stream/advisorycommitte00unit/advisorycommitte00unit_djvu.txt (NB: Radioisotopes were discovered by Glenn Seaborg prior to the US entry into WWII).

And, where did Carol Marcus, spear-heading the 100 mSv radiation is good for you proposal, do her residency? Wadsworth (West LA) VA Hospital! And, she is affiliated with the UCLA Med School. Stafford Warren was its first Dean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_L._Warren

And, what is the current proposal for 100 mSv exposure to the general public a cover for?

Not only to avoid liability for veterans exposed to radiation, but also to avoid liability for nuclear accidents, as made clear in a presentation by one of Carol Marcus’ co-petitioners, Mark Miller. It would help avoid liability for civilian victims of weapons testing, as well.

It would allow nuclear reactors and waste dumps to leak 100 to 400 times more radiation than currently allowed into the environment (USEPA limit is 0.25 mSv; NRC limit is 1 mSv). And, compared to ALARA it would allow over 1000 times more radiation into the environment. While this includes iodine 131, half-life of 8 days, it also includes long-lived radionuclides. Much of the nuclear waste would be able to go to landfill, making decommissioning nuclear reactors cheap for utilities and clean-up of nuclear sites cheaper for government contractors (the taxpayer will probably pay as much and contractors pocket the profits). It means that the US will expand its role as international dumping ground for radioactive waste, unless everyone else gets the same weakened standard. You can be expecting radioactive waste from decommissioned European and Japanese nuclear power stations in your local landfill, along with their hospital radioactive waste. Is this why foreigners have been writing in support of 100 mSv for the US in surprising numbers? So they can dump their radioactive waste for cheap in America? By what right was America stolen from the Natives, only to make it into an international radioactive waste dump?

Carol Marcus is also behind the fact that patients treated with radio-iodine 131, in the US, can expose anyone they meet to 5 mSv of radiation, without the person even knowing. This has saved insurance companies money (in the short run) and apparently has led to increased use of radioactive iodine, where it may not be needed or effective. This means more profits for medical practitioners like Carol Marcus (and co-petitioner Mohan Doss). It means more cancer and insurance-taxpayer costs in the intermediate term.

There are also risks to hotel workers and guests, if patients full of radioactive iodine (or other radionuclides) stay in hotels.

Some may recall that when the Fukushima nuclear disaster happened, people were unable to ascertain if the radioactive iodine came from a thyroid patient or Fukushima, in at least one instance. Thus, it acts as a sort of cover for excess leakages by nuclear reactors.

100 mSv also gets rid of concerns about over-exposure in medicine, whether for medical professionals or for patients. See for instance:
Use of radioactive iodine for treatment of thyroid cancer on the rise” Date: August 17, 2011
Source: JAMA and Archives Journals
Summary: Despite uncertainty about the appropriate use of radioactive iodine after surgery for different stages of thyroid cancer, between 1990 and 2008 its use has increased among patients with all tumor sizes, and there was wide variation in use of this treatment among hospitals, according to a new study
“. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352591/ According to former NRC Counsel, Peter Crane, Carol Marcus spear-headed the early release rule in the early 1990s, which meant that patients could be treated as out-patients. This increased use is probably both the legacy of nuclear weapons testing (the impacts of long-lived iodine 129 would probably not be felt for several decades), and the early release rule allowing outpatient treatment, and the concomitant exposure of the general public, creating a vicious circle of thyroid cancers.

A recent article raises a related concern
Radiation exposure exceeds 50 mSv in 2% of ICU patients
By: MITCHEL L. ZOLER, Frontline Medical News
NOVEMBER 6, 2015
Exposure averaged 7 mSv, with a median of 1.5 mSv.
Read more here: http://www.chestphysician.org/specialty-focus/critical-care-medicine/article/radiation-exposure-exceeds-50-msv-in-2-of-icu-patients/f8f5bb0d1c3fb40a570cf3d6c56c9ac1.html

But, who will pay for the additional cost of medical care? 100 mSv would lead to one extra cancer for everyone , over the course of 10 years, and who knows what else? The US will be like a radioactive “Hotel California” for immigrants who arrive to replace dead Americans. They themselves are unlikely to leave alive.

This costs of 100 mSv will be borne by insurance companies, taxpayers, and individuals.

The US NRC proposal of 50 to 100 mSv per year radiation exposure for the general population,
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057 was revealed by one of its proponents, Mark L. Miller, to be part of a larger game-plan to use magical thinking, so that governments or utilities can choose whatever radiation level they want to define as safe in order to have “Dramatically reduced operating expenses • Dramatically reduced cleanup expenses” Mark Miller works for Sandia National Lab (under contract to Lockheed Martin) and thus is employed by the US taxpayer. He said: “Increase Standards by X (pick a number between 10 and 1000” (like it’s a fun game!) He envisions people at Fukushima living with exposure levels of 20,000 mSv (i.e. 20 Sv) per year, which is 20,000 times higher than the already high level (1 mSv per year) allowed the general population in most places. (The US EPA allows for 0.25 mSv per year). By extension, when the next nuclear accident occurs there will be only a very short evacuation. You’ve got to see the slides from his presentation to believe it:
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/sandia-us-nuclear-lab-found-quick-easy-solution-for-radiation-at-fukushima-chernobyl-other-contaminated-zones/ 20 Sv would lead to death from acute radiation syndrome within 2 days to 2 weeks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome

Hypocrite Mark Miller has solar panels on his own roof! https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/proponent-of-radiation-is-good-for-you-has-solar-panels-on-his-own-roof-mark-l-miller-of-lockheed-martin-run-sandia-national-lab/

The deadline for comment on the US NRC 100 mSv per year exposure proposal, also known as cancer for everyone, is November 19th. Network-Organize! http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057 According to new research about nuclear workers in the US, UK, and France, the 100 mSv per year would lead to one excess cancer for everyone over 10 years. https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/nuclear-worker-study-affirms-that-low-doses-of-radiation-are-deadly-increased-cancer-risk-much-worse-than-previously-believed/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/new-study-of-us-uk-french-nuclear-workers-supports-linear-no-threshold-model-radiation-is-bad-for-you-increased-dose-is-increased-risk-hormesis-debunked-funding-from-pro-nuclear-govts-nuclea/ According to the older BEIR VII (2005) report, 100 mSv would lead to an extra cancer for almost everyone over the course of a lifetime. You can have more than one cancer you know!

Most importantly, complain to your government officials, as well. In fact, whine and complain about this potential 100 mSv per year genocide to as many people as you can.