Alchemy and Mass Murder

Recently, the World Health Organisation (WHO) released its World Cancer Report 2014, which earlier this week produced jolly headlines like these:

Worldwide cancer cases expected to soar by 70% over next 20 years

On top of the cancer pandemic we are already suffering, it looks like we are now in for a ‘tidal wave of cancer’ (as some pundits have put it). If the WHO forecast turns out to be correct, over the coming decades the vast majority of people will get cancer at some stage during their life. To get some perspective let’s look at the odds as they stand at the moment: on average, worldwide, men have about a 1 in 2 chance of getting cancer, that’s 44 out of every 100 men, and for women it’s a 1 in 3 chance, or 38 out of every 100 women (here). It should be noted that these are the odds on getting cancer, not of dying from it (across the 200 or so different types of cancer it averages out that about 50% of people who develop cancer will die from it). It should also be noted that these rocketing cancer rates are not because the world’s population is sharply increasing: the incidences are taken per 100,000 head of population; ie, they are proportionate. It’s often said that cancer is a disease of old age. Not true. More than half (53%) of all cancers are diagnosed in adults aged 50-74. Those aged 75 and over account for just over a third (36%) of all cancers (here). One of the most worrying things in recent years is the steep rise in childhood cancers, particularly Leukaemia. This cancer pandemic is just as prevelent in the developing world as it is in the developed world, so it can’t easily be ascribed as being down to lifestyle choices.

To get more perspective let’s go back to 1975, when the incidence rate for all cancers combined in the United States was 400 new cases for every 100,000 people in the population; that’s a 1 in 250 chance (here). So, in the space of 40 years we’ve gone from a 1 in 250 chance of cancer, to a 1 in 2 chance now, and if this latest WHO report bears true, over the next 20 years it’ll be odds-on that you’ll get cancer. Perhaps the most amazing thing about this steeply rising curve of illness and death is the lack of public outrage.

In 2010 the University of Manchester published a study called Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between? which concluded that cancer is a man-made disease; ie, prior to the Industrial Revolution, cancer was almost unknown, and even during the Industrial Revolution rates were low, despite all the pollution and terrible working conditions. It was only after World War Two that the incidence of cancer started rocketing. To quote Professor Michael Zimmerman, one of the authors of the study:

‘Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.’


This latest WHO report listed the following as some of the major causes of cancer:

Smoking
Infections
Alcohol
Obesity and inactivity
Radiation, both from the sun and medical scans
Air pollution and other environmental factors
Delayed parenthood, having fewer children and not breastfeeding
(here)

It is interesting to note that it carefully attributes radiation from only the sun and medical scans, and not from other forms of nuclear energy. In fact, I’ve never come across any report by the WHO that links worldwide cancer with nuclear energy per se, even though the cancer pandemic correlates directly with the atomic age (the first atom bomb, the Trinity Test, was exploded in July 1945). There’s no shortage of scientific evidence that proves such a link. Ionizing radiation, which refers to several types of particles and rays given off by radioactive materials, is one of the few scientifically proven carcinogens in human beings (even the American Cancer Society says so); yet the World Health Organisation barely mentions it in this latest report. Strange, don’t you think, particularly since the The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was brought in precisely because it was understood how dangerous to human health such radiation is (by way of irony, the WHO report says that the Solomon Islands, in the Pacific, has the highest rate of cancer in the world). A 1991 study by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) estimated that the radiation and radioactive materials from atomic bomb testing, between 1945 and 1990, would cause 430,000 cancer deaths, some of which had already occurred by the time the results were published. The study predicted that roughly 2.4 million people worldwide could eventually die from cancer as a result of atmospheric testing (here). That’s the cancer pandemic we are getting now, mixed in of course with all the accidents like Windscale, Mayak, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and God knows how many others that have been hushed-up; and now we have Fukushima, which is far, far worse than anything that’s gone before: three reactors in complete meltdown on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, also including two spent fuel pools that partially caught fire, and a third spent fuel pool (Unit 4) that appears to have completely burnt-up (you can find my post about what’s happening to the Pacific Ocean here).

The World Cancer Report 2014 has been published against the backdrop of all this, yet not a mention of it in the report. Of course not every cancer will be caused by radioactive poisons released by bombs and nuclear installations, yet the overwhelming evidence shows that the vast majority of them have been and will be. There are two reasons why the World Hate Organisation can get away with such an outrageous and criminal cover-up: A) a cancer can take up to forty years to develop in the body, and it’s almost impossible to definitively prove where the cancer agent came from; B) nuclear energy is not widely understood by the general public.

What happens in both a nuclear explosion and a nuclear reactor is alchemy: one element gets transmuted into other elements, elements that are man-made and do not exist in the natural world (which is probably why the psychopathic branch of the human race are so fascinated by nuclear energy). In this instance, though, we do not get gold as the end result. Instead we get incredibly toxic crap, that in many instances remains incredibly toxic for thousands, millions and in some cases for billions of years. This toxic alchemy in some cases produces completely new elements, such as plutonium (which is one of the most lethal substances on earth, with isotopes that have half-lifes that run into hundreds of thousands and millions of years – see my post about it here). In other cases this toxic alchemy produces new isotopes of existing elements, such as iodide-129, which has a half life of more than 15 million years. The point about such man-made isotopes is that they are lethal at the atomic level (it’s not like arsenic or cyanide, which work at the molecular level). Just one microscopic particle, if it gets inside the body, is enough to kill you. These isotopes do not dissolve or ‘disappear’, there’s no known technology that can neutralise them, and a rule of thumb is that they remain lethal for ten times what their half-life is; ie, iodine-129 remains lethal for 150 million years, which to all intents and purposes is for ever. These isotopes emit energy during their half-life, energy that can destroy living cells.

Let’s suppose you ingest a microscopic speck of plutonium-239 into your body (these are known as ‘hot particles’). It could have come from anything from that first atom bomb test in 1945, right through to the present Fukushima disaster. That speck of plutonium-239 could be damaging your cells for 40 years or more before a cancer develops. You may or may not survive that cancer. When you do eventually die, and you are buried or cremated, that speck of putonium-239 is released into the environment (you can’t destroy this stuff) and will eventually get inside a living creature again, and work its way through the food chain. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, which means it remains lethal for 240,000 years, and so the cycle of death, from just one microscopic particle, repeats itself almost ad infinitum. Do you see how this works?

In a sane world we wouldn’t be producing such lethal man-made isotopes in the first place, but the psychopaths want ‘the bomb’, so we have been producing them for the best part of 70 years now, under the banner of ‘protecting us from the enemy’ and ‘too cheap to meter power’ and all that rubbish. Even if the world did suddenly become sane, and we closed down every nuclear power installation, and collected every single nuclear warhead, and put all this crap in some kind of ‘safe’ storage (which would cost more than the world’s entire GDP), the genie is already out of the bottle, from all the bomb tests and nuclear accidents, particularly Fukushima, which continues to pour these lethal man-made isotopes into the environment unabated (there are many hundreds of tons of plutonium alone on site at Fukushima, enough to wipe out all life on earth many times over).

We may have already lost the game of atomic Russian roulette.

This entry was posted in Politics, Science and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Alchemy and Mass Murder

  1. Hi Rob, that was a bit too doom-laden for me I’m afraid, because there is a cure for cancer, it’s called Cannabis Oil, look it up, there is no longer any need for anyone to die of cancer 🙂
    http://www.hempworkscharityuk.org

  2. Rob Godfrey Rob Godfrey says:

    Hi Sarah. I’m not making these figures up. Things are already dire when it comes to cancer rates, and if this latest WHO report bears out we are looking at a modern-day Black Death: a quarter of the human race will be wiped out by cancer. The most jaw-dropping thing about it is that there’s no public outrage, or even understanding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *