Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Scam Number ONE

Scam Number ONE

Ratings: (0)|Views: 29|Likes:
Published by pzimmer3
This document is an excerpt from the book "A Primer in the Art of Deception" describing how the public can be misled into believing a hazardous dose of radiation is safe.
This document is an excerpt from the book "A Primer in the Art of Deception" describing how the public can be misled into believing a hazardous dose of radiation is safe.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: pzimmer3 on Mar 17, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 A Primer in the Art of  Deception
The Cult ofNuclearists, Uranium Weaponsand Fraudulent Scienceby Paul Zimmerman
Copies ofthis book can be ordered at www.du-deceptions.comor by contacting the author at either du-deceptions@yahoo.comor P.O. Box 145, Lyndonville, NY 14098
What follows is an excerpt from
 A Primer in the Art ofDeception
. The chapter in which itappears is entitled
The Most Heinous Crime in History: The Betrayal ofMankind by the Radiation Protection Agencies.
Scam Number One
In Exhibits A through D, we have examined glaring shortcomings in the currentapproach to radiation safety as it applies to low doses ofinternal emitters. We have pin-pointed major flaws in the reigning paradigm ofhow radiation interacts with living cellu-lar structure, the way dosage is calculated, the research used to justify and perpetuate theseerrors, and the biological effects that the current system cannot adequately address. Withthis groundwork prepared, we can carry a torch into the heart ofdarkness ofthe nuclearage. Egregious malfeasance crouches silently within the answer to a single question:
Whydo radiation protection agencies continue to uphold an antiquated model ofhow internal emitters interact with living systems when assessing the hazards to health ofionizing radiation? 
In their book
 Radiation Protection Dosimetry: A Radical Reappraisal 
, Jack Simmons andDavid Watt are very generous in their assessment ofthe current state ofaffairs within theradiation protection community. They liken the continued reliance on “absorbed dose” forassessing low-level radiation effects to the planetary system developed by Ptolemy that per-petuated the false notion for 1,400 years that the Earth was the center ofthe universe. Inthe
published in the middle ofthe 2nd century A.D., Ptolemy presented a mathe-matical theory for the motions ofthe Sun, the Moon, and the planets. According to thetheory he proposed, the Earth was suspended in the center ofthe universe. The stars werefixed points oflight on the inside ofthe celestial sphere. The alternation ofthe day andthe night resulted from the rotation ofthe entire celestial system around the Earth. Toaccount for the motion ofthe Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn,Ptolemy proposed that the planets moved on small circular paths, the epicycles. The cen-ters ofthese epicycles, the imaginary points around which the planets circled, in turn orbit-ed the Earth along great circular paths called deferents. To fully account for the ongoing accumulation ofastronomical measurements, including the peculiar retrograde motion of 
The Most Heinous Crime in History
some ofthe planets, a number ofcorrection factors were periodically introduced into thesystem that compounded its complexity. Although unwieldy, the model was adhered to forfourteen centuries for its apparent accuracy in explaining observations and its ability toforecast future movements ofthe planets across the heavens. However, as the centuriespassed, astronomical measurements accumulated that produced increasing discrepanciesbetween observation and theory. By about 1500, many investigators doubted the correct-ness ofthe Ptolemaic system. This growing lack ofconfidence in established doctrine pro- vided fertile ground for the conceptual revolution introduced by Copernicus. To accountfor all available observations, Copernicus inaugurated a paradigm shift, proclaiming thatthe Sun was the center ofthe universe, and the Earth, spinning on its axis, circled the Sunalong with the other planets.Simmons and Watt argue that the current system for calculating dosages ofradia-tion and relating these dosages to observed biological effects is analogous to the Ptolemaicsystem. Over the last halfcentury, an enormous amount ofdata has accumulated on thebiological effects ofradiation. This expanded knowledge base has forced the introductionofmultiple correction factors into the models for calculating dosage and dose effects devel-oped during and after the Manhattan Project in order to rescue these models from obsoles-cence and irrelevance. At this point, according to Simmons and Watt, the current method-ology is unwieldy and incapable ofaccounting for the full range ofconfirmed observations.The time has arrived for a paradigm shift to bring theory more into line with observed phe-nomena.This explanation for the continued embrace ofan outdated model ofradiationeffects is naive. It fails to acknowledge and address the political interests that are so faith-fully served by the perpetuation ofthe timeworn model that the radiation protection agen-cies insist on clinging to. Given that the current system for determining dosages ofradia-tion and calculating biological effects does such an excellent job ofprotecting governmentand commercial nuclear programs from liability and criticism by the public, it is legitimateto ask whether another explanation exists as to why faulty models, out ofsynchronizationwith modern research, are allowed to dictate radiation safety.The thesis to be developed here is straightforward. The faultless work ofthe Tri-Partite Conferences and Subcommittee Two underwent a sinister metamorphosis in the years subsequent to its development at the hands ofgovernment scientists and administra-tors who were sympathetic to nuclear weapon development and the proliferation ofcom-mercial nuclear power. In response to the government initiative to impose nuclearism onits citizenry, sectors ofthe public, beginning in the mid-1950s and continuing up to today,began to acquire a rudimentary understanding ofradiation effects and embarked upon a

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->