Cancer incidence has risen in tandem with increased ionising radiation
There are 437 operative nuclear power plants world wide, and another 68 under construction. A dozen more are at the planning stage. Are we really so hungry for electricity that we are willing to risk annihilation to get it? What’s the point if generation after generation will suffer increased cancer rates?
It fairly hard to find historical data on cancer incidence.Cited near the bottom is an article that state circa 1900, 3 of 100 deaths were due to cancer.A chart from the town of Boston 1811 showed 5 cancer deaths of 942.. Link and picture is at the far bottom herein.
What are the current stats on cancer deaths? Honestly I haven’t included any information here except in links. I deem the answer to that question as so absurdly obvious to not deserve energy put into it.
How may people do you know who have cancer right now?
They try to avoid clear presentation of “incidences” of cancer, aka new cases. Some data is out there, but the spin is to try to show how Big Med/Big Pharma is “sucessful”.
================================================
This chart from the New England Journal of Medicine is telling [in original] Also this link
http://www.nejm.org/action/showMediaPlayer?doi=10.1056%2FNEJMp1113569&aid=NEJMp1113569_attach_1&area=&
There are 437 operative nuclear power plants world wide, and another 68 under construction. A dozen more are at the planning stage. Are we really so hungry for electricity that we are willing to risk annihilation to get it? What’s the point if generation after generation will suffer increased cancer rates?
– See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing-since-1945-shows-us-what-the-long-term-effects-of-fukushima-will-be_012014#sthash.Og2u1PPF.dpuf
Considering that Fukushima has released more radiation than 528 air detonation nuclear tests combined, and remembering that radiation from those tests is still affecting people around the globe to this day, the problems caused by Fukushima are going to be with us for generations.
There are 437 operative nuclear power plants world wide, and another 68 under construction. A dozen more are at the planning stage. Are we really so hungry for electricity that we are willing to risk annihilation to get it? What’s the point if generation after generation will suffer increased cancer rates?
There are 437 operative nuclear power plants world wide, and another 68 under construction. A dozen more are at the planning stage. Are we really so hungry for electricity that we are willing to risk annihilation to get it? What’s the point if generation after generation will suffer increased cancer rates?
– See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing-since-1945-shows-us-what-the-long-term-effects-of-fukushima-will-be_012014#sthash.Og2u1PPF.dpuf
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/cancer-cases-worldwide-increase/5200445/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=206567
New cancer cases worldwide expected to skyrocket
Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY February 4, 2014
Cancer deaths worldwide are predicted to rise from 8.2 million annually to 13 million a year with two decades, according to a new report.
Story Highlights
- New cancer cases will jump globally to 22 million cases annually in the next two decades
- Cancer prevention measures are needed, including tobacco cessation, report says
- Lung cancer accounted for 19% of total cancer deaths in 2012
The incidence of cancer worldwide is growing at an alarming pace, and there is an urgent need to implement strategies to prevent and curb the disease, according to a report from the World Health Organization.
======================================================
Indeed, one of the “One Liner Lies Abour Cancer” is that most of cancer can be blamed on us living longer. What a bunch of bunk.
http://phys.org/news/2010-10-scientists-cancer-purely-man-made.html
Finding only one case of the disease in the investigation of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, with few references to cancer in literary evidence, proves that cancer was extremely rare in antiquity. The disease rate has risen massively since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer – proving that the rise is not simply due to people living longer.
==========================================================
The year 1900: Cancer caused only 3 out 100 deaths in the
US. Breast cancer was basically unheard of.
– Food manufacturers began developing “better living
through chemistry” products like artificial sweeteners
(saccharin), taste additives (MSG), partially hydrogenated
vegetable shortening and margarine.
http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_there_more_cancer_today_than_hundred_years_ago
There are 437 operative nuclear power plants world wide, and another 68 under construction. A dozen more are at the planning stage. Are we really so hungry for electricity that we are willing to risk annihilation to get it? What’s the point if generation after generation will suffer increased cancer rates?
– See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing-since-1945-shows-us-what-the-long-term-effects-of-fukushima-will-be_012014#sthash.Og2u1PPF.dpuf
There are 437 operative nuclear power plants world wide, and another 68 under construction. A dozen more are at the planning stage. Are we really so hungry for electricity that we are willing to risk annihilation to get it? What’s the point if generation after generation will suffer increased cancer rates?
– See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing-since-1945-shows-us-what-the-long-term-effects-of-fukushima-will-be_012014#sthash.aka5Dlwk.dpuf
You can’t blame nuclear because it would hurt their feelings. They want to keep up the PR spin that no deaths and no diseases are caused by them. You are blowing that PR out the window…
Dr. Busby; 40 – 60 MILLION Downwinder Deaths Due To Global Open Air Nuclear Weapons Testing Fallout 1945 to 2003
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/04/40-60-million-deaths-due-to-global-open.html
—————————————————————————————–
Here is a good scientific reference
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21166/pdf
—————————————————————————————–
And here, a “stupid rat mother” (see link for information on how nuke promoters think that concerned mothers are ‘stupid rats’), well this stupid rat mother using Facebook puts a statistical survey together that a statistics professor at Northwestern deems .000000001 chance that it is random, showing massive cancers in St Louis after nuclear waste was allowed to leak out of rusting barrels.
It shows 750 cancers in a 4 square mile area, and 3 cojoined twins. Thanks nuclear.
http://archive.ksdk.com/news/article/358520/3/Cancer-cluster-map-of-St-Louis
1 Comment »
Leave a comment
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
The early US data ca 1900 was really well done. Most of the early cancers were stomach and breast, if I recall correctly. Some of the cancers could be immigrants from mining districts. They also used uranium to dye plates and bowls. Also, lead solder and smoked foods could cause cancer. There was also the radium fad. Cancers started to pick up even before the nuclear age because of radium and x-rays I think, but not at the present rate. Germany probably has good data. The foundations of much of sociology (and epidemiology) rest upon Durkheim’s work with German stats from the 1800s (i.e. “Suicide”).
LikeLike