BIOPHILE 16 â JUNE/JULY 2007 R25 - Biophile Magazine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Accuratescience is notused enough toback our causesubscribe to Biophile because I amI very concerned about our worldand the wanton destruction of nature,greed, pollution, global warming etc.I am concerned that far too often,science is not used to back our cause.Instead, Biophile often uses inaccurateor questionable “science” or “nonscience”in articles which is detrimentalto the “environmental movement” ingeneral and causes Biophile to losecredibility.For example, in the April/May2007 article “Smelter at Pelindaba”it is stated that “... this region willreceive an absolute minimum of140,000,000,000,000 [1.4 x 1014]minute, breathable, radioactive particles,delivered into the atmosphere ....”Shock and horror !This statement is completely meaninglessunless you also state what typeof particles and over what time periodthe figure refers.Rather than being shocked I amrelieved! 1.4 x 1014 is an almost insignificantamount of atomic or sub-atomicparticles!Recall that it requires an inconceivablylarge number, one Avogadronumber (6.02 x 1023 [602 000 000 000000 000 000 000.] of atoms or moleculesto make up one gram atom orgram molecule of the substance – eg1 g of Hydrogen, 18 g of Water, 238 gof Uranium etc.) so 1.4 x 1014 particlesrepresents only 2.33 x 10-10 gram atomor gram molecules of the unnamed substance.eg. only 0.000000000233 g ofHydrogen particles, 0.0000000042 g ofWater or 0.000000055 grams of Uraniumetc! Even if the time period referredto is only a second this is still insignificant!(Even then it would only amountto 0.007 g of Hydrogen or 1.75 g per yearof Uranium over a 1 year period).I have other concerns and queriesabout this article but the numbers mentionedabove are most significant.I suggest that you contact physicistsor engineers (but please not politiciansor lawyers…) who know aboutthe Pebble Bed Reactor, the Fuel Plantat Pelindaba and Nuclear Physics ingeneral to present the (scientific) facts.You may consider contacting Dr KevinINBox: our readers writeKemm (stratek@pixie.co.za) or Dr RobAdam Chief Executive of NECSA.Unfortunately you are trying to combineconservation and environmentalissues with mysticism, new age religion,astrology, spirit guides etc.Why not have two publications, onefor people interested in the environmentand science (health and foodissues could easily be included) and onefor those interested in new age or oldage religion, mysticism, superstitionetc. They actually don’t mix.But keep up the great environmentalwork. The magazine’s heart is in theright place!Ron SmytheLeaving aside for a moment the “extreme”mathematics, that most of us do not evenwish to understand, let’s begin with thefundamental problem we all face.The emissions from the proposed Pelindabasmelter will be minute, invisible,odourless, highly radioactive in substanceand poses extremely dangerous healththreats to all living beings. These minuteparticles are small enough to bypass theHepa filters and escape through the highstacks at Pelindaba, from where theyenter our collective atmosphere and aredispersed into the region spreading aswind borne seeds of cancer. In the formthat they are emitted by the smelter theseuranium radioactive particles can be easilyingested and will remain dangerouslyradioactive for several hundred thousandyears – whilst they decay (inside oroutside your body) they change into other,even more deadly compounds of uraniumderivates.Contrary to soothing statements frequentlyuttered by Nuclear proponents thatAlpha particles can’t penetrate clothes andskin (inferring they are safe), The UraniumMedical Research Centre USA stateunequivocally “this statement ignoresthe most prevalent and dangerouspathway for uranium to get into thehuman body. Inhaled uranium canremain in the lungs and bones foryears where it continues to emitalpha, beta and gamma radiation.Each alpha particle can traverse upto several hundred cells causing somaticand genetic alterations.”The Canadian Coalition for NuclearResponsibility concurs: “Uranium isnot harmful outside the body -- butneither is E-coli. The “alpha rays”given off by uranium are stoppedcompletely by a sheet of paper or bya person’s clothing or skin, so thereis no external exposure hazard.”“Inside the body, however, alpharadiation is the most potent carcinogenicagent known to science --twenty times more damaging than x-rays or gamma rays. Large numbersof miners and radium workers havebeen killed by internal exposure tominute quantities of alpha-emittingradioactive materials, causing lungcancer, bone cancer and a variety ofblood diseases including leukemia.”So health threats from the PelindabaSmelter are very clear – the precise numbersof particles that are released intothe atmosphere is academic, on NECSA’sversion they are guesstimates, on anyone’sversion there are too many to count.The critical issue is this; if you are one ofthose unfortunate people who will breathein a couple of these minute radioactiveparticles, this will be extremely damagingto your health - it is difficult to avoidbreathing – unless NECSA has anothersuggestion, so it is a risk we are forced totake. Every year the risks increase becauseevery year the cumulative amounts of radioactiveparticles increase – they are withus to stay for so long it is almost impossibleto imagine.We live with all sorts of threats on a dailybasis and deal with them as best we can,but the NECSA smelter is a totally unnecessaryhazard that is merely a moreconvenient and cheaper method of dealingwith waste for NECSA but could be dealtwith quite safely by encapsulation of radioactivewaste and regular monitoring.But why should NECSA pay more to safeguardour health – they will not – certainlynot while we continue to tolerate whatthey are doing to us and our children andtheir children for countless generations.Health and lives in the nuclear industryare commodities to be traded against theexpense in rands and cents – smeltersare cheaper and more convenient thanthe safe alternative; if we continue to becomplacent these smelters will happen, infact they were on site long before the EIAwas completed, let alone a decision made.That means WE all have to do somethingto make the EIA process meaningful,laws need to be changed and loop holestightened up, most of all we need to act asa community.Now the numbers! On NECSA’s documentedversion the estimated Uraniumemissions alone amount to 5 000 gramsof contaminated Uranium emissions and360 grams of pure uranium, that’s justfrom the existing 16 000 tons of radioactivewaste that has been lying aroundPelindaba for several decades – the rest isspeculation. That, in terms of Avogadronumbers, for Ron Smythe and who everwould like the math’s, equates to 5 360x 6.022 141 99 x 1023 “gram molecules”or, if you prefer plain numbers 30,110,706 Biophile Issue 16
INBox: our readers write9,950,000,000,000,000,000,000 grammolecules of uranium contaminated emissionsalone over 10 years – that averages95,480,434,899,797,000,000 releases ofgram molecules per second – assuming ofcourse that NECSA is not grossly underestimatingthe quantity of Uranium in theemissions.And that is not all you need to worryabout – there are various other poisonousemissions which do not even feature inthose numbers.The fact that Ron Smythe tries to blindreaders with big numbers, goes off on atangent with new age, mysticism and superstition,smacks of renewed attempts bythe pro nuclear lobby to use such pueriletactics to disseminate false comfort to thepublic and discredit true environmentalistswho give their time freely for a cleaner,safer world for all.Ron Smythe, finally refers your readers totwo impeccable sources of unbiased scientificinformation – forgive the sarcasm.What else can Rob Adam, NECSA’s CEO dobut give you his slanted pro nuclear view?As for recommending Dr Kelvin Kemm,climate change denialist, spokesman andapologist for the nuclear industry, perhapsalso a card carrying member of theflat earth society…I can’t help but wonder what truly liesbehind Ron Smythe’ s interest in protectingthe nuclear industry from well earnedcriticism.Christine GarbettPelindaba Working Groupread the letter written by Dr. A. MarshI (Biophile 15, page 7) with a lot ofinterest. The author quotes therapistssaying that dog aggression is likediabetes: incurable. Yes, sometimesaggressive behaviour in dogs isincurable and I will explain why. But inmany other cases it is curable.“Aggressive” dogs do not exist. Dogsshowing aggressive behaviour certainlydo exist. As a professional dog listenerand former owner of three trainingschools for dog owners, I have workedfor many years with thousands of clientsand their dogs. I want to share with youtwo conclusions based upon personalexperienceFirst: Many dog owners simply do notknow how to behave correctly with theirpets. The distance between our way oflife in big cities on the one hand andMother Nature on the other, is for manypeople too big.Second: We are being brainwashedby multinational food and drug companieswho are constantly trying to turnus (together with our dogs) into junkies.What is being advertised as “natural” orAggressive dogsdo not exist“wholesome” is very often just chemicaljunk. Processed food manufacturersand pharmaceutical companies use thesame advertising firms and are bothusing direct image-based advertising toconsumers.Today all the major pet food brandsare owned by producers of processedfood like Proctor and Gamble, Unilever,Colgate-Palmolive and Philip Morris.The “information” on bags and cansof pet food reads like a Frankensteinstory about derivatives, colouringagents, preservatives, by-products,flavouring agents and “approved” additives.“Approved” often means approved bya self-appointed body of pet food manufacturers.These self-appointed bodieshave names like “Pet Food Institute”,thereby creating the impression thatthey are independent organizations.In hundreds of cases I have dealtwith so-called “bad” dogs. I witnessedmany times that switching the dog froma commercial brand to natural food caninfluence his/her behaviour and stateof health positively in a short time. Inother words: food influences the dogs’behaviour.Even better results in changing thedogs’ behaviour are obtained if the dogowner changes the WAY he/she servesthe food. If the owner respects the basicrules of the feeding ritual in a pack ofwolfs, the dog(s) will respect him/her asthe pack leader.I want to share with you a personalexperience.One of my dogs is a Labrador male.The former owner wanted to put him tosleep because he was an “aggressive”dog. Four months after his adoptionhe won the first of several trophies inagility competition. As some of you willknow, you can only compete in officialchampionships if your dog has passedthe “good citizen” test. My Labradorpassed the test with flying colours. Hedid not even show aggression when thejudges took him away from me, tied himto a fence and threatened him. He stillis a very loyal and very obedient memberof my canine pack.Bruno A. Goffin, Dog listener,JohannesburgBiophile Issue 167
Page 3 and 4: Biophile Magazineis published every
Page 5 and 6: All bent and twisted!We couldn’t
Page 10 and 11: Dolphin Encountourswww.dolphin-enco
Page 12 and 13: ARTICLE TITLE GOES HEREthe biofiles
Page 15 and 16: BIOFILESWhy are swimmingpool worker
Page 17 and 18: BIOFILESOne wind turbinepowers 4000
Page 19 and 20: Africa. The cold Atlantic ocean cle
Page 21 and 22: ments and conversation?”Yes, I do
Page 23 and 24: Confuciuspoor; crime in the streets
Page 25 and 26: four years or so, has work here bee
Page 27 and 28: have been working with compressed e
Page 29 and 30: tion of a city dedicated to human u
Page 31 and 32: call themselves a spiritual communi
Page 33 and 34: Green DirectoryProducts and Service
Page 35 and 36: Creating holistic architectureby ho
Page 37 and 38: Confessions ofa ConvertedCarrot Cru
Page 39 and 40: NEW “mind-blowing” revelations!
Page 41 and 42: EdenCampusNewsletterWhen we decided
Page 43 and 44: een fully exploited and will contin
Page 45 and 46: a global project of healing intenti
Page 47 and 48: Paint is the general term for a fam
Page 49 and 50: Thereis nothinglike havinga little
Page 51 and 52: live in the present moment and that
Page 53 and 54: turbed for 10 minutes, then stir in
Page 55 and 56: About SchoolHe always wanted to exp
Page 57 and 58:
Patients can report statins’ adve
Page 59 and 60:
tions in burns often tailed to resp
Page 61 and 62:
Asimple bottle of shampoo... a true
Page 63 and 64:
Food from treesOur indigenous trees
Page 65 and 66:
Books to Change Your LifeTelos : Th
show all

BIOPHILE 16 â JUNE/JULY 2007 R25 - Biophile Magazine

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?

BIOPHILE 16 â JUNE/JULY 2007 R25 - Biophile Magazine