APPALLING! Berkeley Must Comment!
US gov’t secretly injected people with plutonium — Disabled school children fed radioactive oatmeal (VIDEO)
Search
US gov’t secretly injected people with plutonium — Disabled school children fed radioactive oatmeal (VIDEO)
Impact Studies are Necessary
Death counts are a necessary component of war and defense assessments.
We have a clear need to know the consequences of our actions in peace and war.
Some USA experiments on humans have been unethical. The Tuskegee syphilis study, where a number of infected blacks were NOT treated with antibiotics is an example. Another poorly conceived project was the Pentagon funded LSD studies.
The bad aspects of a few 'medical experiments' conducted in the USA; pale beside the totally evil experiments conducted by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan during WWII. The human mistreatments under Communism in the USSR, China and elsewhere far overshadowed anything conducted in the 20th century by England, France, Canada or the USA.
This is pointed out to give context, not to justify bad acts or bad actors.
I would like a follow up
I would like a follow up study of all those who participated in this experiment to see if they are well or even alive today! The results would be worth having.
You can read about the incident here
You can read about the incident here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Fernald_State_School
The DOE Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments reported:
In 1946, one study exposed seventeen subjects to radioactive iron. The second study, which involved a series of seventeen related subexperiments, exposed fifty-seven subjects to radioactive calcium between 1950 and 1953. It is clear that the doses involved were low and that it is extremely unlikely that any of the children who were used as subjects were harmed as a consequence. These studies remain morally troubling, however, for several reasons. First, although parents or guardians were asked for their permission to have their children involved in the research, the available evidence suggests that the information provided was, at best, incomplete. Second, there is the question of the fairness of selecting institutionalized children at all, children whose life circumstances were by any standard already heavily burdened.
Not part of the weapon program
The article ascribes the enumerated experiments as part of the nuclear weapons program. This is FALSE; it was part of a program in medical uses of radioactivity.
The weapons program was engaged in designing and building devices that blow up. Knowing how plutonium is handled by the human body doesn't tell you how to make a better bomb. It's like saying knowing how organic compounds ( containing carbon ) are utilized by the body will help you make better chemical high explosives for conventional weapons because carbon is universally a constituent of high explosives.
NO - the AEC was looking at the medical applications of radioactivity. It's like condemning the early usage of X-ray machines for diagnostics. The doses from such machines at the time were much greater than today's diagnostic X-rays ( principally since film has been replaced with more sensitive solid state detectors ). However, contrary to the implication in the above article; there was no sinister intent by the medical practioners that carried on these experiments.
LIES by the Pro-nuke Wamonger Class (1%)
LIES! LIES! LIES! All to cover up the U.S. Goverment's COMPLICITLY in KILLING IT'S CITIZENS!
Read Jim Stone's detailed and VERY THROUGH INDEPENDENT investigations for the TRUTH! DO NOT believe THE LIES BRAWM and their government MASTERS are SPOON FEEDING YOU!
RESEARCH...REPEAT....RESIST...REVOLUTE!
If you are so smart...
If you are so smart; and you "think" that the plutonium studies were part of the weapons program, tell us how knowing what plutonium does in the human body helps scientists design a better nuclear weapon.
Actually the dispersal of
Actually the dispersal of radioactive materials rather than a destructive explosion was heavily researched for weapons potential so knowing what it does was extremely important hence the testing.
Dirty Bomb Distraction
Dispersing radioactive materials; i.e. a "dirty" bomb is well known as an ineffective weapon. Read the essay by UC Berkeley Dept of Physics Professor Richard Muller in "Technology Review" from MIT:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13651/
The biggest danger from radiological weapons is the misplaced panic that they would cause.
The same Jim Slone...
Is this the same Jim Slone that claims that the Fukushima earthquake was caused by Israel for some nefarious reason?
The conspiracy nuts have gone off their meds again.
Radiactive Oatmeal
This is an old news story. Researchers at MIT and Quaker Oats used radioactive calcium as a tracer to see how Oatmeal is metabolized in the body back in the '50s
The amount of radioactivity was very low; less than if you put banana slices on the oatmeal.
Radioactive tracers are a common medical diagnostic technique today.
The same methods are used in the "Nuclear Medicine" clinics of many hospitals.
However, this is good fodder for the anti-nukes that contend that any exposure, no matter how small, is appalling.
The Massachusetts Dept of Health looked into this back in the early '90s when DOE Secretary O'Leary made a big deal out of it; and concluded the children were unharmed.
MIT settled a lawsuit based on this for a "nuisance value" < 1% of what plaintiffs asked for ( enough to pay the lawyers ).
Because it's NOT "too dangerous"
I can't understand one thing when the radioactive is too much dangerous than why it is used.
===================
Radioactivity is NOT "too dangerous" when used for these purposes. Modern medicine uses X-rays all the time. You have to trade off the very minimal risks from the radiation with the much greater benefit of the diagnostic information.
Radiation isn't unique in the regard that it has an upside and a downside. Most medications have side-effects in addition to their medicinal benefit. Do we spurn the use of medications just because they have side effects?
Some people have to "grow up". They are looking for "free lunches". They only want things that have only upsides and no downsides. There's not much in the world that is so one sided as to only have benefits with no detractions.
All of us, including the children in the studies are all exposed to radiation courtesy of Mother Nature. For the risk of a little more, we get some needed information.
Some think they have to shun radiation in the least little bit. That means they should not live anywhere except at sea-level because as you go up in altitude, your radiation exposure increases. They can't fly in airliners, because that increases radiation exposure. They have to avoid naturally radioactive material, which is really hard because so many things are radioactive.
You wouldn't be able to drink wine and spirits; because they are radioactive. In fact, the Government won't let wine and spirits be sold that are not radioactive, because that would mean they were made from petroleum and not recently grown plant material. Check out the book "The Instant Physicist" by UC-Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller. Look at the page on Amazon and read the free "Look Inside" - it contains the pages explaining why wine and spirits have to be radioactive in order to be sold legally.