Fukushima Fallout Causing 14,000 Deaths in US

Update on Fukushima:
230 tons of radioactive waste found in a tunnel underneath the crippled nuclear plant;
Reactor 4 collapasing;
Current count on US deaths due to fallout at 14,000; by Dr. Sherman: Internist and Toxicologist.

Since the Berkley crew readily admits that they are not 'health professionals' we should assume that it would be unprofessional of any of the team who are not 'health professionals' to comment on a study by 'health professionals' in any manner other than lay personnel. We would, however appreciate comments from any actual 'health professionals' on this current finding. (Please list credentials)

Pro & Anti

It is rather stupidly simplistic to invoke ‘Anti-Nuclear’ as a universal pejorative.

One may favor ‘medical research’, while opposing the lethal human experimentation Josef Rudolf Mengele and Unit 731.

Similarly, honorable men of good will, may support some nuclear applications and oppose others.

I ‘draw the line’ at GE Mark-1 and MOX fuel. Neither is particularly acceptable, but the combination is deadly.

Why do you oppose MOX?

Why do you oppose MOX? Even if you fuel a reactor with only uranium, you end up with a certain proportion of the fuel in the reactor being what is essentially MOX.

In fact, in the 3+ years that an average fuel assembly spends in the reactor, about 40% of the energy one derives comes from fissioning Plutonium.

The MOX was created by the reactor, the only difference is that the neutron absorbing material that inhibits the chain reaction is removed during the recycling operation.

By recycling MOX, you end up fissioning the Plutonium into short-lived fission products as opposed to having a very long lived radioisotope in your waste stream.

Contrary to the propaganda of the anti-nukes, MOX doesn't promote nuclear weapons proliferation or other claimed ills. The anti-nukes oppose it because it is truly the solution to the nuclear waste issue which they would like to exacerbate instead of solve.

MOX opposition is intelligent

MOX opposition is intelligent

MOX dangers are inherent and intractable. These hazards have been thoroughly discussed in this BRAWM Forum.

Arguments for MOX deployment are deceptive and have been repeatedly discredited.

Can you be specific??

Can you be specific, and not just say it's intractable and already discussed?

There's a lot of propaganda out there about MOX promulgated by the anti-nukes, and it is propaganda. MOX is a way of reducing the longevity of nuclear waste, and is essentially the solution to the nuclear waste issue. The last thing in the world the anti-nukes want is a solution to nuclear waste.

Contrary to the above, MOX has not been discredited, especially among scientists. MOX is a way of recycling spent fuel for Light Water Reactors. Fast reactors like Argonne National Lab's Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) also can recycle their spent fuel.

Scientists support recycling spent fuel, either MOX for LWRs, or as the IFR does.
Instead of reading the anti-nuke propaganda, please see what a real scientist like Argonne's Dr. Charles Till has to say in this PBS Frontline interveiw:


Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.

Scientists like Dr. Till of Argonne National Lab support the recycling of spent fuel.

Mindless Repetition

Three more GE Mark-1 Reactor systems failed in Japan, at Fukushima Daichi.

Every pressure vent system failed, one causing total destruction of a reactor that was out of service.

6 for 6 Reactors in the complex, all Mark-1 or Mark-2 are kaput.

The land, air, groundwater and sea are hammered as survivable for any living species.

And you want a repeat lesson on MOX to again 'not understand'.

It is irrational to 'up the risk', when on a losing streak, such as the disaster prone, nuclear power generation industry.

Sorry, not interested in playing that (Explain MOX hazards) game today.

Perhaps some other time.


just point here:

MOX fuel - details that matter....

The universal anti-nuke cop-out!

Sorry, not interested in playing that (Explain MOX hazards) game today.

Perhaps some other time.

Once again we see the typical universal anti-nuke cop-out.

If the answer is so simple, one would think that the anti-nuke would just give the simple response.

However, what we get above is the universal cop-out of "I'm not playing that game", "It's too obvious...", or a whole host of other cop-outs that I've heard countless other times on multiple public forums.

It's just the anti-nuke's way of saying that they are totally clueless and incapable of giving a reasoned response.

I've seen it innumerable times.

Getting Chilly

I remain a TEPID supporter for continued use of nuclear technology in medical, space, taggant, food irradiation and so forth.

Gradually, the incessant Pro-Nuke misrepresentations have reduced the level of support for nuclear powered electrical generation to a lower temperature. Perhaps 'chilly' now more accurately describes my present view of the 'Hot Water to Steam' applications. While the THEORY and Techology have some use, the difficulty is that the Power Generation groups appear to be criminal elements or perhaps sanity challenged and truth deficient.

The ongoing lack of candor and/or plausibility are to blame. The present roll of industry players is simply not credible.

So, let's just move that 'nuclear renaisance back a decade or two. These guys cannot be trusted to carry the ball, at present. Just a bunch of bad apples, inappropriately left in charge of a potentially dangerous business.

True. Sad and Chilly.

Reminds me of the 2005 flick 'Thank You for Smoking' where Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) spins on behalf of cigarettes. There is a difference though, 'Nick' engaged. These venom spitting nastybots pretty much just attack.

I guess just the existence of this forum offends /scares them or those they work for. Sad. No doubt the genuine members of the nuclear community are saddened by these PR attack dogs.

The disservice they perform grows with each attack. Perhaps that is part of the ultimate intent.

One really has to question...

One really has to question the intelligence of someone that makes determinations as to questions of national import based on the anonymous postings of a public forum.

I already question the sincerity of someone that begins every post with the disclaimer that they are a tepid supporter of nuclear power; and then mindlessly parrots the anti-nuclear party line.

Thankfully the decisions as to the future course of energy productions in this nation will not be made by such disingenuous individuals.

Times that try men’s souls

“These are the times that try men’s souls.”

“Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the DOCTRINE ITSELF, not the MAN. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.”

COMMON SENSE Introduction to the Third Edition

“These are the times that try men’s souls.”

Thomas Paine Philadelphia, February 14, 1776

Questions are good...

but I sense something like confusion:

............."Thankfully the decisions as to the future course of energy productions in this nation will not be made by such disingenuous individuals."

For better or worse decisions about civilian nuclear power generation are directly and indirectly made by elected representatives. Of course your ...dream? .... of money or a totalitarian state making nuclear power decisions is not far from the reality or the effect.

attack dog

here's a bone

Naive, delusional,

Naive, delusional, well-intentioned fool. Don't you know where you are? NEVER allow trivial, messy, destructive things like facts, research or educated conclusions to get in the way of irresponsible accusations, uninformed speculation or outright fabrications. Science has no business impeding the progress of politically advantageous activism, you goose.

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa

(Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault)

You are, of course, correct. What was I thinking that I should let science, logic, and intellect interfere with politically advantageous activism.

I beg the indulgence of this forum.

Badger the Jury


I have spent too much time in the laboratory setting, to be badgered into accepting a dangerous propostion, by some moron.

Denial is not a river in Egypt. It may be the strongest force in the universe.

I am not allied with or beholding to Pro or Anti nuclear groups, and do not particularly trust either.

There are lots of ways to boil water. This particular method can wait a few decades.

Perhaps it will be possible to raise a more honorable nuclear power generation industry at a later date.


We lost another anti-nuke...

Oh well.

We just lost another anti-nuke that isn't going to change their predetermined opinion.

Again one wonders why some would make up their minds based on the anonymous postings on some public forum about matters of national import.

Delicate creatures these anti-nukes; so easy to offend.

No great loss.


A pro rational thinking person was disabused of the idea of engaging in intelligent discourse (on this huge issue) with your pack. Not a loss, a creation. Please take credit.

"Anti-Nuke, Reality Distortion Field" Sock Puppet

I think the "anti-nuke, reality distortion field" poster is a Corporate Sock Puppet in the employ of the nuclear power industry. It exhibits all the characteristics: Firstly, he never addressed the subject, the data in the forum topic, and instead attempts, (fairly successfully) to change the discussion into a new topic, ie. Mox fuel dangers. He uses character assassination in an attempt to discredit the authors of the paper cited without addressing the data, insults posters and uses simplistic and ultimately meaningless pejoratives in order to cast doubt on posters opinions without directly addressing their concerns. He has added nothing of value to any of the forum participants while filling the forum with his angry insults. He has yet to add even one thing about the forum topic: 'The number of possible deaths in the US attributable to Japan's nuclear catastrophe'.
He has, in fact, been able to completely stop any discussion about the published paper. I suppose he has earned his wage. It is unfortunate we have to tolerate his sort of spam. Indeed, one wonders why we would even respond to his postings like:
"anonymous postings on some public forum... Delicate creatures these anti-nukes; so easy to offend. No great loss." (Incidentally, if he is not a sock puppet he has really missed his calling.)
I would still like to read the comments of persons qualified to discuss this epidemiological paper and those with genuine concerns. Perhaps our Corporate Sock Puppet and whoever else the 'we' he refers to will just go away and let us get on with what we've all come here to learn and discuss.

Yes - let's learn...

Perhaps our Corporate Sock Puppet and whoever else the 'we' he refers to will just go away and let us get on with what we've all come here to learn and discuss.

Yes - let's learn. The readers of this forum should all learn the anti-nuke propaganda in a one-sided discussion led by the local anti-nukes. After all, this is what is called "Free Speech" in Berkeley, isn't it.

We need to banish all those that attempt to give some balance to the discussion because they are just "corporate sock puppets", and unworthy to have a say in "Free Speech", which is only for the self-righteous.

The Actual paper



Fact or fiction I believe it to be worthy of study .Tdm

It's worth of study. I'm

It's worth of study. I'm checking the database the authors used and it seems that just by comparing with 2009, the supposed increase in reported deaths does not exist?


Of course, we would also have to take into consideration the cities that were not included:

"Weeks 50 (prior year)–11
The analysis includes 104 cities (all 122 in the CDC report except Baton Rouge,
Louisiana; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Camden, New Jersey; Charlotte, North Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Fort Worth, Texas; Miami,Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; Pasadena, California; Peoria, Illinois; Phoenix, Arizona; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Rochester, New York; Trenton, New Jersey; Washington, DC; and Wichita, Kansas.)"

"Weeks 12–25
The analysis includes 119 cities (all 122 in the CDC report except Fort Worth, Texas;New Orleans, Louisiana; and Phoenix, Arizona). "

Those whining Americans.....

Just look at what Northern Europe, a very technical and competent lot, had to put up with. At least they REALLY DID DO the homework.

With HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars at stake the thinking man looks for the best viewpoint unsullied with ties to the players with a stake in the game.

Wait.... Sweden got dumped on AND did the homework ! Santa has brought us a gift truly paid for by the Europeans. Let's take it and put it to work for our prognostication shall we ?

As I recall it was possible to use the level of Cs-137 deposited in the soil in a calculation to determine the INCREASE in cancer cases.......

IN SPITE of a complete 'lay down' from da gov, some kind and bright folks here have come up with seemingly good numbers for at least local deposition rates of Cs-137.

So using the Swedish study
and our local data we can derive our VERY OWN epidemiological forecast for new cancer cases.

To forecast death rates the 'new cancer cases' would require further prognostication.

Anyone ?

Tondel estimated a 10%

Tondel estimated a 10% increase in cancer rates per 100,000 Bq/m2 of Cesium-137.

Since the ratio of 137Cs to 134Cs was 2:1 after Chernobyl, that means 10% increase in cancer rates per 150,000 Bq/m2 of both 137Cs and 134Cs.

I think in the US the maximum deposition was something like 250 Bq/m2 of both 137Cs plus 134Cs.

That would mean a 0.166% increase in cancer rates.

If we assume that cancer rate is something like 25%, the increased cancer rate would be something like 25.064%?

cancer rate increase nationwide

If we use your figure of 0.166%, a 40% cancer rate, and about 300 million people in the US... then... that comes to:

    199,200 additional cancers.

Now, a COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND ADDITIONAL CANCERS may not be a lot of cancer to you, unless of course YOU get one of those cancers. That figure doesn't include secondary health effects of exposure, which is a much higher number.

Yeah, well. If we use 40%

Yeah, well. If we use 40% cancer rate we end with:

120,000,000 cancers (± whatever)

How many of those are caused by air pollution generated by cars, chemical additives in food or obesity? That figure doesn't include secondary health effects of exposure, which is a much higher number.

I don't see people running in fear when they get their cars to buy a hamburger. Of course, you can choose not to eat junk food, but good luck not breathing.

Anyway, 250 Bq/m2 of radioactive cesium was a random number, so I don't know why you get so worked up by the the result of an estimation that:

a) It's based on nothing
b) Assumes that you can extrapolate increased cancer incidence from levels of fallout thousands of times higher.

I don't know if you can convert BRAWM data from Bq/Kg to Bq/m2, but the average seems to be around 2Bq/Kg. How much is that, 100 Bq/m2 in one of the most exposed areas of the whole country?

Yeah, we looked at that on

Yeah, we looked at that on another thread a while back. The only difference I recall is that I believe that baseline cancer incidence is more like 40%.

Either way, the increase here appears to be quite small, and I really like the fact that this is "experimentally supported" data - real world observations from a very similar event. Hard to argue with.

BC 12/26

Eminent Radiation Epidemiologist, Dr. John Boice

The truly authoritative specialist would not be just a "health professional", but a radiation epidemiologist. One of the most eminent in the field is Dr. John Boice, which is why he was invited to testify to Congress on Fukushima:


Dr. Boice testifies:

The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor

The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent

Don't settle for just any old "health professional", there are some that are driven more by their politics than by any concerns for giving unbiased information.

Radiation epidemiologists are the professional scientists that are devoted to the scientific study of radiation on public health. Dr. Boice is one of the most stellar.

Fake Scientists

Kyoto university students get enraged at fake scientist


Posted by Mochizuki on November 19th, 2011 • 10 Comments

Dr. Shimada Yoshinari from the National Institute of Radiological Sciences had a lecture at Kyoto University on 10/1/2011. Shimada Yoshinari is famous for being a false scientist. He spreads lies on NHK, such as even if an infant is exposed to 30 mSv/h, it is not harmful at all.

Unlike Tokyo University, Kyoto University students were concerned about their reputation to let him use the name of their university. They did not want their university to get involved in the murder. They asked the university to cancel the lecture, but university ignored their petition.

Students tried to attend the lecture to give rational questions to the false scientist, but they were stopped from entering.

The video above shows what happened when they had a fight in front of the gate.

Reprint Publication: 'US Deaths Radioactive Plume from Fukushima

Press release: http://www.radiation.org/press/pressrelease111219FukushimaReactorFallout...

Reprint: "December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services"

It's a anti-nuke organization

Mangano is a well known anti-nuclear activist. Radiation.org and Mangano's
"Tooth Fairy Project" are just anti-nuclear activist organizations with no real scientific credentials.

They put up websites that "look" respectable, and they publish articles in ersatz journals to give a look of scientific respectability.

However, don't be fooled. When you see an article published in some journal; check to see if the journal is published by a respected scientific or professional society.

If you are looking for good medical information; you look for articles published in JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. JAMA is associated with the AMA - the American Medical Association which is the professional society of physicians.

Any old charlatan can publish in the "Journal of American Medicine" or some other official sounding title. I just now made up the "Journal of American Medicine". Charlatans do the same.

That's why you should look always for the backing of a legitimate medical society.

Likewise with scientific publications. Don't be fooled by the charlatans that make up journals to publish their own non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed tripe.

Have you even Read the "tooth fairy"study

You can't discredit that study you haven't even come close try again with some facts.tdm

Mangano and Sherman again???

We already discussed Mangano and Sherman on this forum before:


Posters here, as well as the statistician for "counterpunch" showed how Mangano and Sherman "cooked" the statistics and "cherry-picked" data.

The tip-off to this dishonest scholarship was that they cited statistics for 4 weeks before Fukushima and 10 weeks after ( or the other way around ). Why not equal number of weeks before and after?

The statistician for "counterpunch" showed that the reason was because they "cherry-picked" in the statistics and skewed the results to favor their predetermined opinion. If you don't "cherry-pick" the data, but use equal number of weeks before and after, the claimed effect is non-existent.

They've been shown to be frauds and charlatans, so why do people continue to cite them?

address the subject not the messenger

address the subject not the messenger.
Read the publication: 14 weeks before and 14 weeks after

Dishonesty again

Again, if we were in a court of law, and a witness was shown to have committed perjury in a previous trial; do you think that is not relevant?

The above post did address the substance. An impartial group of scientists, the National Cancer Institute, studied the same issue and reached the opposite conclusion.

I will put my faith in legitimate impartial scientists from a respected organization over a couple of anti-nuke activists that have repeatedly been caught lying on this issue.


Sorry - but when you find authors that are willing to "cook the books" and "cherry pick" the data; how can you trust anything in the paper.

If you have authors that have been caught lying and cheating; there's really no reason to address the data in the paper because it all may be lies.

Why don't we see what real honest scientists say, instead of reading papers full of lies formulated to bolster a predetermined opinion.

Tooth Fairy widely condemned / discredited by scientists

The Tooth Fairy Project has been widely condemned and discredited by scientists. From the Health Physics Society:


Mangano and Tooth Fairy are scientific charlatans.

The National Cancer Institute study referred to in the HPS response totally discredits everything that Tooth Fairy Project says.

The conclusions of the National Cancer Institute [ NCI ] study can
be viewed at:


which summarizes the findings as follows:

" 'From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of
any increased risk of death from any of the cancers we surveyed
due to living near nuclear facilities,' said John Boice,Sc.D., who
was chief of NCI's Radiation Epidemiology Branch at the time of
the survey."

One can learn of the specific faults of the "Tooth Fairy Project"
identified by scientists if one follows the online scientific forums
hosted by McMasters University and RADSAFE at the University
of Pittsburgh:


Professor Jerry Rosen of the University of Pittsburgh Department of
Environmental and Occupational Health points out:

"Unfortunately, there is no one associated with the Tooth Fairy Project
that has an understanding of environmental transport.

In general, Sr-90 is bound in the top layers of the soil making it
available for root uptake. Florida, because of high rainfall levels,
tends to have soils that are mineral deficient. As a result plants
tend to scavenge available minerals including chemical congeners
such as cesium and strontium as replacements for potassium and

Professor Rosen offers an alternate explanation for the results observed
by the Tooth Fairy Project. The principals of the Tooth Fairy Project
failed to control for the above effect and merely assumed a causal
attribution to nuclear power plants.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also reviewed the Tooth
Fairy Study and concluded, "The NRC staff has reviewed the
1996 study and concludes that it provides no new evidence that
links Strontium-90 with increases in breast cancer, prostate
cancer or childhood cancer rates. [ Environmental Scoping
Summary Report, dated March 29, 2001 ]

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also concluded, "There is
little reason to believe that airborne emissions from any civilian
nuclear power plant are contributing to childhood cancer in
populations living near these plants"

The following organizations also refute the Tooth Fairy Project:

The American Cancer Society
The National Cancer Institute
The National Institutes of Health
American Academy of Pediatrics
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Health Physics Society

I'm very well familiar with the misinformation promulgated by the Tooth Fairy Project. My fellow scientists and I have been refuting their drivel for years.

Why no link to NRC

Thank You

Thank You - a very informative link from the NRC.

Ty for links

Good to see some data all though the drivel you provided is less than compelling dead links,lack of data.if your really taking the position sr90 has no link to cancer show me a peer reviewed study that shows ingestion of strontium and zero long term effects . I read some of the tooth study and found it to have more to do with fallout that baby boomers encountered from weapons testing than living next to npp's.tdm


Funny, since I've heard the principals of the Tooth Fairy Project address this.

They've been question about whether the strontium they detected might not be from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. They stated that it couldn't be from weapons tests since there hadn't been any weapons tests since the early '60s and the strontium had all decayed away.

Strontium-90 has a 29 year half-life, and it had been less than 2 half-lives at the time; so contrary to the Tooth Fairy Project, there was still considerable Sr-90 from weapons tests in the environment and they couldn't blame it just on nuclear power plants.

National Cancer Institute: No Excess Mortality...


No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities

The NCI survey showed that, in comparison with the control counties, some of the study counties had higher rates of certain cancers and some had lower rates, either before or after the facilities came into service. None of the differences that were observed could be linked with the presence of nuclear facilities. "From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased risk of death from any of the cancers we surveyed due to living near nuclear facilities," said John Boice, Sc.D., who was chief of NCI's Radiation Epidemiology Branch at the time of the survey.

He cautioned, however, that the counties may be too large to detect risks present only in limited areas around the plants. "No study can prove the absence of an effect," said Dr. Boice, "but if any excess cancer risk due to radiation pollution is present in counties with nuclear facilities, the risk is too small to be detected by the methods used."


RE: Tooth Fairy Projects - another scare

Concerning the Tooth Fairy Project:

"The authors do not appear to have released any supporting data and seem to have reached their conclusions before completing their research," Mr. Stewart wrote. The study has yet to be subjected to peer review, he added.

National Cancer Institute link:


"The NCI survey showed that, in comparison with the control counties, some of the study counties had higher rates of certain cancers and some had lower rates, either before or after the facilities came into service. None of the differences that were observed could be linked with the presence of nuclear facilities. "From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased risk of death from any of the cancers we surveyed due to living near nuclear facilities," said John Boice, Sc.D., who was chief of NCI's Radiation Epidemiology Branch at the time of the survey."

Dr. Boice's job makes him biased

Yes, Thank you: Dr. Boice is Scientific Director of the International Epidemiology Institute (EIE).
Until October 15, 2000, IEI listed "Corporate Counseling" and "Litigation Support" among the list of services published on its website. (http://www.ieiltd.com/info.htm; accessed 3/4/04) Vanderbilt University.
The EIE exists to support the nuclear industry as does Bekeley Nuclear Eng. Dept. Dr. Boice is driven by his politics and his finances through his employment by the IEI.

Baloney - why do anti-nukes slander good scientists?

The EIE exists to support the nuclear industry....

Baloney - why do the anti-nukes continually slander good scientists.

The EIE is actually funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI):


"The International Epidemiology Institute is a unique highly experienced biomedical research organization founded in 1994 by senior scientists from the National Cancer Institute, U.S.A. IEI provides state-of-the-science expertise for addressing the complex biomedical issues that confront both the public and private sectors, universities, and other institutions in today's rapidly changing world

All senior staff hold faculty positions in the Department of Medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center and in the Vanderbilt-Ingram Comprehensive Cancer Center. IEI enjoys a unique relationship with Vanderbilt University and its research-rich environment and staff.


I think it is really contemptible to say that scientific organizations at great universities like Vanderbilt and UC-Berkeley are driven by politics and finances rather than a commitment to good science.

Universities are for the study and advancement of knowledge and not to support any particular industry.

I think it is really contemptible of the anti-nukes to make the claim that these scientists are biased when the only evidence that they have is that they don't propagate the ill-founded propaganda of the anti-nukes.

If the ignorant, arrogant anti-nukes have some real evidence, then bring it forward. However, if their only "evidence" is that they don't ignorantly parrot the anti-nuke party line; then that is evidence of nothing and the anti-nukes should hold their tongues.

One can clearly see how desperate the anti-nukes are when they foster this type of flimsy accusation.

Universities' Contemptable Changing Role

The Public Universities' role is no longer as you suggest, when you state: "Universities are for the study and advancement of knowledge and not to support any particular industry." The change occurred during the Reagan Administration. Government funding for research began drying up at that time and the research funding options available then were primarily through corporate financing. This functionally stopped all 'pure research' leaving only corporate sponsored 'applied research'. It was a wholesale giveaway to the corporatization (privatization) of our Public University system. The Universities no longer exist soley for the "study and advancement of knowledge" but now largely function for the advancement of increasing corporate profit. They no longer are "not to support any particular industry" but are supporting the particular industries which supply the money for the research. Researchers not only receive their funding from corporate sponsors, but are now allowed to be paid directly through stocks, expenses and other forms of renumeration. Professors that stayed and receive corporate funding are now functionally employees of their corporate sponsors who direct their activities as corporations do with all their employees. All knowledge from the Universities used to be 'public domain' and was freely available to everyone, now it can be patented, owned and controlled by the corporation that supplied the funding. The 'Old University System' is lost and the 'New University System' is owned and controlled by the corporations who supply the funding.
I have personal knowledge in this area as I held an appointment in a public university when the change happened. I, along with many of the best teachers and researchers left the public system. I cannot speak for the others, but my reason for leaving is that I am not interested in research which is primarily designed to advance corporate profit, I am not willing to give up my freedom of inquiry and have my activities be directed by the corporations, and I have no interest in generating bogus data for the corporations in order to justify their activities.
Everyone in a Public University knows this, but very few are willing to discuss it publicly. It may break up your fantasy myth, but many things are changing rapidly now. Try to avoid being affected by normalcy bias and try to relax, your anger is very hard on your liver and heart.

If the above were true, why do we spend billions on UC?

The above comment is easily disprovable. One can look at the financial records of the University of California which is funded primarily by the taxpayers as is the case of other state-sponsored Universities.

Ronald Reagan wasn't governor of all 50 states; besides that was 40 years ago.

One can ascribe the entire condition of the UC to what one politician did 40 years ago. What have all the other governors since done? Are you claiming that Jerry Brown in the '70s continued the policies of Reagan?

No - the anti-nukes live in a "reality distortion field". They have to twist facts and history in order to justify their ill-conceived opinions.

University Operational Expenses vs Research Grants

You apparently have trouble reading...
Please address university research results being patented now...
Compare and contrast that to when NO results from public universities were granted corporate patents.
Address the decline in public research funding and the increase in corporate funding for RESEARCH.

Note: The financial records list expenses for operation and maintenance (janitorial to plumbing, buildings, salaries and management overhead). They do NOT relate to corporate research grants. Your ignorance on the subject is showing.

Reagan's governorship has nothing to do with it. Wake up. The period was the federal administration not his state admin.

If you could get over labeling and name calling you might find it useful to research your position and spend less time listening to Limbaugh and Beck. It might also be helpful for you to read Jung's projection psychology and consider your "reality distortion field".