NYC "Unexpected Radiation"?

by **Lizzy Dearborn** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Federal authorities found 80 unexpected "hot spots" around New York City, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress...The helicopters picked up sources of low-level radiation from expected places, like granite statues and medical isotopes at hospitals, but it also found dozens of other sources of unexpected radioactivity, the GAO report found<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.wnbc.com/news/9904214/detail.html" target="top">www.wnbc.com/news/9904214/detail.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=lizzydearborn>Lizzy Dearborn</A> at: 9/22/06 1:53 pm

by **postrchild** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:57 pm

Could this be signs of hidden unexploded nukes? I have read somewhere (here I think) that the Russians have several Nuclear devices hidden in the US waiting for retrieval and or detonantion...! Wait till October....thats when the curtain call will come down....Places everyone, places....the show is about to begin!

by **greencrow0** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:35 pm

<a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/fkl/fkl_faq.shtml">www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html..._faq.shtml</a> I would say this is the 'smoking gun' on the Nukes At WTC issue but then, again, I've got my hopes up before. I thought Staten Island sounded familiar re WTC waste and here it is as a result of one google search. The WTC waste WAS buried on Staten Island which is now acknowledged to have a high degree of radiation...people live on Staten Island, I understand! Hey, I thought Bush looked even more antsyier than usual during his last press conference...could a report about this coming out be the reason? This is important. I repeat. This is important! gc Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=greencrow0>greencrow0</A> at: 9/22/06 2:38 pm

by **greencrow0** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anti-terrorism officials conducted a helicopter survey of New York City's radiation sources in preparation for a so-called "dirty bomb" attack -- and discovered a Staten Island park with dangerously high levels of radium, a new report found.<hr></blockquote> "Dangerously high levels of radium? Or, was it radiation emiting from the 'Fresh Kills' waste site where the WTC debris was buried? Surely New Yorkers are entitled to know what and where the 'dangerously high levels of 'radium' are located. This looks like the typical dropping of a potential bombshell...released on a friday...like most hot button information and all government offices then closed for two days...yada yada...and the 'limited hang out' of potentially catastrophic information. gc

by **Iroquois** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:23 pm

I'll admit that this peaked my interest, and I agree with you greencrow0 that the timing of the release adds a bit. Though, this isn't good news regardless of the source of the radiation, so there are other reason why it could have been put out when it was. At the least, I'll say that if small nuclear bombs were used in the destuction of the towers, and that is still a big if for me, they were not the only type of explosive devices used. This has nothing to do with the existence of micro-nukes, which should not be considered controversial. The W54 weighs about 50 pounds, at that is 50 year old technology: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. developed lightweight nuclear devices to use in the interest of U.S. national security. The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a Navy and Marines project that was demonstrated as feasible in the mid-to-late 1960s, but was never used. The project, which involved a small nuclear weapon, was designed to allow one individual to parachute from any type of aircraft carrying the weapon package that would be placed in a harbor or other strategic location that could be accessed from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first parachutist to provide support as needed. The two-man team would place the weapon package in an acceptable location, set the timer, and swim out into the ocean where they would be retrieved by a submarine or other high-speed water craft. The parachute jumps and the retrieval procedures were practiced extensively. While the procedures were practiced extensively, SADM was never used. These types of weapons are no longer in the stockpile. Davy Crockett The Davy Crockett was developed to give U.S. Army units an effective nuclear capability against potentially larger units of Soviet armored forces. The Davy Crockett was designed in the late 1950's primarily for frontline use by the U.S. infantry in Europe against Soviet troop formations. The Davy Crockett, a recoilless launcher, was the third artillery piece deployed, those earlier being a l55mm piece designed to fire a nuclear round and a 280mm mobile piece, commonly called an "atomic cannon." Nuclear-capable ground artillery pieces were gradually replaced by increasingly accurate, nuclear carrying missiles and aircraft. The weapon system used a spin-stabilized, unguided rocket fired from a recoilless rifle. It's 51-pound nuclear warhead had an explosive yield of 0.18 kilotons (equivalent to 18 tons of TNT, with an added radiation effect). ...<hr></blockquote>Source: <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w54.htm">www.globalsecurity.org/wm...ms/w54.htm</a>

by **Iroquois** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:29 pm

The W54 mounted on an M28 120mm recoilless rifle. <img src="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/davy2.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=iroquois@rigorousintuition>Iroquois</A> at: 9/22/06 7:31 pm

by **greencrow0** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:44 pm

Hi iroquois: I agree that IF nukes were used...and I'm not 100% convinced either, particularly as Dr. Steven Jones has ruled them out...but I'm not ruling them out <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif ALT="|I"> They were used in combination with at least two other mechanisms.... 1) the Planes 2) Controlled demolition with Thermite. Here are some more links I discovered just by googling: Links to the above story: Map of Staten Island <a href="http://statenislandusa.com/pages/gateway.html">statenislandusa.com/pages/gateway.html</a> Another map of Staten Island showing the proximity of Fresh Kills Park and Great Kills Park…where the ‘dangerously high levels of radiation’ were discovered by the federal government <a href="http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=434">www.nycvisit.com/content/...gePkey=434</a> Here’s a series of photos. Scroll to the bottom to see a good aerial view of Fresh Kills Waste site where the WTC materials were buried and it’s proximity to the waterfront where Great Kills National Recreation Park is located <a href="http://cryptome.sabotage.org/saving-wtc.htm">cryptome.sabotage.org/saving-wtc.htm</a> Hmmmmmmmm………. [edited for spelling/typos ...as per usual : ) ] Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=greencrow0>greencrow0</A> at: 9/22/06 7:47 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:23 pm

Read the original post article about the Staten Island park "hot spot," and remember that granite statues and hospitals were some of those 80 "hotspots." Imagine the medical waste that would give readings at this level, right? Sheesh. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Feeney said experts assured them after the August 2005 study that the area posed no public health risk, and said visitors do not go into that area anyway because of dense vegetation. He did not know if any warnings had been placed around the site. The radiation apparently comes from "some piece of industrial equipment, pieces of old rusty metal. Whatever this equipment used to do, it picked up radioactivity," he said.<hr></blockquote>

by **greencrow0** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:52 pm

HMW the report described 'more than 80 hotspots throughout the NYC region....also, the site where the WTC debris is buried registered 'dangerously high' levels of radiation. They're trying to dysinfo it by calling it radium...which is a naturally occuring substance. But the fact is, they are not conclusive about what it is and anything that is deemed 'dangerously high' should be a matter of public record/knowledge"....there should be no pussyfooting around with vague theories...the MSM has a civic responsibility to find out what the substance is and publicize it widely. Will they? gc Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=greencrow0>greencrow0</A> at: 9/23/06 5:53 pm

by **Seventhsonjr** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:25 am

Whatever the sources of these contaminations - it is critical for folks to understand what the exposure is doing and will do to us. I highly recommend the online book linked at this site by Dr. Ernest Sternglass with whom I had dinner recently. The shit is very damaging to all of us. Read the chapter in his book called the "Minds of the Children" we are all so f*cked over by this sh*t and barely anyone has any background or understanding of it in the general population. Dr. Helen Caldicott is an excellent source for further info as well if you google her writings and activism. We are all exposed daily to man made radioisotopes which have deadly consequences as well as myriad mental and physical damages. I know because I am a downwinder and my entire family was diagnosed with radiation related thyroid and metabolic disorders which has played a major role in f*cking us up in so many ways I can't even begin to write about them now. Needless to say that damage to the hormonal system is horrific for one's emotional state, not to mention our immune systems and the dangers of cancer in our reproductive and other organs. PLEASE inform yourselves. Whatever the source, the sh*t is killing millions of people from the depleted sh*t in warfare to your neighborhood nuke plant. Those it does not kill are NOT getting better and , in conjunction with the thread on vaccines causing spontaneous abortions, this is another means of massive population control globally. Who needs extermination camps when a few strategically placed leaks or turns of a steam valve dial can kill off hundreds of babies in women's uteruses before they are ever born or give them mutations and defects which will kill them off shortly after birth. READ Dr Sternglass's studies on infant mortality and birth defects? and then scream bloody murder. It is a crime against humanity.

by **Sweejak** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:40 pm

FYI <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The US Government's Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC <a href="http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/24/ward.htm">www.thepriceofliberty.org...4/ward.htm</a> (This article contains about 80 embedded links and several rare pictures. Take the link to the main article if the links do not transfer.) Declassified August 1958: "Mere fact that the U. S. has developed atomic munitions suitable for use in demolition work." Declassified January 1967, "The fact that we are interested in and are continuing studies on a weapon for minimizing the emerging flux of neutrons and internal induced activity." Declassified March 1976, "The fact of weapon laboratory interest in Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) devices. The fact of successful development of MRR devices." The factual evidence indicates that our government is using and has used 3rd or possibly 4th generation hyd! rogen ! bombs domestically and internationally. The evidence for international usage is not quite as strong as the domestic usage, but when domestic usage is considered the international usage seems inescapable. The process of exclusion based on the known facts leaves only one viable option for the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings - a relatively pure hydrogen bomb.<hr></blockquote> Icke: <a href="http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/3478/48/">www.davidicke.com/content/view/3478/48/</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Tsunami Radiation Sickness Raises Suspicions Suddenly, thousands of people in several East African countries and of the Arabian Peninsula have begun to fall sick with what the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) says is radiation sickness brought on by the tsunami. Men, women, and chilren of all ages are experiencing the horrible woes of nuclear aftermath, including sudden ear, nose, and mouth bleeds, internal hemorrhages and other symptoms of radiation sickness, according to a UNEP report named "After the Tsunami: Rapid Environmental Assessment", released in March. Hundreds of villages and towns in the Horn of Africa dependant on well water are now without a source of potable water due to contamination caused by radioactive material surfacing in water tables. Widespread cancer now threatens millions more in the region. Radioactive clouds drifting westward have already been reported.<hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sweejak@rigorousintuition>Sweejak</A> at: 9/26/06 10:42 am

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:09 pm

re: Icke's mention of the UNEP report regarding the Asian Tsunami Disaster. I downloaded the complete PDF, which can be found <a href="http://www.unep.org/tsunami/tsunami_rpt.asp">HERE,</a> but after searching the entire 141 page report, not a single hit for 'Cancer' was found at all, much less any mention of 'wide-spread Cancer'. As far as 'Radiation' is concerned: "An environmental assessment by UNDAC and the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit regarding potential toxic exposure from sites in and around Banda Aceh concluded that due to the enormous quantities of water washing materials away from chemical depots and other potential ‘hotspots’, there was little potential acute impact on public health or the environment from exposure to hazardous chemicals or radioactive materials, as compared to the overall disaster situation." "Starting from the early 1980s and continuing into the civil war, the hazardous waste dumped along Somalia’s coast comprised uranium radioactive waste, lead, cadmium, mercury, industrial, hospital, chemical, leather treatment and other toxic waste. Most of the waste was simply dumped on the beaches in containers and disposable leaking barrels which ranged from small to big tanks without regard to the health of the local population and any environmentally devastating impacts. The issue of dumping in Somalia is contentious as it raises both legal and moral questions. First, there is a violation of international treaties in the export of hazardous waste to Somalia. Second, it is ethically questionable to negotiate a hazardous waste disposal contract with a country in the midst of a protracted civil war and with a factionalized government that could not sustain a functional legal and proper waste management system. The impact of the tsunami stirred up hazardous waste deposits on the beaches around North Hobyo (South Mudug) and Warsheik (North of Benadir). Contamination from the waste deposits has thus caused health and environmental problems to the surrounding local fishing communities including contamination of groundwater." "Natural disasters are short-term catastrophes, but the contamination of the environment by radioactive waste can cause serious long-term effects on human health as well as severe impacts on groundwater, soil, agriculture and fisheries for many years. Therefore, the current situation along the Somali coastline poses a very serious environmental hazard, not only in Somalia but also in the eastern Africa sub-region." No mentions whatsoever of 'Radioactive clouds' seen anywhere. Not quite what Icke is insinuating. Sometimes I'd like to think Icke's a good guy, but what I see for the most part is him smearing real data with disinfo to the effect of canceling out his own credibility and that of the topics he discusses. I'm not too crazy about Icke. His voice is loud and well-known. Many people disregard entire areas of discussion because they have been exposed to them first by Icke and the resulting contamination led to the topics complete dismissal. It was a real eye-opener to have sheeple I've tried to wake up in the past toss me in the Icke camp just by mentioning anything remotely conspiracy-related. Take from that what you will, but the effect feels calculated. ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **Sweejak** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:18 pm

Yeah, I don't know. Not being a scientist I can't do much more than watch. Physicsorg has a thread: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This is a physics site...you will need to use physics. Let the games begin...<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418&st=0">forum.physorg.com/index.p...=4418&st=0</a>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:31 pm

Thanks for the heads up, seventhsonjr. I know how real the down-winder situation is for you. And many of us are, too, without knowing it. I'll bet there won't be any radiological inventory of the SF Bay area due to the contamination from the ships doing atomic testing in the Pacific which would be 'decontaminated' in the bay. And Livermore Labs making nuclear weapons near residential areas. Some of the highest breast cancer rates in the country are in the SF Bay area and 'nobody knows why.'

by **Seventhsonjr** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:48 pm

ECRR 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes. Regulators' Edition. Executive Summary This report outlines the committee's findings regarding the effects on human health of exposure to ionising radiation and presents a new model for assessing these risks. It is intended for decision-makers and others who are interested in this area and aims to provide a concise description of the model developed by the committee and the evidence on which it depends. The development of the model begins with an analysis of the present risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) which is the basis of and dominates all present radiation risk legislation. The committee regards this ICRP model as essentially flawed as regards its application to exposure to internal radioisotopes but for pragmatic reasons to do with the existence of historical exposure data has agreed to adjust for the errors in the ICRP model by defining isotope and exposure specific weighting factors for internal exposures so that the calculation of effective dose (in Sieverts) remains. Thus, with the new system, the overall risk factors for fatal cancer published by ICRP and other risk agencies may be used largely unchanged and legislation based upon these may also be used unchanged. It is the calculation of the dose which is altered by the committee's model. Excerpts: 1. The European Committee on Radiation Risk arose out of criticisms of the risk models of the ICRP which were explicitly identified at the European Parliament STOA workshop in February 1998; subsequently it was agreed that an alternative view should be sought regarding the health effects of low level radiation. The committee consists of scientists and risk specialists from within Europe but takes evidence and advice from scientists and experts based in other countries. ..... The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945. The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer. The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout. <a href="http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm">www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm</a>

NYC "Unexpected Radiation"?

NYC "Unexpected Radiation"?

Re: NYC "Unexpected Radiation"?

Re: NYC "Unexpected Radiation"?

All the signs

Re: All the signs

Re: All the signs

Re: All the signs

READ. Nothing to do with WTC or 9/11 at all. Period.

Re: READ. Nothing to do with WTC or 9/11 at all. Period.

www.radiation.org - PLEASE check it out

Re: www.radiation.org - PLEASE check it out

hmm..

Re: hmm..

Re: www.radiation.org - PLEASE check it out

NYC "Unexpected Radiation"?2003European Study is F

Who is online