* * * Will Smoking Cigarettes Help Protect You Against Exposure To Radioactive Fallout? * * *

Well, I for one am glad to hear some GOOD news about smoking.......you'd think we all had leprosy the way people treat us.

Survival of the Smokiest!

Part one:

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

Every year, //...

smoking cigarettes paralyzes the cilia in the lungs however and makes it difficult to expel tar and irritants, but thankfully marijuana has the opposite effect :-) good ole one-two combo baby

my grandfather smoked like a chimney and suffered and died from throat and lung cancer. there is no doubt that smoking is harmful, but it keeps the bugs away lol

I think we are supposed to copy and paste only less than 50% of articles, ff. (Per glp rules)

Still, I'm glad that you did.

Has anyone ever compared how fast a Marlboro cig smokes down as compared to an American Spirit? The AS's last twice as long.

Smoking is nasty, but I gotta agree, there's something sinister about the massive antismoking campaign. Very fishy.

I put it in 5 parts. That means I copied and pasted only 1/5th at a time!

and thanks, I am glad I did too.

Silly humans

Yes, for sure carcinogens + redioactive material = Good for the lungs. It doesnt matter that the tar in your lungs depletes oxygen in your body. . . who needs that? Simple science ftw!

Plus the info must have come from a place where people value health care over corporate greed.


Right?

You must be an attorney.

part 4:

How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed? For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The suspect agent (radioactive matter) caused the claimed result (lung cancer) when inhaled by mammals.



The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse.

The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.

Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.

Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity.

The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us.



Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for “big government” to start taking heavy diversionary action.

How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical “researchers” suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: “Prove that smoking causes lung cancer”. Real scientists [especially some notable nuclear physicists] smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. The quasi medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals.

Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect agent [tobacco smoke] must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, “medical science” has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. Yes, you did read that correctly. For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you.

The real scientists had the quasi medical researchers by the throat, because “pairing” the deadly radioactive particle experiment with the benign tobacco smoke experiment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer. And further, in one large “accidental” experiment they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer.

All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.


'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' Vishnu, Bhagavad-Gita

Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.

Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.” It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record!

Predictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical “researchers” into a frenzy of rage. By 1982 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment. Quite suddenly they switched the blame to other “secret” ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. “Yes, that must be it!” they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same “secret” ingredients had been included in the mice experiments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer.

Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer. Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight “C” doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. “Smoking causes lung cancer” converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof.

cont.

All true but this one little part :/

//...

I believe there is certainly something in their plans to make sure the American people have clear lungs, but I bet it has nothing to do with health.

smoking cigarettes paralyzes the cilia in the lungs however and makes it difficult to expel tar and irritants, but thankfully marijuana has the opposite effect :-) good ole one-two combo baby

my grandfather smoked like a chimney and suffered and died from throat and lung cancer. there is no doubt that smoking is harmful, but it keeps the bugs away lol

Silly humans

Yes, for sure carcinogens + redioactive material = Good for the lungs. It doesnt matter that the tar in your lungs depletes oxygen in your body. . . who needs that? Simple science ftw!

Plus the info must have come from a place where people value health care over corporate greed.


Right?

I think we are supposed to copy and paste only less than 50% of articles, ff. (Per glp rules)

Still, I'm glad that you did.

Interesting and true story:

When my Dad was about 90, he had some respiratory problems and his doctor did a chest x-ray. The x-ray showed scarring on his lungs. So his doctor asked him, “Have you ever smoked?” … My Dad said, “Yes … when I was around 20 I smoked for a couple of years.” The doctor (without asking any further questions) said, “Well, that’s enough to scar your lungs.” No further questions!

Okay … my Dad was a linotype operator for over 50 years. That means he breathed in hot lead fumes for over 50 years. My Dad also helped to extinguish at least two house fires that I am aware of, along with helping to extinguish one or more forest fires. We also lived on a farm with over a hundred acres. My Dad did a lot of “clearing brush” … if any of you know what that means, it means numerous fires – several times per year – burning huge piles of brush … hours and hours, pushing debris into the burning piles of underbrush (blackberries and other brambles). That covered a period of about 30 years.

So … would you say with certainty that the scarring on his lungs was caused by two years of smoking in his early twenties? … or could it perhaps have been a result of the activities I named in the second paragraph?

mice smoking cigarettes What the hell is going on in this this world

Interesting and true story:

When my Dad was about 90, he had some respiratory problems and his doctor did a chest x-ray. The x-ray showed scarring on his lungs. So his doctor asked him, “Have you ever smoked?” … My Dad said, “Yes … when I was around 20 I smoked for a couple of years.” The doctor (without asking any further questions) said, “Well, that’s enough to scar your lungs.” No further questions!

Okay … my Dad was a linotype operator for over 50 years. That means he breathed in hot lead fumes for over 50 years. My Dad also helped to extinguish at least two house fires that I am aware of, along with helping to extinguish one or more forest fires. We also lived on a farm with over a hundred acres. My Dad did a lot of “clearing brush” … if any of you know what that means, it means numerous fires – several times per year – burning huge piles of brush … hours and hours, pushing debris into the burning piles of underbrush (blackberries and other brambles). That covered a period of about 30 years.

So … would you say with certainty that the scarring on his lungs was caused by two years of smoking in his early twenties? … or could it perhaps have been a result of the activities I named in the second paragraph?

btw, I smoke American Spirit cigarettes, which are a bit safer than the more polluted brands. I also only smoke about half a pack a day.

Yeah, some Hosp Interrogator tried to give me some crap that by going outside, smoking 4 cigs a day, in the wind, I was causing my teen to have allergies from the tiny smoke particles on my clothes. 10 years later we find out he is severely allergic to nickel. They never thought of that.
Just conditioning. And brown-shirt-ing.
To say that was the cause, when his daily activities are taken into account, is just illogical and ludicrous.