Friday, 20 February 2015

9/11 – The Unreported Health Disaster. – Tim Veater

9/11 – The Unreported Health Disaster. – Tim Veater
9/11 – The Unreported Health Disaster.

Many, including the writer, have highlighted the likely longer-term
psychological and physical health consequences of the collapse of the World
Trade Centre Buildings on the 11th September, 2001.

Leaving aside the contaminants created by burning and crushed materials,
including heavy metals, dioxin and silica, the fact that the buildings were
loaded with at least four hundred tons of fire retardant asbestos – a well-known
pulmonary carcinogen that may take up to thirty years to reveal itself – meant
that the post-collapse fine respirable dust that filled the air was bound to be
highly dangerous to those unfortunate enough to have breathed it. The health
consequences are slowly being reported and the extent of the human disaster
revealed. (1)

No-one with a modicum of knowledge about the building or environmental heath,
for which read port and municipal authorities and other federal and state
agencies, could have been in any doubt about this. Their culpability rests not
only on the limited steps they took to advise and protect those required to
enter the area, many being their own employees for whom there is a quite
specific legal duty of care, but in actually encouraging the public to re-enter
the zone on the stated opinion that it was safe to do so. This was counter to
all reasonable assumptions and before the necessary analytic steps to prove it
had been carried out had been carried out. (Indeed undue and unseemly haste to
remove the aftermath of an undoubted crime scene appears to have been the order
of the day) That such advice could be put out by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) amongst others, beggars belief.  Subsequently in an
attempt to repair its reputation, it has claimed it was pressurise
d to supply the false opinion whereby thousands more were undoubtedly put at
risk. (2)

Quite incredibly it has been compounded by an apparent reluctance on the part of
government either national or local, to monitor the physical environment for
contaminants or fund proper mortality and morbidity incidence studies of those
exposed. Indeed quite the reverse/ the statistics that are available are
apparently “classified”.

“More than five years after the attacks, government agencies at all levels
continue to show little interest in conducting a scientific assessment of the
nature and scope of ensuing contamination or in acknowledging actual and
potential adverse health consequences.” (3)

Such negligence can only be explained in terms of an intentional, wilful,
deceitful cover-up of the risks and an immoral dereliction of duty on the part
of government, for which it stands accountable.

A number of leading scientists have pointed to the strange phenomena associated
with the event, including multiple explosions, pyroclasatic flow (4) and
so-called “dustification”. (5)

To these we must now add the suggestion, not beyond the realms of possibility,
given the enormity of the crime itself, that nuclear detonations might have been
involved!

The main support for this theory is the pattern of disease and otherwise
inexplicable huge increase in multiple myeloma – a form of cancer uniquely
associated with a limited number of causative agents including radiation.

The following is taken from the “Veterans Today” website:
” Then again, there is no evidence that small amounts of radiation could have
caused the massive spike in cancers, with up to 70% of the tens of thousands of
first responders suffering according to Dr. Norton. The cancer is multiple
myeloma.  The number of victims who have thus far applied for benefits from the
2.7-billion-dollar 9/11 fund, as reported …. is 69,900. There is one known
direct cause for this disease, exposure to a nuclear explosion. Multiple myeloma
is also known as “the Hiroshima disease.” Studies at both Los Alamos and
Livermore Labs show little increase, no more than 4%, for minor radiation
exposure. There are no other established factors, no “toxic soup” that can cause
this disease.”” (6)

Isn’t it time the american people and other governments who’s nationals have
been affected, demanded action by the American Government proper and full
disclosure of the medical facts so that the world can form an opinion. The
precedent set after Hiroshima and Nagasaki was conspicuously not followed. I
wonder why? END.






4 comments:

  1. I don't know of this latest 'research' but I find it hard to believe. If there is indeed an association, I am quite sure other unexamined factors are more likely to be responsible. A majority of smokers for example DON'T get lung cancer but die from other causes - though these too, might be linked. Much of the modern approach and effort of modern medicine and medical intervention is misplaced, with too great a reliance on chemicals to cure conditions created by the environmental and social conditions pertaining to the individual. It is the main reason why even in a developed country like Britain there can still be a twenty year gap in life expectation between different groups. Visualisation is very important. If we see ourselves as discrete organisms only, we miss the fact that via our lungs, gut and skin we interact with whatever environment we find ourselves in. In other words, in a very real sense, our 'insides' replicate our 'outsides'. The lungs are organs that are particularly sensitive to whatever the constituents - either physical or chemical - that are breathed in and react to them in physiological and biological ways. Diseases of the lung are much more likely to reflect air quality than food quality. Similarly the digestive tract is more likely to reflect problems with food (including drink) Both routes (plus skin of course) can and do have generalised somatic effects. So could bagels increase the risk of LUNG cancer by 50%? Possible but highly unlikely I would say. Far more likely are the car fumes breathed in, on the way to purchase them!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The above was in response to this scientific finding reported here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12187186/White-bread-bagels-and-rice-increase-the-risk-of-lung-cancer-by-49-per-cent.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. A recent list of confirmatory studies here: http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.co.uk/

    ReplyDelete


  4. From here: http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/proof-of-existence-of-mini-nukes-and.html

    "Monday, August 20, 2007
    Proof of the Existence of Mini-Nukes and Micro-Nukes
    From the Anonymous Physicist

    More and more people are realizing that other theories proposed could not have destroyed the WTC, and are limited hangouts. As more people realize that the WTC was likely demolished via small nuclear bombs (likely with subsidiary conventional explosives), some are now claiming that milli-nukes (mini-nukes), or micro-nukes don’t even exist. Spooked and I have addressed this issue before. Here first is proof of the “Nuclear rifle” from the 1950’s, no less.

    The .01 kiloton (kt) TNT equivalent is about 1/1000th of the Hiroshima (20KT) blast. And here is a govt scientist, Peter Leitner, PhD, speaking to a Congressional Committee, in 1998. This is proof of nuclear bombs down into the range of “several pounds of TNT.” He stated, “These experiments involve the ACTUAL TESTING of extremely low-yield fission devices (as low as the equivalent of several pounds of TNT) within a confined environment.” Several pounds of TNT is equivalent to about 1/10,000,000th (one ten millionth) of the Hiroshima blast. Thus the U.S. Govt admitted having micro-nukes, and beyond in 1998. Note that this public admission stated that the testing was done “in a controlled environment.”

    Clearly, the gov't has had milli-nukes and micro-nukes for some time."

    ReplyDelete