Apr 21, 2011

China Inflation And Wage Protests Spread, Turn Violent

From ZeroHedge, by Tyler Durden 04/21/2011

Yesterday we reported news that has so far received almost no media exposure, namely that thousands of striking truck drivers had poured into Shanghai's Waigaoqiao zone, one of the city's busiest container ports, protesting over "rising fuel prices and low wages." Today, via Reuters, we learn that this situation has escalated materially, and progressed into violence:
"A two-day strike over rising fuel prices turned violent in Shanghai on Thursday as thousands of truck drivers clashed with police, drivers said, in the latest example of simmering discontent over inflation.

About 2,000 truck drivers battled baton-wielding police at an intersection near Waigaoqiao port, Shanghai's biggest, two drivers who were at the protest told Reuters. The drivers, who blocked roads with their trucks, had stopped work on Wednesday demanding the government do something about rising fuel costs, workers said." And while we have violent uprisings over austerity in Europe, now we have violent strikes over inflation in China? The question thus now is just how much longer will China continue to take massively ineffective steps such as RRR and rate hikes, both of which have been a tremendous failure in reining in inflation, instead of picking the nuclear option of revaluing the currency. And while many believe China may announce something along those lines over the weekend, Win Thin, global head of emerging market strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman, is not so sure and put the odds of a yuan revaluation at 25%. "With regards to currency policy, we are putting forth the following three possibilities along with odds: 1) keep current pace of appreciation (10%), 2) do one off revaluation (25%), and 3) speed up pace of appreciation (65%)."
Either way, with more people joining the populist movement against inflation, China is now between a rock and a hard place: will it continue happily importing Bernanke's inflation exports or finally retaliate. Unfortunately for its economy, the appropriately called "nuclear option" of revaluation, will leave it export economy flailing. So the real question: is China ready to migrate from an export-led to a consumer-led model. Alas, the answer is a resounding no.

The Trucker Strike that May Stop Chinese Purchases of U.S. Treasury Securities

Eurozone chief Juncker admits he wants all negotiations held in 'secret dark debates'

From Mail Online - Euroseptic: Mary Ellen Synon in Brussels

The thing about some of these euro-ideologues is that they are arrogant enough to admit out loud exactly what they are doing. And what they are doing is poisonous: manoeuvring the EU towards an economic government that is outside democratic control.

Yesterday Jean-Claude Juncker, permanent president of the eurogroup as well as prime minister and treasury minister of that banking boutique known as Luxembourg, was at a meeting organised by the European Movement. (The eurogroup is the technically-informal group of finance ministers of eurozone countries.)

If you are not sure who Juncker is, this will give you his drift: he brags he was one of the principle architects of the Maastricht Treaty. This was the treaty that turned the European Community from a group of countries into a political union heading for a single currency and a eurocracy with its hands on justice and home affairs in member countries. In short, Juncker's treaty was evil.
And it was everything you would expect the European Movement to support. I've covered the European Movement before in this blog, but it is worth recalled what it is, since it is exactly the sort of place in which one would expect to see Juncker performing.

The European Movement calls itself an an international organisation created in 1948 to 'contribute to the establishment of a united, federal Europe.' In fact, as Christopher Booker and Richard North disclose in 'The Great Deception,' research at Georgetown University has turned up US government documents showing that until 1960 the CIA poured Cold War millions of dollars into the organisation. Washington imagined a 'united Europe' could be a bulwark against the Soviet Union, so the Americans pumped dosh to the European federalists through fronts such as the Rockefeller Foundation.
Anyway, what Juncker was up to yesterday was talking about 'economic governance' -- the euro-elite use 'governance' as a eurphemism now, though they mean 'government' -- as he put it, 'in the euroarea and the EU.' The EU. That includes the United Kingdom. So Juncker was not afraid to admit he has economic government of the UK in his euro-sights.

'There are no such things as domestic affairs in a monetary union, the affairs of one are the affairs of all.'
But here's the thing: members of the euro-elite such as Juncker do not intend that this 'economic government' should be democratic. No, as he and his fellow euro-bosses are steering the EU towards centralised economic and fiscal policy, he admits: 'Monetary policy is a serious issue, this should be discussed in secret.'

He said that by discussing each and every monetary-policy issue in public 'you are inspring those who are players in the financial markets.' Yes, like the people who have to invest our pension funds, for a start. Juncker doesn't like giving the markets information: 'I am for secret, dark debates between a few responsible people.'
I just bet you are, Jean-Claude.
Because here is the thing. A national government can and should be able to discuss monetary, economic and fiscal policy in secret. Certainly there are some ideas that could rock markets if they became known too soon. But when it is a national government acting in private, and they come to the wrong decisions, the national lectorate can then throw them and their bad decisions out of office.

How do we get rid of Jean-Claude Juncker and his bad decisions? We can't. And you can bet we would not be able to get rid of any of the 'few responsible people' -- what, responsible Bulgarians, Germans, Spaniards, Greeks? -- Juncker thinks should join him in the 'secret dark debates' that would control our economic government.

He added: 'I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democatic.'
The arrogance of the man. He finds the destruction of democracy amusing.

BRICS poised to pick up the pieces from the rubble of America’s collapsed empire

From Strategic Culture Foundation | April 20, 2011
By Wayne Madsen

The American empire is faltering from within and abroad. In an attempt to preserve its empire, the United States has adopted an aggressive military posture, starting a war in Libya and continuing its military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington’s military planners are stepping up drone attacks in Pakistan and using NATO forces to extend America’s hegemony over resource-rich Africa, not only in Libya but also in Cote d’Ivoire. U.S. Special Operations forces are engaged in military adventures from Colombia and Honduras to Yemen and the Philippines.

American military proconsuls, in the guise of regional combatant commands like Africa Command, Pacific Command, and Southern Command, are attempting to prop up American imperial borders at their periphery. But just as the Roman legions in the extremities of the Roman Empire discovered long ago, such attempts on behalf of a broken and corrupt society are doomed to failure.

Meanwhile, the United States has flooded the global economy with cheap dollars using a U.S. Federal Reserve Bank contrivance known as quantitative easing. The operation has resulted in high unemployment and inflation in nations around the world, resulting in draconian austerity measures and political and economic chaos.

Domestically, American states, counties, and cities are collapsing economically with massive demonstrations seen in state capitals and political discourse reduced to name-calling and extremist measures by Republican governors and state legislatures.

The alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, also known as BRICS, has been watching the death throes of the American empire and is reacting by creating the groundwork for a post-American global construct.

Following the recent BRICS summit on Hainan island in China, Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega told the International Monetary Fund in Washington that the United States and other western countries were attempting to “export their way out of difficult economic situations” by printing money and driving down interest rates – which is the core principle of quantitative easing. It was clear that Mantega was speaking for the other BRICS nations in warning Washington that business as usual is approaching an end.

Mantega let U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Khan know that nations like Brazil would not be dictated to by those who brought about the worst economic collapse of the world economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Such rhetoric will become more commonplace as the BRICS nations assert their power and peel other countries away from Washington’s economic and political orbit.

South African Trade Minister Rod Davies weighed into the debate, cautioning the IMF that its destructive controls on national economies around the world are harmful to not only the BRICS bloc, but other nations as well. The collusion between the financial gnomes of Washington and Brussels has seen drastic measures being taken by governments from Greece and Spain to Portugal and Ireland and Egypt to Tunisia. The result has been general strikes, rebellions, and general hatred by large sectors of the populace of banks, bankers, and capitalism in general.

BRICS understand that the post-World War II global diktats of the IMF and World Bank, located within blocks of the White House, are coming to and end – whether Washington likes it or not.Brazilhas also become a de facto leader of progressive Latin American nations that see U.S. dominance of the Western hemisphere, exercised through the Organization of American States, located across 17^th Street from the White House, is also approaching its final days.

BRICS will also act as a counterweight to the IMF-linked G-8 and G-20, which have operated under the virtual tutelage of the Western central bankers and the governments of the United States, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, and Japan. The BRICS countries concluded an agreement that their respective development banks will provide credit to one another in BRICS currencies of yuan, rubles, rupees, reals, and rand and not in U.S. dollars. The decision drove another nail in the concept of the “almighty American dollar,” which has been driven into “bongo bucks” status by the greedy and secretive financial alchemists of Wall Street.

There was symbolism by China in holding the BRICS summit in Sanya on the southern island of Hainan. Hainan is not only the home to China’s major nuclear submarine base but it was also the center of U.S.-Chinese rivalry after an incident in 2001 between a U.S. Navy spy plane and a Chinese MiG fighter jet. Chinaquietly signaled that it is willing to back up BRICS’ economic might with military force.

It was from Hainan where the leaders of the BRICS nations, all rising economic powers, issued a stark challenge to the powerbrokers in Washington, London, Brussels, Paris, and Berlin. And in an added warning to the hegemonic proponents of the fanciful “New American Century” and neo-conservatives in the Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission world, Chinese President Hu Jintao addressed a meeting of the Boao Forum for Asia on Hainan. The Boao forum, patterned after the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, is a direct challenge to the ultra-wealthy corporate vultures and shysters who gather annually in Switzerland and devise plots to secure their control of the world financial system. The message from Boao: the era of an elite group of Western tycoons dictating international economic policy is going to soon be a thing of the past.

The BRICS nations, which, by 2015, will represent 43 percent of the world’s population and 23 percent of the world’s gross domestic product, are flexing their economic and political weight. BRICS called for the end to NATO’s attacks on Libya. In fact, BRICS will soon be in a position to disassemble NATO and decouple many of its members from Washington’s control. Germany’s abstention in the UN Security Council on a no-fly zone over Libya was the first sign that Germany may be the first nation to bolt from NATO. The rise of the German Green Party will drive a wedge between Berlin and Washington, a schism that may result in Germany’s demand for the withdrawal of American military bases from German soil and removal of U.S. nuclear weapons. A neutralist Germany would see an alignment with the BRICS bloc as an advantageous step for Germany’s economy, especially if the euro collapses and there is a return of the Deutsche mark

Turkey is another emerging economic power that could align with BRICS. With a more independent foreign policy, Turkey has launched initiatives with partners that have not been to the liking of Washington. Turkey and BRIC member Brazil independently tried to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, much to the chagrin of the Obama administration and the Israeli government. Turkey’s opposition to America’s military attack on Libya and Israel’s inhumane siege of Gaza has also set it apart from NATO. Turkey’s close relationship with Turkic-speaking central Asian nations of the former Soviet Union makes it an emerging Eurasian power ripe for alignment with the BRICS alliance.

With the collapse of America’s imperial global empire, there will be a new “multi-polar” world order.The term “multi-polar” and “economic independence” was on the lips of every BRICS leader and their advisers in Sanya. And Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Wu Hailong said in Sanya that many other countries have signaled an interest in joining BRICS. Nations around the world want to get as far away from the sinking United States lest they get pulled down by the drowning empire.

Silver is the new safe haven in China

From Gulfnews, April 21 2011
By Suranjana Roy Bhattacharya

Beijing: Every market has a silver lining but China has a particularly thick one. Demand for silver has steadily risen in Middle Kingdom, but so far all the action has been out of the spotlight.

Silver prices climbed to a 31-year-high this month, hitting $42.69 per ounce, driven in part by Chinese demand. In February, the country imported 245 tonnes of silver, even as 2010 saw record Chinese imports of more than 3,475 tons. This was a massive four-fold increase since 2009, forming an unprecedented 14 per cent of global silver. The country shows every sign of topping the import craze this year too. Silver is the new safe haven and newer uncertainties will continue to create more physical demand in China. This has only been exacerbated by the geopolitical risks and the ecological disaster in Japan.

The Chinese have been openly accumulating gold for nearly a decade, but its silver stockpile is silently going up. Several trends are visible. Until 2009, China has been a net exporter of silver. In the first eight months of 2010, Chinese silver exports declined 60 per cent, due to several factors: increased investment demand from the Chinese people, hoarding for industrial use by Chinese businesses and accumulation by the central bank. The export market may be reduced to zero in 2011.

Inflation hedge

China is now the world's third largest silver miner after Mexico and Peru, and the world's largest refiner. Yet, it remains deafeningly quiet about its silver investments in the last few years. China has been continually accumulating dollars for years as the unintended consequence of its large trade deficit with the US. They are always looking for new outlets to unload or invest their kitty. The Chinese State Administration of Foreign Exchange which manages nearly $3 trillion of currency reserves, says, it can no longer afford to invest in US Treasuries or EU debt and are left with only two alternatives into which they could sink a large amount of money: Gold and silver.

Although not yet a substitute for gold, demand for silver is growing from China, even though it gets more expensive. However, central banks and sovereign wealth funds, which have massive exposure to the dollar, have stayed mum about their diversification plans into gold and silver for fear it could lead to a surge in bullion prices.

Simultaneous positions

There has been growing speculation for some time about Chinese silver buying behaviour, especially with them concentrating on taking physical deliveries of silver. Silver is crucial not only for its monetary value as inflation hedge, but also its industrial value. The white metal is a key component for many high tech goods produced in China in the automative and electronics sectors.

With the commodity getting scarcer and more expensive in the coming years, the Chinese need a ready supply of silver to dominate the world market in flat panel televisions, cellphones, computers, hybrid car batteries and solar panels. Little surprise that they have been taking simultaneous long and short positions on the Comex in New York.

Analysts say the Chinese have indulged in long buying silver on the Comex, while simultaneously shorting silver on the exchange; taking delivery and settling those contracts in cash. Even if they took a loss on all their shorts, they would still be steadily accumulating physical metal. So even though they may be acquiring the physical silver at a higher than market price, they can still prevent panic behaviour on the Comex. Also, the Chinese are well aware that if they were to drive up the price of silver by directly buying large quantities on world markets, they would crash the dollar and euro, hurting themselves in the short run.

Silver is not is a significant part of most countries' reserves, but China is an exception. Since Imperial times it used a silver standard rather than a gold standard, and so retained substantial reserves. Even now, it uses silver as an instrument to reduce money supply growth and buffer people from crisis. In September 2009, the Chinese government publicly encouraged people to buy silver in the form of small-value ingots which could be readily negotiable, just in case a banking crisis occurred in China.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in China.

_______-

Silver Shield: Beware of the Great Silver Correction

25% Of Scotia Mocatta's Silver Transferred From "Registered" To "Eligible" Status: A 45% Reduction In "Physical"

$50 Silver - The Price Point of Liberty

Radiation exposure chart admits cancer radiotherapy delivers fatal dose to patients

From NaturalNews, Wednesday, April 20, 2011
by Mike Adams

Thanks to the Fukushima catastrophe, we've all been learning a lot about the laws of physics lately -- especially about radiation. To help explain it all, the folks over at InformationIsBeautiful.com have created a radiation explanation chart that shows the relative levels of harm from various doses of radiation (link below).

The InformationIsBeautiful website is pretty cool. The folks there specialize in making complex data visually interesting. I've admired some of their work for quite some time.

So I was checking out their new "Radiation Dosage Chart" which explained all the effects of receiving radiation doses of various levels. The chart revealed things like:

• 100 mSv Annual dose at which increased lifetime cancer risk if evident
• 250 mSv Dose limit for US radiation workers in life-saving operations
• 1,000 mSv Temporary radiation sickness. Nausea, low blood count. Not fatal.

... and so on.

As I read down the chart, things got really interesting. View the chart yourself here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/images/r...

• 2,000 mSv Severe radiation poisoning
• 4,000 mSv Extremely severe dose - survival possible
• 5,000 mSv Extremely severe radiation dose - high chance of fatality
• 6,000 mSv Usually fatal dose
• 10,000 mSv Fatal dose

And then, right there on the chart, the very next line was a huge eye-opener, because it said:

•20,000 mSv Highly targeted dose used in cancer radiotherapy

Cancer radiotherapy dose is fatal?

Okay, sowait a minute. A dose of 10,000 is fatal, yet the cancer industry uses twice that doseto "treat" cancer? I knew cancer radiation treatments were barbaric, but I never knew they were twice the amount considered absolutely fatal.

This outcome was so intriguing that I took a screen capture of the chart. That's what you're seeing at:http://www.naturalnews.com/images/r...

The next day, I went back to the InformationIsBeautiful.net website to make sure I really saw what I thought I saw. After all, if cancer radiotherapy is being given at 20,000 mSv, that's a pretty big story, especially in light of the Fukushima fallout and the increasing radiation burden on populations everywhere. So I brought up the website, and guess what?

The 20,000 mSv cancer radiotherapy line had been removed from the chart.

You can now see this for yourself at the InformationIsBeautiful website:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.n...

Notice anything missing? The 20,000 mSv line has been removed. It now jumps from 10,000 to 30,000.

Jokingly stated, it seems that the Information Is Beautiful website might now appear to be theInformation Is Missingwebsite.

Cancer industry influence?

So how do you think this line about 20,000 mSv in cancer radiotherapy got removed? I suppose there are a number of possible explanations for it. One particularly conspiratorial explanation is that someone from the cancer industry probably asked them to remove it. The cancer industry, after all, doesn't want people knowing the simple truth thatcancer radiotherapy involves a fatal dose of radiation. And no industry operates with more secrecy than the cancer industry, it seems, with all its cover-ups about the dangers of chemotherapy and its continued suppression of the truth about vitamin D and its cancer preventive effects.

Then again, the InformationIsBeautiful website has actually done a fantastic job of producing information about Vitamin D and sunlight exposure. This is precisely the kind of information the cancer industrydoesn'twant people to see:http://www.informationisbeautiful.n...

(Pretty cool chart, eh?)

Just to give these folks a chance to explain all this, I sent off an email to David at the InformationIsBeautiful website asking them to clarify why they pulled the cancer radiotherapy information off their radiation dosage chart. Perhaps there's a completely innocent explanation for it, I thought, and I want to know the real story here.

The email I received in return was a polite response with a collection of frequently asked questions and answers. I don't blame the guys there for using this -- they're probably incredibly busy these days -- but I was intrigued by one of the answers in the email itself: It said that the InformationIsBeautiful team has "done commercial work for GE, the BBC, Google and many others."

And who is GE? They are, of course, one of the world's top manufacturers ofradiotherapy equipment!

You can see an example of their radiotherapy machines at http://radiologynews.gehealthcare.c...

So now we have the Information Is Beautiful team pulling the "cancer radiotherapy" line out of their chart, then admitting they are a paid client of General Electric, a top manufacturer of radiotherapy equipment.

None of this proves anything, of course, but it probably raises a few eyebrows. Is there afinancial conflict of interestat work here? Personally, I like their website a lot, and I'm a fan of their charts. So I don't want to think they might be engaged in some sort of intentional censoring of their chart data just to protect the cancer industry. But I've seen stranger stuff happen, for sure...

Is this a case of blatant information distortion?

The Information Is Beautiful website, by the way, isn't necessarily known for censoring their information due to political pressure. They do seem to be good guys in plenty of ways. For example, they say they're donating the proceeds from the sales of their radiation dosage chart to help with Japan relief efforts, and that's admirable. They also produce a lot of other really useful charts that have been very popular across the 'net.

Then again, the cancer industry can be very, very threatening to those who don't submit to its suppression of information both on the web and across the mainstream media.

Now, the trolls and paid online muckrakers hired by Big Pharma will of course insist that I'm making all this up. They'll say the chartneverhad the 20,000 line in it. I must have Photoshopped my screenshot to put it there, they'll charge. These people never stop lying in their attempts to smear those who are working each day to expose the deceptions of the pharmaceutical industry, of course. (They are actually paid by Big Pharma to poison the 'net.)

Fortunately for me, there is yet another source of evidence that backs up my story. A thread over at Gizmodo.com contains the exact sameoriginalradiation dosage chart that captured as a screen shot. It shows quite clearly the original 20,000 mSv line.

You can see that page athttp://gizmodo.com/#!5786933/the-mo...

I am taking a screen shot of that page, too, just in case it magically disappears. If you go there and don't see the chart, rest assured that's exactly what happened (I've seen this happen hundreds of times with sensitive topics).

The chart image on that page links to an archived image on Gawkerassets.com which contains the full chart: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/asset...

And there, for all the world to see, is the full chart, with the 20,000 mSv "cancer radiotherapy" line, credited to David McCandless, March 2010, InformationIsBeautiful.net

Now, just in case that image also gets squelched off the 'net, I have saved a copy of it as well. (You might want to save off your own copy just in case.)

Version 1.35 has less information than version 1.0

Interestingly, if you go back to the version of the chart on the InformationIsBeautiful website, you'll notice that it currently says version 1.35 along the bottom (http://www.informationisbeautiful.n...).

What's really interesting is that if you compare the Version 1.0 and Version 1.35 charts,there are no significant differences other than the removal of the 20,000 mSv cancer radiotherapy line.

In other words, as this chart got "upgraded," its content actually got pared down. And what exactly got cut from the chart?The line about cancer radiotherapy.

Again, I am not accusing the guys over at InformationIsBeautiful of outright censorship or anything. There might be an innocent explanation for all this. But I've seen before how knowledge gets selectively removed from the most visible information sources, keeping people in the dark about something that is quite literally killing them.

So we'll see where this goes. I'm genuinely curious to see what their response is to this article. If they're polite and have a reasonable explanation for this, I'll do my best to pass it along. Heck, maybe they'll even want NaturalNewsto help promote some of their upcoming charts on health issues such as vitamin D. Their charts are, after all,uber cool.

What are the actual radiation doses used by the cancer industry?

In the mean time, you might be wondering about another possibility: Is it possible that the line was pulled from the chart because it was not accurate? Maybe it was a typo, and the cancer industry doesn't even use that high of a dose.

Interestingly, a post beneath the chart on the Gizmodo thread, posted by userscarbrtj, says:

Chart says 20,000 mSv (20 Gy) is a "highly targeted dose used in cancer radiotherapy." Not really. That (very low) dose is almost never used for any cancer. For example, a dose of 80,000 mSv (80 Gy) is used for prostate cancer (and incidentally side effects are minimal to zero long-term because the radiation is so targeted in this case)... 60,000 mSv for breast cancer... 70,000 mSv for lung cancer... 50,000 mSv for rectal cancer.

Not that random internet posters have instant credibility or anything, but here we have a user explaining that far higher doses are routinely used in other cancer treatments.

Just to double check my facts here, I went looking for more information on the actual radiation doses used in cancer treatments. It turns out that 20,000 mSv (roughly 20 Gy) is on the low end. Epithelial tumors, for example are routinely treated with60 to 80 Gy! Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiat...)

Even more interestingly, doses of 45 - 60 Gy (roughly 45,000 - 60,000 mSv, see notes below) are used as a cancerpreventiondose in breast cancer and cancers of the head and neck.

The radiotherapy scam exposed -- again!

Just in case you're not following all this, what we're seeing here is that 10,000 mSv is a fatal dose. The 20,000 mSv line was removed from the chart between versions 1.0 and 1.35. Meanwhile, the cancer industry is routinely using 60,000 mSv focused on thehead and neckas a way to "prevent" cancer!

Are you starting to see how huge this cancer radiotherapy scam really is? Think about it: If exposure to just 100 mSv can actuallycause cancer, then how can exposure to 60,000 mSv somehow "cure" it?

Not surprisingly, the cancer industry's lies fall apart when you look at the science. No wonder the industry has to work so hard to keep people misinformed. If cancer patients knew they were receiving literally 60,000% higher radiation doses (that's 60,000 mSv versus 100 mSv) than the level necessary to significantly increase the risk of cancer, they probably wouldn't sign up for more "treatments."

For the record, mSv and Gy units (Grays) don't always convert neatly and nicely back and forth, so these numbers are approximate, and they can vary based on the type of radiation and its so-called"biological damage conversion factor."As explained on the RadProCalculator website (http://www.radprocalculator.com/FAQ...):

Rad and Gray are absorbed dose units. When we look at radiation being absorbed in tissue, the absorption varies with the energy of the radiation. With a higher energy deposition in tissue, there are more rads or more Grays deposited than a lower energy deposition at the same rate (particles or photons per second). Now, what is a rem and what is a a Sievert? The term rem came from an acronym that means Roentgen Equivalent Man, in another words the equivalent biological damage done to human tissue. Some radiation emissions, when depositing the same energy as other radiation emissions, do more biological damage to the human organism than others. How does one convert? To go from rad to rem or from Gray to Sievert, you need a multiplication factor that represents the effective biological damage. Most training texts call this a quality factor (QF) or a radiation weighting factor. Some training texts call it a biological damage conversion factor but what it truly represents is the the ratio of biological damage done by radiation types to the biological damage done by gamma radiation. For gamma, x-ray and beta radiation, this factor is 1. For alpha, it is 20. For neutrons it is between 3 and 10, and is generally conservatively taken as 10. What this implies is that a rad or Gray of alpha energy absorbed by soft human tissue does 20 times more damage than a rad or Gray of gamma, x-ray or beta energy absorbed. Since for gamma, x-ray and beta, the multiplication factor is 1, one rad equals one rem and one Gray equals one Sievert.

So the actual calculations of damage depend on what numbers you use for the QF (radiation weighting factor). But even if you're off by 10 or 20 percent, the dosage of radiation being used in cancer radiotherapy isorders of magnitude higherthan the dose needed tocause cancerin a very high percentage of those people who are exposed.

The cancer industry's own treatments, it turns out, are its best source of repeat business.

This is also true with chemotherapy, because the No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy is -- guess what? -- cancer!

I'll keep you posted on the response (if any) we receive regarding this issue.

Articles Related to This Article:

• Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism (Book Excerpt)

• The mineral selenium proves itself as powerful anti-cancer medicine

• Healing Illness - A Natural Anti-Cancer Protocol

• New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

•Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)

• Exposed: 10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You're Not Supposed to Know (opinion)

Latests: