David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   Hidden Science & Advanced Technology (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Galen Winsor - Nuclear Industry Whistleblower (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=269996)

mattpresti 05-03-2014 01:23 PM

Galen Winsor - Nuclear Industry Whistleblower
So this has come to my attention. Our team is working on dissecting the claims in these videos and also confirming any validity herein. This was a tough one for our group and still remains so. However, that said, we must follow the evidence where it leads. Just like 911 rocked us all, this issue may uncover a greater plot to keep mankind forever in the grip of the energy barons and CON (coal-oil-nuclear) slave technologies. See the "show more" info areas of these vids. We have to be our own investigative journalists. Your participation to extract the facts is welcome.

Galen Winsor

"The Nuclear Scare Scam"


"A Free Nuclear Economy"


oz93666 01-04-2014 10:26 PM

Both videos are 'unavailable'..... Please don't just link to videos, give a one paragraph summary of what it's about.

pi3141 04-04-2014 01:23 AM

Thanks for posting. Jaw dropping stuff, i'm still trying to take it in.

Here's some further info that I found.


Radiation Risk and Ethics
by Zbigniew Jaworowski*

(Reprinted with permission from Physics Today, 52(9), September 1999,
pp. 24-29, American Institute of Physics.)

*Zbigniew Jaworowski is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, and has served on the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

The established worldwide practice of protecting people from radiation costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year to implement and may well determine the world's future energy system. But is it right?

Why radiophobia?

If radiation and radioactivity, though ubiquitous, are so innocuous at normal levels, why do they cause such universal apprehension? What is the cause of radiophobia—the irrational fear that any level of ionizing radiation is dangerous? Why have radiation protection authorities introduced a dose limit for the public of 1 mSv per year, which is less than half the average dose rate from natural radiation and less than 1% of the natural dose rates in many areas of the world? Why do the nations of the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to maintain this standard?9

Here I propose some likely reasons:

· The psychological reaction to the devastation and loss of life caused by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.

· Psychological warfare during the cold war that played on the public’s fear of nuclear weapons.

· Lobbying by fossil fuel industries.

· The interests of radiation researchers striving for recognition and budget.

· The interests of politicians for whom radiophobia has been a handy weapon in their power games (in the 1970s in the US, and in the 1980s and 1990s in eastern and western Europe and in the former Soviet Union).

· The interests of news media that profit by inducing public fear.

· The assumption of a linear, no-threshold relationship between radiation and biological effects

Link - http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/19...i/NR99aa01.htm


Fukushima: Just How Dangerous Is Radiation?

Linear No Threshold theory assumes that there is a linear relationship in the amount of danger posed by increasing levels of radiation. Let’s use aspirin to demonstrate LNT at work. Assume that 100 tablets is a 100-percent fatal dose of aspirin. (That is roughly the case for a 200-pound man.) Linear No Threshold theory would predict that 50 tablets would cause a 50-percent mortality rate, 10 tablets would result in 10-percent mortality, and a single tablet would cause one percent of the users to die. We can pretty well agree that this doesn’t happen with aspirin, but we are told that it does for radiation.

Linear No Threshold theory applied to radiation is a shameful lie that causes huge outlays to “protect” the public against trivial amounts of exposure to radiation and is the primary reason behind a fear of nuclear power — promoted, in your correspondent’s opinion, by the radical environmentalists who wield enormous power in our federal and state governments, academia, the media, and, sadly, some of our country’s scientific and professional organizations.

Link - http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...ment/item/6931

pi3141 04-04-2014 01:30 AM


Originally Posted by oz93666 (Post 1062042966)
Both videos are 'unavailable'..... Please don't just link to videos, give a one paragraph summary of what it's about.

Here's a summary taken from another webpage


Exposing the Misunderstood issues of Nuclear Radiation by Galen Winsor

Galen Winsor has traveled and lectured all over America, spoken on national talk radio, and made several videos exposing the misunderstood issues of nuclear radiation. He shows that fear of radiation has been exaggerated to scare people … so a few powerful people can maintain total control of the world’s most valuable power resource. Filmed by Ben Williams in 1986.

In the video, you can watch Galen lick a pile of highly radioactive uranium off the palm of his hand and ignite a chunk of plutonium into a shower of flaming dust. The guy also drank reactor cooling pool water for fun and liked to go swimming in the pool to relax. He also spiked the basement flooring of his own home with enough radioactive material to send any Geiger counter reading off the scale to disprove the fear mongering surrounding radon at the time.

Galen surmises the regulations and fear mongering that surround radioactive materials are in place to prevent the widespread adoption of nuclear power in local small scale neighborhood/home based reactors. Galen also points out that hot nuclear “waste” can be effectively turned into a safe power source through thermionic conversion, which is how the U.S. submarine navigation network was powered. The heat it gives off can also be used to safely heat homes.

He points out that nuclear “waste” is worth roughly $10 million (in 1986 dollars) a ton if it were to be reprocessed to collect its useful isotopes, so all of this talk about trying to bury it is a sham. He says the power companies are holding all the waste with the intent of playing the plutonium futures market. The “waste” could be stored above ground in already constructed buildings meeting all the regulatory requirements without the need to have these outrageous basalt mines dug into mountains. The only reason he can think of for these underground vaults is to hide bodies/evidence that the state doesn’t want uncovered.

At its core, he says federal controls over nuclear material is about maintaining power and control over the masses through the denial of self-sufficient power sources. Obviously if one had a personal sized power source that was cheap and efficient, they wouldn’t need to be connected to the “grid” for anything. The power grid is the control grid our rulers use to keep us under their thumbs.

He also says Three Mile Island was an intentionally created disaster, and that a core meltdown could not melt its way deep into the Earth. We see shades of 911 and Fukushima here…. Could Chernoylb be the same? The answer is frightening.

Update Galen Hulet Winsor died in 2008. at the age of 88

Link - http://aetherforce.com/the-radiation...-in-radiation/
:eek: Holy fuckushima!

pi3141 04-04-2014 02:44 AM

More stuff


Zbigniew Jaworowski
•M.D., Medical Academy in Krakow, 1952.
•Ph.D., Natural Sciences (doktor nauk przyrodniczych), 1963.
•D.Sc., Natural Sciences (doktor habilitowany nauk przyrodniczych), 1967.
Source: [1]

Zbigniew Jaworowski is a retired professor of atomic radiation and an outspoken critic of mainstream climate science.

Joworowski is listed as the Chairman of UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiations) from 1981 to 1982. [2]

The Council describes its mandate as follows:

“Its mandate in the United Nations system is to assess and report levels and effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. Governments and organizations throughout the world rely on the Committee's estimates as the scientific basis for evaluating radiation risk and for establishing protective measures.”

Stance on Climate Change
“The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning.” [3]

Link - http://www.desmogblog.com/zbigniew-j...ze&h=216&w=226

pi3141 04-04-2014 02:49 AM



Fukushima Radiation Exposure and Risks Overblown According to Doctors

A report issued by researchers and doctors from the Physicians for Civil Defense has suggested that the stress of evacuation related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear generating station has produced greater health risks than the radiation exposure itself.

Jane Orient, M.D., the president of Physicians for Civil Defense, announced the findings in a release on October 2 [2012] from Tucson, Arizona.

A total of about 172,000 people have evacuated within a 30 kilometer radius of the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Many were forced out or were otherwise advised to evacuate.

Dr. Orient stated that the radiation doses the population was exposed to was not as dangerous as the stress brought on by evacuation. “The stress of evacuation can itself cause death, so it is important not to over-react,” stated Dr. Orient.

“Panic that leads to disruptions in people’s lives is deadly as well as costly,” Dr. Orient continued. “It’s especially tragic when fear-driven measures ‘protect’ people from levels of radiation that are far more likely to benefit than to harm them.”

Despite the panic echoed through the media, it turns out that the dose levels, even in the red zones closest to the reactors, were lower than normal background radiation levels in a number of other parts of the world. The red zones around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors peaked at about 0.2 rad/day or 2 millisieverts per day (mSv/day), which is equivalent to about 600 millisieverts per year (mSv/yr).

Research has illustrated that regions of France, India, Iran and Brazil normally have background exposure levels that come close to or exceed these. Regions in Brazil and West France, for example can easily exceed 700 mSv/year, while areas of Iran often exceed 400 mSv/year. And none of these areas have little evidence of increased cancer incidence.

Many state that the Fukushima accident compares with the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Actually, the exposure was far less. Furthermore, research has indicated that public health officials overestimated the death toll due to the Chernobyl accident by at least 800,000 people. The first study to find this was led by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a physician and professor, and former Chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection. Dr. Jaworoski’s research found that not only was the Chernobyl death rate overestimated, but the amount of exposure was greatly exaggerated.

“The projections of thousands of late cancer deaths based on LNT (linear non-thresholds) are in conflict with observations that in comparison with general population of Russia, a 15% to 30% deficit in solid cancer mortality was found among Russian emergency workers, and a 5% deficit of solid cancer incidence among the population of most contaminated areas,” Dr. Jaworoski wrote.

The research also found that the total radiation emission given off by Chernobyl into the atmosphere was 200 times less than the amount released from the explosion of 543 nuclear bombs that have been exploded in the atmosphere since 1945. The highest environmental exposure from the bombs was 0.113 mSv in 1963.

Those living in the contaminated areas of Russia in the decade after the Chernobyl accident were exposed to only 0.76 mSv/year to 0.9 mSv/year.

More interestingly, Jaworoski’s research also found that mortality rates among the most exposed people were lower than mortality rates found in areas with typically high background rates of radiation.

Denver residents are exposed to 3 mSv/year plus a dose of 2.4 mSv/year in background exposure. The International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP)’s standard for evacuation is 1 mSv/year, which would require Denver to evacuate immediately.

Dr. Richard Muller – physics professor at University of California, Berkeley – has called the 3 mSv/year plus 2.4mSv/year in background radiation the “Denver dose.”

Dr. Jaworoski’s research found that that cancer rates in the Chernobyl contaminated areas were lower among those exposed to greater levels of radiation.

Dr. Jaworoski’s data also determined that the screening for cancer had more to do with the higher rates of diagnosis than anything else. Higher rates of illnesses were later found by UN investigators to be attributed to the high rate of smoking and drinking of residents. The 2005 UN report stated: “No evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found, nor has there been any evidence of congenital malformations.”

“The ‘cancer dose’ that some people calculate assumes that even one ‘hit’ from a gamma ray can induce a cancer,” said Dr. Orient. “In fact, every cell in the body experiences 200,000 ‘hits’ per day from natural processes. Low-dose radiation stimulates the natural repair mechanisms.”

The report also extrapolated estimates of average lifetime radiation exposures over a 70 year lifespan. The U.S. average is 180 mSv/life, Sweden is 410 mSv/life, Finland is 510 mSv/life, Chernobyl’s “high contamination” region is 480 mSv/life, Kerala, India, a coastal region, averages 1,600-14,000 mSv/life, and Ramsar, Iran averages 18,200 mSv/life.

Sweden and Finland happen to have some of the longest average lifespans as well.

Accidental radiation exposure from cobalt-60 contaminated steel in Taiwan apartments actually seemed to immunize residents against cancer, according to a study published in 2004.

The issue of evacuation criteria for radiation accidents is being reviewed by Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. After a recent meeting they have proposed that an evacuation standard should reflect the normal background radiation of that region rather than be a one-size-fits-all.

Our bodies are more resilient than we might think. And we might be actually seeing the effects of radiation killing off growing cancers elsewhere due to a stimulation of the immune system.

This doesn’t mean that radiation exposures are not disastrous to life and the environment in the short and long run. They certainly are. They have the affect of rearranging nature. We might think that our immune systems become tolerant in the short-run, but the long-term effects to our children’s DNA is largely uncertain. For example, a study published in Ecological Indicators found that populations of birds, cicadas and butterflies decreased in Fukushima- and Chernobyl-contaminated areas, while populations of dragonflies, bumblebees and grasshoppers remained intact. Meanwhile spider populations increased significantly. This rearranging of species mirrors the genetic changes we will likely see over time.

While we cannot ignore other studies that show that radiation can produce cancer, when it comes to longer-term environmental radiation dosage, we must draw from a deeper perspective – one that includes immunity, tolerance and the ability of the body to adapt to environmental radiation.

The fact is, our bodies are more tolerant than we like to admit. Remaining healthy is part of encouraging that tolerance. It is for this reason that a number of natural substances, such as kelps and spirulina, have been shown to be cancer-protective in radiation exposures. Changing the world will require significant effort and we can be part of that change. But in the meantime, we can also teach our bodies to become more tolerant.

Link - http://www.realnatural.org/fukushima...ng-to-doctors/

pi3141 04-04-2014 02:54 AM

More again




The apparent aim of the document is to dispel irrational psychosis of fear among the population in the three countries most affected by the Chernobyl accident, and among the public elsewhere. Except for 31 early fatalities, psychosis is the most grave and wide impact of this accident, both at the regional and global scale. It caused the greatest medical, economic and societal harm. The document rightly (although not explicitly) stresses that in the contaminated areas the vast majority of about 5 million inhabitants receives now irradiation from the Chernobyl fallout corresponding to a lifetime dose less than 70 mSv, which is lower than the average global natural lifetime radiation dose of 170 mSv, and many times lower than the natural doses in many regions of the world, and that therefore most of the excessive restrictions imposed during the past twenty years should be removed.

Link - http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7...-copyright.pdf

pi3141 04-04-2014 02:59 AM

Japan Times report today


Fukushima-linked cancer surge unlikely: U.N.

U.N. experts expect no jump in cases despite higher risk

VIENNA – The Fukushima nuclear disaster is unlikely to lead to a rise in people developing cancer as happened after Chernobyl in 1986, even though the most exposed children may face an increased risk, U.N. scientists said Wednesday.

In a major study, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said it did not expect “significant changes” in future cancer rates that could be attributed to radiation exposure from the reactor meltdowns.

The amounts of radioactive substances such as iodine-131 released after the 2011 accident were much lower than after Chernobyl, and Japanese authorities also took action to protect people living near the stricken plant, including evacuations.

However, some children — estimated at fewer than 1,000 — might have received doses that could affect their risk of developing thyroid cancer later in life, UNSCEAR said, while emphasizing the probability of that happening was still low.

UNSCEAR chairman Carl-Magnus Larsson said there was a theoretical increased risk among the most exposed children for this type of cancer, which is rare among the young.

But “we are not sure that this is going to be something that will be captured in the thyroid cancer statistics in future,” he told a news conference.

Wolfgang Weiss, who chaired the Fukushima assessment, said the thyroid cancer risk was much lower compared with Chernobyl and any increase would be limited.

On March 11, 2011, the magnitude-9 earthquake and tsunami devastated the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture, spewing radiation and forcing about 160,000 people to flee their homes.

It was the world’s worst nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl reactor explosion sent radioactive dust across much of Europe. People close to the then-Soviet plant were exposed to radioactive iodine that contaminated milk and radiation that turned surrounding areas into ghost towns for decades.

In contrast, UNSCEAR’s Fukushima report said it expected a low impact on cancer rates for the population and that this was largely due to “prompt protective actions” after the meltdowns.

A 30-km radius around the plant was eventually declared a no-go zone, while areas where radiation was not so critically high took steps such as replacing or turning over earth in parks and playgrounds, decontaminating public spaces and limiting children’s outdoor play time.

“No discernible changes in future cancer rates and hereditary diseases are expected due to exposure to radiation as a result of the Fukushima nuclear accident,” UNSCEAR said in a statement accompanying its nearly 300-page study.

The thyroid — a gland in the neck that produces hormones that regulate vital bodily functions — is the most exposed organ because radioactive iodine concentrates there. Children are deemed especially vulnerable.

UNSCEAR said the normal thyroid cancer risk for children was very low.

“The occurrence of a large number of radiation-induced thyroid cancers as were observed after Chernobyl can be discounted because doses were substantially lower,” it said.

In Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, the countries most affected by Chernobyl, more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer had been reported by 2005 in children and adolescents who were exposed during the disaster, UNSCEAR says on its website.

Link - http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201...cientists-say/

jikwan 05-10-2016 01:37 PM


the tealady 05-10-2016 02:47 PM

I do not believe anything the UN says about health and safety. There have been stories of fish and sharks being cancer infested when caught by fishing trawlers in the waters off Fukushima.

pi3141 29-01-2019 04:25 AM

Bump. Important thread.

oz93666 29-01-2019 04:45 AM


Originally Posted by pi3141 (Post 1063057308)
Bump. Important thread.

Yes ...important information ...

When nuclear energy was first discovered the engineers said electricity would be so cheap it would be like water and not be metered (now water is metered).

The cabal could not allow that , so the rothchilds bought up all the uranium mines to keep the price high , and steered the industry away from 'breeder reactors' (reactors that create more fuel than they burn)...

A massive cost is in the decommissioning of reactors ... fantastically expensive , so this would be a big reason for the cabal to exaggerate the dangers of radiation.

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04 PM.