The Suppressed Link between Trinity and Lung / Skin Cancer

Please consider this:

A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide. The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care.

Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.

Now Get this:
If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer.

Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker.(*) (ed: Why?? please read on)

The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.

More on Trinity: The Trinity Nuclear Explosion

And then this:

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.

You may ask yourselves if you have been told the truth with regards to lung and skin cancer.

Skin cancer is caused by the sun, everyone knows that.
Lung cancer is caused by smoking, everyone knows that too.

But...

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 (our) environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for "big government" to start taking heavy diversionary action. How could people be convinced 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. (Ed: please note the time line)

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.

Government needed a scapegoat for the spectacular rise in lung cancer in the late fifties, and boy did they find one.

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.

Finally:

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."

(*) But how on earth does smoking protect you from the radioactive particle fallout?

Well...

Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, "which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue." This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense.

Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue.

Now this does raise my eyebrows, because this would explain the mystery of why the Elite really want us to stop smoking. I could never find a decent explanation for the fact that they so desperatly want us to quit. Well, I think I have found it.

The thin mucous layer does not only protect against nuclear particles, it also prevents other particles floating in the atmosphere from penetrating the lung tissue. Particles like aluminum, thorium, barium. Ring a bell? Yes. Chemtrails.

To end on a lighter note:

All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible. Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke. Go on, don’t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. Or perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, just three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer."

Bit cheeky wink at the anti smoking lobby there...

In any case I advise anyone wishing to see the bigger picture to carefully read the entire article which was originally written by Joe Vialls. May he and his site rest in peace.

How Mass Media May Shape Deep Reality Assumptions? Lung Cancer, Smoke And The Trinity Test

(continued on next page...)

[edit on 6-7-2009 by Truth4hire]

(continued...)

Another reference quoted by Vialls is "The Smoking Scare Debunked" by Dr. William Withby which can be found online here.

Now I know this a lot to digest, especially if you have recently given up smoking but the only reason I went looking for this is because of the outrageous price increases in tobacco all of a sudden, everywhere. Plus the FDA regulations by Barack Obama.

If any conclusion could be draw is that they do not want a protective layer on our lungs because the Elite really want to exercise culling the general population either by the residual Trinity particles or the covert spraying disguised as "global warming measures".

I do not know about you, but I will take my chances and continue smoking my pure rolling tobacco.

T4H

Bravo, S&F for you!

I always thought there was something more to all this smoking malarkey - I've seen people get ill, and die, from 'smoking' - but that was only ever a tiny part, there was so many other underlying health causes - hey, that sounds familiar right now.

And at the same time, I'd always thought it odd that none of the horrible things people did in the 20th century had no effect on us - but that about the nukes makes a lot of sense. Theres still a massive barrage of this material in the atmosphere.
They say the sun causes skin cancer - sunlight can still get through clouds, can these radioactive isotopes? Could be worth looking into.

I'm sending this article to lots of people.

This seems super far fetched but also make super logical sense lol

Confuzzled I am.

I am at work at mo but going to give this a serious look at some point. I am a non smoker but im sure i can get used to the odd cigar =D

I know how you feel, believe me...

How about the part of the black lungs being shown in school? Proven to be the lungs of a coal miner!. As Vialls says: Your smoker lungs are a pretty pink as mine.

It is all about focus.

What evil has government conspired to in the last century. It is truly mind boggling.

Don´t know about other parts of the world in detail but rolling tobacco in Spain nearly doubled in price end of last month (+52%) Cigarettes +15% on average. Expected to rise to 100% end of 2009 compared to 2008 pricing.

Australia: $20 per pack by the end of this year.

They really do not want us to smoke...

reply to post by Truth4hire


The use of DU ammunition also poses a health risk. Recently the govt. has allowed a few scientists to publicly admit chemtrails being used for climate modification. There were a growing number of people who were saying that the polymers in chemtrails were intended to remove DU particles from the air.

After the most recent gulf war some info emerged suggesting a spike in lung cancer. Mostly a link was not made in the public's mind between DU and lung cancer.


If another campaign of "shock and awe" occurs in the middle east, DU shells will most certainly be used again. And the DU particles will go around the world again.

And here is the OTHER side of the story:

The substance in cigarette smoke that is protective of cancer? Why its NIACIN. That is right - good ole Vitamin B3! The same vitamin that they inject in grain products.

You see, Niacin is the by-product of the combustion of nicotene. Its real name is nicotenic acid. But anti-tobacco was afraid to admit that there might be anything good about smoking and therefore did not want it publicized that smokers get pretty healthy doses of vitamin B3 - so to confuse the public they took the first 2 letters of the word nictotenic and the first 2 letters of the word acid to form niacin.

What is niacin important for - well healthy brain functioning for one - a niacin deficiency results in a disease called Pellegra. It is a particularly ugly disease that was common in the southern united states because of their corn based diet. The symptoms of Pellegra are the 4 D's That would be diarrhea, dementia, dermititis and death.

en.wikipedia.org...

Niacin is important in the treatment of cardiomyopathy because it encourages the growth of small blood vessels. It can be argued that smokers may suffer more cardiac disease but it is also well known that smokers will survive more cardiac disease - Smoker's Paradox.

www.medscape.com...

Niacin is important for people with mental health issues - like schizophrenia, manic-depression and just plain depression. It suppresses and controls all of the symptoms with or without medication. (which puts the inhumanity of anti-tabacco in the spotlight as they have ordered mental patients confined in a hospital to quit smoking by banning smoking in the hospital)

Smokers get less MS and Parkinson's disease, don't get irritable bowel syndrome (or if they have it - symptoms often disappear without medication)

Tobacco smoke was used as a treatment for childhood asthsma attacks and in light of the fact that childhood asthma as increased by 800% since the 1960s (in lockstep with decreases of smoking in the general population) there is very good reason to expose children to second hand smoke.

Further, smoking in a room decreases the concentration of bacteria and viruses in the air by 95 %

Lets get the truth out there because the pharmaceutical companies succeed in putting patents on niacin to treat alot of neurological and respiratory diseases.

Tired of Control Freaks.

Before any of you spout any more pro-smoking disinfo, I will personally arrange for you to volunteer in a local oncology ward near my home so you can witness firsthard how "safe" smoking is. Number of cancer patients in there who are smokers? Virtually all of them, and some have had more than one type of cancer. There is a reconstructive oral surgeon in Florida who I am sure would love to have you sit in on a fitting or two, especially for people who have lost jawbones, cheekbones and even noses. If you are man enough for the challenge, U2U me and we'll get the ball rolling.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Your post is some of the biggest nonfactual crap I have ever read on the Internet.

FACT: Smoking is banned in psych wards because it is an addictive
stimulant with severe health effects and also leads to fires from patients falling asleep with lit cigarettes, a VERY common accident. Not one study links cigarette smoking to alleviating psychotic symptoms, especiallyin schizophrenia. Second hand smoke has NEVER been an accepted treatement for asthma, it is the primary cause of asthma. Ask the CDC, WHO, NIH or any other company not funded by tobacco researchers and they will tell you that and give you all sorts of evidence to back it up.

Smokers can and do develop irritable bowel syndrome, Chrohn's disease, diverticulitis and other gastric diseases and disproportionately develop Barrett's esophagus which often results in highly fatal esophageal cancer. I have worked with smokers who have had all of these diseases.

Where the hell do you people get this crap or are you making it up to stir up argument?

reply to post by son of total newbie


How exactly does U238 the heaviest substance there is just about float very far in an atmosphere composed mostly of N14? I am sorry but when I see this nonsense I have to comment. There is no possible way that dust of U238 floats further than a few hundred meters. It is just to dang heavy of a substance even if it somehow atomized to single particle distribution which is highly unlikely. What you get with U238 impact even it if burns is clumps and clusters with an average diameter of 50 microns or larger. That is small for silicon which Si28 which is barely twice the atomic density of the nitrogen atmosphere but U238 is 17 times the weight of nitrogen, that is 1700% bigger atoms than the nitrogen it is supposed to float in if it were reduced to single particle size.

Just some food for thought when you accept someone elses conclusion about U238 floating around the world.

Now on the other hand a Plutonium bomb detonated high in the atmosphere is another story all together. What the OP is talking about I can subscribe to. If you detonate a Pu bomb in atmosphere they will end up in the stratosphere and are distributed throughout the world on a explosively driven trajectory. Then they settle in the dust everywhere and then go no where so the opportunity for exposure if very great due to local distribution of the heavy particles.

To give you an example. There are highway tunnels in Dallas TX that are still contaminated with Lead dust from decades of leaded gasoline powered cars traveling through them. The wind blows fiercely through those tunnels some times but that dust is so heavy it just barely moves back and forth and still can be found in high concentrations even today decades after the last vehicle went through there spewing lead dust particles. Lead is not as dense as U238 that is why they use it for munitions. It is still too dense to move more than a few hundred feet from where it was laid down decades ago.

Well,

I think someone needs to make inexpensive depleted Uranium Cigarettes

In this way everyone is right... I'm a big believer in win/win situations.

This way, TPTB get us dead, we can still smoke and cigs definitely will cause cancer

In response to posters refering us to oncology wards:

1. Non-smokers get cancer too. In fact at this moment, almost 50% of female lung cancer is occurring in never-smoking woman!

2. The fact that a person has lung cancer and is a smoker may be linked because sometimes those two things occur in the same organism. That is called correlation.

The fact that my alarm clock rings every morning and every morning the sun comes up also occurs (correlation) however, I am pretty sure that my alarm clock does not cause the sun to rise every morning. That would be CAUSATION.

Please provide your evidence showing that medical technology has reached the point where the specific cause of each and every case of lung cancer can be accurately identified. Please tell me how a biopsy of a cancerous lung would differentiate between a lung cancer caused by smoking tobacco or a lung cancer caused by air pollution or a lung cancer caused by radiation or a lung cancer caused by radon or a lung cancer caused by the HPV virus?

Oh that is right - you can't! Because the only evidence that smoking CAUSES lung cancer is provided by epidimiology (studying possible correlation by using statistics). Epidimiology, regardless of the strength of the correlation, does not prove CAUSATION. CAUSATION can only be proved in a laboratory.

Oh that is right - they have been trying to prove CAUSATION for 60 years now and haven't quite managed to do so.

It wasn't that long ago that cervical cancer was said to be caused by smoking because of the strong correlation between smoking and cervical cancer. We now know that cervical cancer is caused by the HPV virus. That is causation.

It wasn't that long ago that smoking was said to cause peptic ulcers because of the strong correlation. We now know that peptic ulcers are caused by a common bacteria. That is causation.

So unless you have proof of causation - the worst thing you can claim about smoking is that there is a strong correlation between heavy smoking and lung cancer. You have NO evidence to proved that smoking CAUSES lung cancer.

Who believes epidimiologists anymore?

Tired of Control Freaks.

My dear dear Secret Agent WOOMAN

So smoking is banned in a psychiatric ward because its an addictive stimulant????

Are you joking me here??? Have you ever been on a pysch ward??? Every patient is treated with addictive substances!!!!! Ever read the side effects from some of those prescriptions that these people are on for years.

I thought smoking was banned in psychiatric wards because of the risks of second hand smoke to others??? Isn't that what was advertised? Are you now admitting that banning smoking on psych wards was in fact to enforce unwanted medical treatment (smoking cessation is medical treatment) on captive patients without their permission?

Isn't that unethical - are there no laws against forcing someone to undergo unwanted medical treatment?

As for smoking or exposure to second hand smoke causing asthma

www.cure-guide.com...

Please kindly explain this phenomenal increase in asthma despite ever decreasing smoking in the population and every increasing smoking bans? You don't even have correlation on this one - never mind causation

And yes - doctors used to treat asthma by gently blowing second hand smoke into the face of the child suffering an asthma attacks before Big Pharma developed steroid inhalers.

Now I have provided evidence for what I say - do me the favor of replying in kind.

Tired of Control Freaks.

Here is the link for female never-smokers and the incidence of lung cancer.

med.stanford.edu...

Tired of Control Freaks.

I LOVE THIS!!!!

I have smoked for years, but what I could never understand (until today), was that when whatever "bug du jour" is going around, and everyone gets sick and congested, this would rarely happen to me! I NEVER get as sick as my non-smoking, vitamin popping, exercise conscious, diet conscious husband. And very specifically with the lung issues!

We were just talking about this yesterday...the new tobacco taxes and such. And what is going to happen when "they" drive yet another industry into the dirt.

Another piece of the puzzle clicks in place......

reply to post by UFOTECH


Hmmm. That's not my understanding as to how DU works in the atmosphere.

Supposedly a cloud of it floated as far a GB from the latest "shock and awe". And it is is apparently in the jet stream. Will check my sources. Next thread on this subject they will be available, so check back.

Great thread! I must say, it is immensely entertaining to see the under-dog (smoker/supporter of smokers) providing such great information (and links to backup his claims) while the big guys (anti-smokers, I say big guys because they are 10-to-1 these days) spew bottomless "facts" and rely only on correlations between totally unrelated facts.

Stars & flags for you!

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


I am a smoker since 13(29 now) and, I have been in and out of the doctors recently. My blood pressure and heart rate is always normal, not saying that should be any indicator for anything, I'm no doctor, just thought I'd throw that out there. I do however think it is strange that the last time I had my lungs looked at(last year) the doc said my lungs didn't really look like a smokers lungs. But i don't think i agree entirely what your claiming here it seems a little far fetched...


PEACE!!!



[edit on 04/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]

reply to post by ninecrimes


We keep bumping into each other today, must be all that nicotine that helps us process. I agree and starred and flagged.
Also the links between nicotine and mental health are staggering, Hitler banning smokes has always intrigued me as does the testing of nicotine and alzheimers.
This newest link and the lining of the lungs just backs up my theory even more that we should do the exact opposite of what the FDA tells us to do. I read in the swine flu thread about how smokers would have an easier go with this flu because of the lining of the lungs as well.

Also wanted to ad that my dad smoked for 30 years and was diagnosed with cancer 13 years after his last cig and 5 years after his last cigar. Seems about the right time frame for the lining to dissolve and the cancer to form. My dad died last year at 62 from the cancer after a 3 year battle, on the other hand his mother smoked her whole life and never laid them down and she died of old age at 93.