ratitor's corner

december 21, 1997

december solstice, 12:05pm, pst

ASCII text

Independent Watchdogs:  
An Antidote to Nuclear Pollution

Exercising Our Remarkable Powers of Response Ability

A Trustworthy Database:   A Sacred Obligation of Humanity

        A database from a major accident such as Chernobyl becomes a precious and irreplaceable health-resource for humanity. It seems reasonable to assert that humans have a sacred obligation to produce a database which meets the most rigorous standards for believability. By database, we mean the original raw data on radiation exposure-estimates and on the health status of participants in the database.
        If the database itself is false -- either from careless work or from intentional bias -- it poisons every conclusion which emerges from it. A false database causes innocent analysts of such data to fill the medical journals and textbooks with un-knowledge. It renders all its users into agents of possibly deadly mis-information. . . .
        Therefore, one of the most vital activities in the field of citizen action and preventive medicine -- today, tomorrow, and forever -- is the fiercest possible defense of objective, untainted databases.                   --Dr. John Gofman

"Such [radioactive `plume'] analyses are irreplaceable tools for activists concerned with holding the correct parties responsible for radioactive trespasses on their communities."                                                             --Sam Miller

Today is the december solstice, when, the sun, appearing to travel along the ecliptic, reaches the point where it is the farthest south of the celestial equator. So in the northern hemisphere days are shortest and nights longest while the opposite occurs in the southern hemisphere.
This ratitorial focuses on ways you can become an independent watchdog "Common Sense Expert" by learning the Nine Basic Rules for Believable Bio-Medical Research and strategies to respond with all our creativity and resourcefulness to address the unnecessary, increasing global burden of man-made radioactivity by those supporting further employment of nuclear technology, particularly in the arena of nuclear power generation in and transportation of nuclear waste through one's own community.

Talking with people these years, i'm struck by how often eyes glaze over when i bring up the subject of man-made nuclear pollution and its accumulating burden on the integrity of the gene pool -- not just for Homo sapiens, but of all life on Earth. Contemplating the actual biological and biospherical costs of nuclear power is deeply disturbing. Yet despite the increasingly pervasive paralysis of hope and numbing belief that nothing can actually be done to reverse this devolving situation, there are tangible, practical measures we can all participate in to reclaim our planetary home for the future of all that will follow us here. It is for each of us to determine which approach best suits our own superior powers of response ability.

The beginning quote urging the fiercest possible defense of objective, untainted databases refers to those like the Atomic-Bomb Survivor Studies (Hiroshima & Nagasaki) and the Chernobyl study of 1991 (both controlled by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), a joint enterprise of DOE and the Japanese Ministry of Health). In the same spirit, the following is presented on the scale of a grassroots-level Call for Participation for people to serve as "independent watchdogs" performing regular monitoring and assessment of the levels of radioactivity in our local communities.

With independent monitoring of the background levels of man-made radiation, we can re-establish a basis for understanding what the true nature of our local biophysical world actually is. Thus we free ourselves from the hopelessness engendered by the numbing psychic pseudo-dependency upon official reports and statements made by the public relations employees of utility and transportation companies -- as well as the recent signing of a contract by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with private companies guaranteeing said companys a profit on sales of radioactively contaminated metal to the marketplace (see Part 6, below) -- whose activities involving nuclear technology threaten the health and well being of our neighborhoods and communities. The owners and top-level managers of these companies are legally insulated behind a cloak of financial unaccountability in the guise of the `Limited Liability joint Stock Corporation'. Since the owners are legally and financially liable only to the stockholders they have no virtually no incentive to respond to the concerns of the people who live where their business operations and activities take place. This is compounded by the fact that unless there is an independent community-based group actively monitoring local area radioactivity, we cannot verify, confirm, or deny, the veracity of whichever company's constantly repeated claims that there is "no danger" from this, that, or the other mishap, accident, error, release, puff, spill, etc.

However, with independent watchdogs organized and capable of challenging the veracity and credibility of all such official pronouncements, the pressure for a heretofore impossible degree of accountability by such companies to literally clean up their act will be much more keenly felt and difficult to evade or ignore. In this way, the same premise in the beginning quote is actualized on the local level with citizens in any community, through their "independent watchdogging", creating equivalent "objective, untainted databases" to offset and curb the lethal mis-information produced by those interests which are creating the nuclear pollution in the first place.

The grassroots measures described below to help reverse the assault on the biosphere posed by man-made nuclear pollution can be summarized as follows:

  1. Learn the basics about the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
  2. Learn the Nine Basic Rules for Believable Bio-Medical Research
  3. Help make others aware of the Nine Basic Rules of Research
  4. Purchase and learn how to use an ionizing radiation detection device
  5. If one exists, join an independent group monitoring a local nuke
  6. If none exists, be the catalyst to start one in your area
    References (all available on the web)

  1. Learn the basics about the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
It's all too easy to feel cowed by radiation terminology. The rarified language of radiation physics intimidates all of us who didn't get a degree in nuclear/physical chemistry. Despite barely passing undergraduate basic chemistry in college, i was struck by the "lay-person accessibility" of the section on "Nuclear Radiation and its Biological Effects"[1] from "Section 1, The Problem," of Dr. Rosalie Bertell's 1985 book, No Immediate Danger, Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth. This essential lay-person's primer, intended for anyone interested in understanding the basics, provides a wealth of details about radiation and its effects on living systems. Read this. Study it. Learn it.

To augment the above, the following additional reading is also recommended:

  1. Learn the Nine Basic Rules for Believable Bio-Medical Research
Dr. John Gofman is Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology in the University of California at Berkeley, and Lecturer at the Department of Medicine, University of California School of Medicine at San Francisco. From his work as co-discoverer of protactinium-232, uranium-232, protactinium-233, and uranium-233 in the early 1940s, recipient of the Gold-Headed Cane Award (UC Medical School, 1946, presented to the graduating senior who most fully personifies the qualities of a "true physician") to Founder and first Director of the Biomedical Research Division of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, (1963-1964), through to the 1992 Right Livelihood Award, for his pioneering work in exposing the health effects of low-level radiation, Dr. Gofman's career spans a lifetime of research in the fields of nuclear / physical chemistry, coronary heart disease, ultracentrifugal analysis of the serum lipoproteins, the relationship of human chromosomes to cancer, and the biological effects of radiation, with especial reference to causation of cancer and hereditary injury. [4]

On the occasion of receiving the Right Livelihood Award in 1992, Dr. Gofman presented a paper on Bio-Medical "Un-Knowledge" And Nuclear Pollution: A Common-Sense Proposal [5] in which he outlined Nine Essential Rules of Inquiry in Medical Sciences. If these Rules are scrupulously adhered to during the period the research is conducted then the integrity of the resulting database will be beyond question. But if any Rule is broken the effect will be to compromise the scientific credibility of the research. The following explains why it is of the utmost necessity to apply these Rules in the most rigorous manner with all bio-medical research:

        The key to believable bio-medical research is obedience to the Rules of Research, some of which are listed below. It follows that we can solve our problem if we figure out and establish a mechanism to ensure that the Rules of Research receive real implementation, not mere "lip-service."
        Although we may focus here on nuclear pollution from Chernobyl, the principles involved are applicable to legions of other pollutants, such as dioxin, pesticides, mercury, and lead.

        It is fortunate, indeed, that we do not have disasters with the scope of Chernobyl very often, as yet. The tragedy of this disaster for those overtly and covertly affected is great. This tragedy will be compounded manyfold if we squander the opportunity to learn everything possible about the health and ecological consequences.

A Trustworthy Database:   A Sacred Obligation of Humanity

        A database from a major accident such as Chernobyl becomes a precious and irreplaceable health-resource for humanity. It seems reasonable to assert that humans have a sacred obligation to produce a database which meets the most rigorous standards for believability. By database, we mean the original raw data on radiation exposure-estimates and on the health status of participants in the database.
        If the database itself is false -- either from careless work or from intentional bias -- it poisons every conclusion which emerges from it. A false database causes innocent analysts of such data to fill the medical journals and textbooks with un-knowledge. It renders all its users into agents of possibly deadly mis-information.
        If research on Chernobyl's radiation consequences is either poorly designed, or biased, or both, the false conclusions will nevertheless enter the textbooks. If the results exaggerate the true health hazards, it will be a real disservice to humanity. If the results underestimate the true health hazards, the mis-information will be literally deadly.
        Suppose the new textbook wisdom says that "Chernobyl studies showed that no health hazards can be found if radiation doses are low and received gradually." True or false, such a claim throughout the professional literature would endure, and would result in great increases in "permissible doses" and unnecessary and preventable human exposures to radiation (environmentally, occupationally, medically).
        If the textbook wisdom is false, the extra radiation exposures will inflict misery on hundreds of millions of people over time, in the form of early deaths, unnecessary cancers, mental handicaps, deformities, and genetic diseases (which include heart disease, diabetes mellitus, schizophrenia, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and many, many additional disorders).

In the area of nuclear pollution from man-made sources, the way to prevent the creation and promotion of such "false textbook wisdom" is for as many as possible of us "just plain folks" to learn these Nine Basic Rules of Research to assess for ourselves the legitimate scientific credibility of any study.

Nine Essential Rules of Inquiry in Medical Sciences

        To help prevent production of false databases and false "findings," either through bias or scientific error, medical science has developed some basic Rules of Research. Adherence to these rules is essential for conducting scientifically credible studies of Chernobyl's radiation consequences. For comparing exposed and non-exposed groups in epidemiological studies, some basic rules are abbreviated below

         *  - FIRST RULE:   Comparable Groups.
An essential condition for determination of radiation effect on persons is assurance that exposed and non-exposed groups of persons would have the same rate of disease and disorders in the absence of radiation.

         *  - SECOND RULE:   A Real Difference in Dose.
If disease-rate is being compared in two groups, it is essential to achieve a reasonable certainty that the compared groups have appreciably different accumulated doses. If the compared groups truly received nearly the same total amount of radiation, it is pre-destined before the study even begins that analysts will find "no provable difference in disease-rates between the groups."

         *  - THIRD RULE:   A Sufficiently Big Difference in Dose.
The dose-differences between compared groups must be large enough to allow for statistically conclusive findings despite the random variations in numbers and in population samples. Analysts can cope with the random fluctuations of small numbers both by assuring sufficiently large dose-differences between compared groups, and by assuring large numbers of people in each group.

         *  - FOURTH RULE:   Careful Reconstruction of Dose.
Obviously, false conclusions will be reached if supposedly non-exposed people in a database really received appreciable doses, and supposedly high-dose people received lower doses than the database indicates. The non-uniform nature of the Chernobyl exposures makes this scientific pitfall into a real possibility, unless careful and objective dose-reconstruction is substituted for assumptions. Fortunately, there are several techniques of biological dosimetry which can reduce uncertainty about dose, even decades after the dose first occurred.

         *  - FIFTH RULE:   "Blinding" of Dose-Analysts.
In a valid study of health response to a particular radiation dose, the analysts who estimate doses must have no idea of the medical status of the individual or group on which they are working. The health status and dose-related data must never be present in the same file. In other words, dose-analysts must do their work "blind," in order to protect the database from a wish-list about the relationship between dose and health.

         *  - SIXTH RULE:   "Blinding" of Diagnostic Analysts.
In order to achieve scientific credibility, studies must show proof of precautions against bias not only in the dose-input, but also in the health-response input. In a valid Chernobyl study, the principle of blinding must extend to all the analysts, physicians, and technicians who diagnose the health status of persons in the study. They must not know whether a person's radiation dose was high or low, and they must be denied information (such as place of residence) which would allow them to form a personal opinion about the likely dose. Crucial is the requirement that teams of "special experts" have no ability to alter diagnoses later -- unblinded.

         *  - SEVENTH RULE:   No Changes of Input after Any Results Are Known.
One of the fundamental rules in an on-going study is that no one is allowed to make retroactive alterations, deletions, or additions to input-data after any of the health-response results are known. If there is an opportunity for health results to influence a study's revised input, there is clearly an opportunity to falsify the real cause-effect relationships (if any) between dose and response. A study becomes properly suspect if retroactive changes have been made in diagnosis or dose, if cases have been shuffled into new groupings (cohorts), if any data or cases have been suddenly dropped from the study, or new cases suddenly added "as needed" from some reserve.

         *  - EIGHTH RULE:   No Excessive Subdivision of Data.
It lies in the nature of numbers that even the largest databases can be rendered inconclusive and misleading if analysts keep the data subdivided into too many categories or subsets. Therefore, subdivision must be watched with a degree of suspicion.
        Inconclusive Results:   If analysts hope that a study will find no provable effects even if they are real, this result can be arranged by creating a "small numbers problem," which will prevent almost all results from passing the test of statistical significance.
        Misleading Results:   Preservation of excessive subdivision also increases the frequency of finding a few effects at random which do pass the test of statistical significance but which are nevertheless unreal (false).

         *  - NINTH RULE:   No Pre-judgments.
Prejudgments are seldom compatible with objective inquiry.

Dr. Gofman then goes into extensive detail describing Some Examples of Rule-Breaking in Radiation Research [6] in the following three subsections:

  1. Violation of Rule 7, in the database for the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Atomic-Bomb Survivor Study [7]
  2. Violation of Rules 2, 3, and 4 in the 1991 IAEA Study of Chernobyl [8]
  3. Violation of Rule 9 in the 1989 WHO Study of Chernobyl [9]

As more and more of us become familiar with and conversant in the Nine Basic Rules of Believable Bio-Medical Research we can provide a significant, life-supporting counter-weight to the false claims made by "official sources" reported in the news media. This is because such propaganda can only be accepted when people do not know the key questions to ask and challenges to pose where the credibility and integrity of any study is the fundamental issue. We can, ALL OF US become "Common Sense Experts" in assessing whether or not each Rule of Bio-Medical Research has been adhered to for any given study, and hence whether pronouncements made based on such studies have any legitimate basis or must be soundly rejected and all of their respective conclusions fiercely challenged. This is the way to confront the sort of false and irresponsible claims like these made in 1991 about Chernobyl:

To augment the above, the following essays are also recommended:

  1. Help make others aware of the Nine Basic Rules of Research
Each one of us can, with great effect, truly be a "Common Sense Expert" in countering the problem of spreading mis-information from "official sources" who are nontheless compromised by conflict of interest since their grants, funding, or livelihoods come from interests who irradiate people. By applying our knowledge and understanding of the Nine Basic Rules of Research to challenge the false claims based upon faulty and scientifically non-credible studys -- such as the 1989 WHO and 1991 IAEA Chernobyl Studies (see bullets 2 and 3 above citing Some Examples of Rule-Breaking in Radiation Research) -- we can serve as independent watchdogs to qualify the validity of any and all research done in the area of nuclear pollution.

Most news reporters themselves do not know about the Rules of Research. Otherwise they would be analysing each study's methodologies themselves and identifying flaws in the conclusions based upon violation of any Rule throughout the creation of the raw data during the research phase of the study. The Rules of Research provide an exceedingly powerful tool to genuinely promote as high a degree of objective reconstruction and reporting of past events as we are ever likely to see.

Each of us who learns the Nine Rules of credible Research can thus serve in the enormously productive capacity of helping to make them be more commonly known and understood by the vast majority of people in our society, including mothers, teachers, nurses, students, doctors, activists, journalists, news reporters, and elected officials. Consider the significant positive effect that will result when the the Nine Basic Rules for Believable Bio-Medical Research attain the status of a common household term. It will enable all of us to examine and ask the hard questions ourselves whenever an "official expert" or news report claims that, according to such-and-such a study, a nuclear accident, or release of radioactivity, did not pose a threat to, injure, or kill anyone.

  1. Purchase and learn how to use an ionizing radiation detection device
An ion is an atom, molecule, or elementary particle that has lost or gained one or more electrons, therefore taking on an electrical charge. A positive ion has lost one or more electrons; a negative ion has gained one or more electrons. Ionization is the process of adding or removing electrons so as to form ions and can be caused by high temperatures, electrical discharges, or nuclear radiation. Ionizing radiation includes xrays, gamma rays, beta particles, alpha particles, and lots of other high-energy particles (neutrons, positrons, etc.). When ionizing radiation passes through matter it can ionize it. Ionizing radiation can cause cell damage as it passes through living tissue.

Whenever man-made ionizing radioactive pollution occurs in the biosphere we are usually beholden to whatever news sources to learn what specific levels of alpha or beta particles, gamma rays or x-rays were released. But the newspaper or radio or television source is, of course, itself beholden to the company creating the pollution. And even if the company wanted to, it will never be able to accurately monitor all the local areas affected by the release of ionizing radiation. However it is possible to ascertain what the radiation levels are in one's own community by obtaining and learning how to operate a hand-held radiation detection device. This is an area where our own powers of response ability can be most effectively applied since in the final analysis, there is no one besides our self who is response able for our own safety and those around us where we live.

International Medcom is a company that offers a range of Ionizing Radiation Detection Instruments including Geiger Counters, Scintillation Detectors, and Radiation Monitoring Systems. [15] They design and manufacture high quality instruments and systems for detecting nuclear (ionizing) radiation, and are used for health and safety applications, medical and scientific purposes, environmental protection, and education. Located on the web at www.medcom.com, their product list includes

One of the fundamental factors that is always a consideration is the financial "bottomline". As of December, 1997, The Geiger, which detects primarily energetic betas and gammas, and can also measure X-radiation, starts at $140 (for the instrument and battery) and goes to $175 (which includes IBM PC compatible software and a 9 or 25-pin PC serial cable). The special glass Geiger Mueller detector tube is visible through the translucent Lexan label on the rear panel. It fluoresces (lights up) when exposed to radiation. This phenomenon can be viewed in a dark room. The output jacks on the side of the instrument interface to computers and other devices. The Radalert 50 costs $299. Its digital display shows readings either in counts per minute (cpm) or mR/hr, up to 50,000 cpm or 50 mR/hr, or in accumulated counts. A red LED blinks and a beeper chirps with each count (the chirp can be muted). An audible alert sounds when the radiation reaches a user-adjustable level. The inspector (superior for detecting noble gases that are routinely emitted from nuclear power plants) costs $475. It includes a Total/Timer feature which can take timed readings for periods from one minute to 24 hours for precise measurement of low-level contamination and a calibration feature that can eliminate radiation exposure to the calibration technician.

Such technology is affordable by the workingwoman and man. Especially when a group of neighbors get together and pool their resources to purchase an instrument that benefits everyone who gets involved in monitoring and analysing the data that is recorded. (If you are a member of an environmental non-profit organization be sure to ask about a discount.) It is precisely this sort of local organizing and activity that can infuse people with a rich life-affirming sense of participation in promoting the health and safety of their own communities.

While doing the initial study for this, i had the occasion to meet Eric Epstein via e-mail, the Coordinator of the EFMR Monitoring Network, which monitors radiation trends in the Three Mile Island area. Eric has added me to the mailing list for their publication, EFMR Monitor, and i was very pleased to read an article in it by Linda Schatz titled, "Radiation-Monitoring Reveals Interesting Data"[16]. i especially value Linda's narrative as it describes her own interest in finding out what the actual radiation levels were at her boyfriend Rick's cabin in the woods five miles south of the Peach Bottom Nuclear Reactor in northern Maryland which she was considering moving to. She explains in very basic terms how she and Rick, after obtaining two Radalert radiation monitors from EFMR, learned how to measure radiation levels using these devices and what they discovered. (Among other observations, it turned out the cabin actually had lower readings (14.3 cpm) that her Philadelphia apartment (17.5).)

What is being discussed here is nothing less than the ability to take one's own measurements and to collect and analyse one's own data to understand the fact of what is actually occurring in an on-going manner in one's local area. Such ability to monitor will also provide the necessary difference between life and death if ever there is another Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Church Rock disaster, any crash of a train, truck, or ship containing nuclear cargo, as well as to ascertain the actual levels of routine and non-routine nuclear reactor venting of radioactive material into the atmosphere and ocean. The only time to prepare for any such nuclear accident, meltdown, or release that occurs is before it happens. Those who are already monitoring their own environment can provide immense assistance to everyone and everything in their local communities.

There are a number of sources available on the web to learn about what is involved in working with radiation detection instruments including:

  1. If one exists, join an independent group monitoring a local nuke
In one's own community, transportation of nuclear wastes and materials passing through and/or the existence of a nuclear power plant, pose significant health hazards. The greatest possible independence one can achieve from vulnerability to the transportation or utility company's claims that no health danger exists from such activities, is to work with other members of one's community to set up and operate an independent radiation monitoring network. This is what true participatory democracy is all about: coming together in voluntary association to form whatever level and system of governance is appropriate to govern ourselves. By doing so we are acknowledging acceptance of the fundamental response ability for our own lives and those around us, and for our common, collective welfare.

There are a number of independent monitoring groups in existence that can be contacted to learn from regarding how they got together, and how they do what they do. The remainder of this section highlights a few of these groups.

  1. If none exists, be the catalyst to start one in your area

Although Part 5 focuses on on citizen monitoring of radiation releases from nuclear power plants and from transportation of nuclear waste and materials through one's communities, there is a different and deeply troubling situation currently unfolding wherein the the Department of Energy (DOE) has signed a precedent-setting contract with private companies that guarantees the company a profit on sales of radioactively contaminated metal to the marketplace. [29] Like every other "Below Regulatory Concern" (BRC) practice, commercial use of radioactive scrap-metal amounts to permission to commit premeditated random murder. [30] With such a new policy, sanctioned by the U.S. Government, that makes it legal to put radioactive scrap-metal into civilian commerce, the need for people in every community to join in monitoring their own local environments for radioactive contamination becomes ever more imperative and critical to counter this new threat to our health, the health of our world, and of our future.

If there are no such independent monitoring watchdog groups in your own area, consider exploring the possibility of creating one yourself. If this subject is important to you, you've already got the motivation to talk to your friends and whoever else you can meet who shares the same concerns. It will take dedication and perseverance but there are people, groups, and resources available to assist and support you in your efforts. At the very least, learning and teaching/exposing others to the Nine Rules for for Believable Bio-Medical Research will serve those who follow us here by increasing awareness about how to measure the validity of any official study and the ensuing claims based upon it.

It is hoped the additional (admittedly incomplete) list of web resources may prove useful -- if anyone knows of other sources that should be included here, please send mail to dave. For the Earth, the children, and all that follow us here, keep expanding.


  1. Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D, GNSH, No Immediate Danger, Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, The Book Publishing Company -- Summertown, Tennessee, 1985, "Part One, The Problem:   Nuclear Radiation and its Biological Effects", pp. 15-63.

  2. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D, What Is Factually Wrong with This Belief:   Harm from Low-Dose Radiation Is Just Hypothetical --- Not Proven, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Fall 1995

  3. "A Brief Discussion of Some Physics and Engineering Terms Associated with Nuclear Power," by Sam Miller, The Critical Information Project

  4. See "Curriculum Vitae of Dr. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D." for a more inclusive description of Dr. Gofman's career including a Narrative Chronology, Patents, Honors and Awards.

  5. John W. Gofman, M.D. Ph.D, Bio-Medical "Un-Knowledge" And Nuclear Pollution: A Common-Sense Proposal, on the occasion of the Right Livelihood Award, Stockholm, Sweden, December 9, 1992

  6. Ibid

  7. Ibid

  8. Ibid

  9. Ibid

  10. Described in Part 2, . . . Or Has "Nothing Happened" ? of Holocaust" versus "Nothing Happened", Tales from a Distant Place . . . with a Problem Very Close to All of Us, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, John W. Gofman, M.D. Ph.D, Fall 1991

  11. John W. Gofman, M.D. Ph.D, and Egan O'Connor, What Is Humanity's Most Harmful Law? The Law of Concentrated Benefit over Diffuse Injury, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, November, 1993

  12. John W. Gofman, M.D. Ph.D, and Egan O'Connor, The Bonds of Trust vs. Deceit by DOE: Some Enduring Measures for Your Health and Safety, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Spring 1994

  13. John W. Gofman, M.D. Ph.D and Egan O'Connor, A Wake-Up Call for Everyone Who Dislikes Cancer and Inherited Afflictions, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Spring 1997

  14. John W. Gofman, M.D. Ph.D, Holocaust" versus "Nothing Happened", Tales from a Distant Place . . . with a Problem Very Close to All of Us, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Fall 1991

  15. International Medcom
    7497 Kennedy Road
    Sebastopol, CA 95472
    Fax: 707 823-7207

  16. Radiation-Monitoring Reveals Interesting Data, by Linda Schatz
    EFMR Monitor, Monitoring radiation trends in the Three Mile Island area, December 1997

  17. A Short Description of The C-10 Radiological Monitoring Network
    C-10 Research and Education Foundation
    44 Merrimac Street
    Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950
    United States of America

  18. Why Should I Be Involved In Monitoring the Local Nuke?

  19. Critical Information Project's Downwinder's Homepage
    Resources for anti-nuclear activists living downwind of nuclear facilities, and anyone else interested in monitoring their local nuclear polluter.
    A Service of The Critical Information Project.
    The goal of the Critical Information Project is to participate in the environmental and anti-nuclear movements by creating informational tools from creditable resources. These tools take the form of printed materials (pamphlets, leaflets, lists, diagrams), written articles for publication, and computer software (applications and databases). Base resources for these items include U.S. government and industry documentation, mainstream commercial publications, and movement and nontraditional materials. The Critical Information Project is not a profit-making enterprise, nor is it associated with any profit-making enterprise. Tools are provided to movement activists for free, at cost, or for barter.
    Sam Miller
    Critical Information Project
    377L Governor's Road
    Farmington, New Hampshire 03835
    United States of America

  20. Why Should I Be Involved In Monitoring the Local Nuke?

  21. Incoming Messages from Downwinders and Nuclear Whistleblowers

  22. EFMR Monitoring Network
    2308 Brandywine Drive
    Harrisburg, PA   17110
    fax: 717/541-5487

  23. "Independent TMI monitor Planned", by Gary Lenton, The Patriot-News, Harrisburg, PA, November 3, 1993, p.B3.

  24. Debbie Baker, President of TMI-CMN
    70 Eastgate Drive
    Camp Hill, PA 17011
    717-730-0712 (TMI-CMN message machine w/menu -- option 5: daily radiation readings)

    P.O. Box 142
    Harford, PA 18823
    (717) 434-9588
    Fax: (717) 434-9589

  26. ECOLOGIA History and Background
    Replacing Cold War Competition With Environmental Cooperation

  27. Citizen's Environmental Monitoring Network
    Central and Eastern Europe, the Baltic Nations, Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. Independent Environmental Monitoring Ends Decades of Government Control of Information About Pollution, Provides Open Access to Information, and Enables Victims to Become Problem-Solvers

  28. Major Programs of ECOLOGIA

  29. DOE To Allow Release Of Radioactive Materials Into The Marketplace
    From the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), 10/7/97
    Contact: Diane D'Arrigo @ NIRS 202/328-0002
    http://www.ratical.org/radiation/BNFL+DOE.html     (local html copy)
    http://www.nirs.org/Bnflprdd.txt     (original ascii text release)

  30. John W. Gofman, M.D. Ph.D, and Egan O'Connor, Reject the Policy of Putting Radioactive Scrap-Metal into Commerce, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, December 1, 1997



Index         rat haus reality         Search

radiation   renewables   ratville times   rat haus reality   many worlds   jumpdoors   southwest lands   LifeWeb   end corp guv

© 1997 rat haus reality press

this document exists electronically at http://www.ratical.org/ratitorsCorner/12.21.97.html

Permission to reprint this essay is hereby granted
provided you apply proper attribution to
rat haus reality, ratical branch:   http://www.ratical.org/
If you use our material, please send us a copy of your work.