Radioactive radiation is the true cause of most cancer

Cancer is often regarded as something that just occurs mainly naturally, a consequence of people living longer than they used to. But we can prove that this is untrue. We can prove that there is an exact year in history when cancer very suddenly became an ever growing worldwide problem, totally unrelated to average life expectancy. This year was the year when nuclear testing started and when the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped. We think it can be proven that the great majority of cancer cases is caused by alpha radiation from radioactive fertilizer from mines that have natural Radium content, as well as alpha radiation from contaminated soil as a consequence of nuclear accidents and atmospheric nuclear detonations. We will also prove (with a link to another article of ours) that smoking causes cancer solely due to the alpha-radiation from the fertilizer used to grow the tobacco. Historical cancer data going back to that date strangely does not exist in the US or nearly any other country. US historical cancer data only starts in 1973, which is way too late to see the sudden rise and steady increase over the decades in cancer. We find it remarkable that the relatively advanced United States did not bother keeping cancer statistics in the forties and fifties, even though they've been exploding countless nuclear bombs above their own soil, and it has been known since the time of Marie Curie that ingesting radioactive substances, especially alpha-emitters, causes cancer. It is also known that our cells are unable to repair the damage done to DNA from even low-dose gamma radiation, the least dangerous type of ionizing radiation. And that a single break in the double DNA helix can cause a lethal tumor. And that at very low radiation levels, the risk of double-breaks and thus cancer increases again with a factor of up to ten. One would expect the United States to be very interested in keeping track of cancer rates, after having exploded many nukes on their own soil. It may be that doctors have been told not to submit such statistics, or it may be that such statistics were deliberately ignored or kept secret. Fortunately, there is one country that meticulously kept accounts of cancer cases since the year 1910 and that country is Sweden. This is a chart of their cancer rate from that time onwards:


Historical cancer rate in Sweden


It is easy to verify, using downloadable data from Sweden's Central Statistics Bureau that Swedes didn't suddenly start smoking much more in 1950 and that Sweden's population didn't rise sharply around that time or became significantly more elderly. Neither are their factors at play such as improvements in cancer detection rate in old age. The data is unequivocal: Starting in 1950, Swedes were getting more cancer. Ten years later, their cancer rate had doubled. Fifteen years after that, their cancer rate had doubled again. In 1990, their cancer rate was five times higher than that in 1950. And today their risk of getting cancer is six times higher than when it suddenly started to rise in 1950. And it's not that's it's just happening in Sweden: Cancer is getting out of control worldwide:


Drop in cancer coincides with closed nuke plants

Note how in 1990, UK cancer mortality rates saw a very sharp and very significant, sustained drop around 1998, 1999, 2000. What happened in the UK during that time? They closed a dozen ailing old nuclear reactors. Two Magnox reactors, an obsolete design used to produce Plutonium for nuclear weapons, were closed in the UK in 1989. The Dorset-Winfrith plant comprised of nine nuclear reactors and it was decommissioned in 1990. Do you see the leveling off of the cancer rate in 1981 and 1982? In 1981, the UK closed the Sellafield-Windscale plant.

Cancer researchers and the media say they are clueless as to the cause of cancer. More money is needed to figure it out, they say. Or they offer dozens of alternative explanations. The most modern research, the end result of all those countless billions of worldwide cancer research suggests that in 1951, our solar system entered some kind of intergalactic "bad luck zone" that it still hasn't emerged from:


Since 1951, "bad luck" caused a massive increase in random mutations

Alpha radiation in food from fertilizer

Another cause for this tenfold increase in cancer rates is the alpha radiation in food due to radiologically polluted phosphate used in fertilizer, warned against by the EPA and known by scientists around the world, who have tried in vain to persuade lawmakers to do something about it:


Those who oppose the food-radiation-causes-most-cancer idea will try to disprove it using many alternative theories, such as the increase in cancer being caused by an increase in skin melanoma, since Swedes after WW2 started to travel to the sunny south often and in large numbers. But this theory is flawed. Colon cancer and breast cancer mortality doubled in this period as well, while improved treatment methods greatly increased survival, meaning that colon cancer and breast cancer followed the same spectacular and worrying trend in the graph above. What could be the cause? What has changed? Could it be junk food or the proliferations of AM radio stations? Which are some of the theories Swedish scientists came up with. The flaw in these theories is always the same: RF radiation and the chemicals in junk food simply do not have the ability to damage DNA. Not even the notorious carcinogenic Acrylamide present in fried and baked foods is thought to be able to cause anything else but a minor contribution to cancer rates. It's very hard to cut DNA strands. This takes significant chemical or radiological energy, energy not available in the molecules that should better not be in modern food, or energy in the WiFi- or phone signals. In order to cause DNA damage, a radio wave must be "ionizing", as in knocking an electron out of orbit, creating a free radical. Microwaves for example are non-ionizing. Neither are the waves from TV-or radio stations. Or those from WiFi or phones.

Alpha-induced DNA damage cannot be repaired

A particularly damaging molecule can cause a single cut in the double helix of the DNA molecule, and this is rapidly repaired. Such damage occurs all the time in every cell and the body has very many ingenious and highly effective ways to constantly repair this damage. Because of this ingenious repair system that even protects us against serious DNA damage and malignant mutations caused by cosmic gamma rays, in order for cancer to occur, what's needed is much more serious damage to the DNA: The complete shredding of entire parts of chromosomes, causing hundreds or thousands of double-breakages in the DNA of millions of cells, all the time, day after day, all over the body, with a million cells a day, every day. There really needs to be an onslaught of this kind of damage for a long time, because the immune system has no problem killing off cancerous cells and even entire tumors when they're still tiny. Researchers are searching for all kinds of indirect causes of cancer, such as chemical pollution that somehow interferes with our immune system or cell apoptosis, but they're ignoring the elephant in the room: The fact that DNA damage serious enough to cause cancer is very unusual. It's not natural. Cancer used to be very rare before WW2, and virtually non-existent before people started smoking. There is very little that can cause really serious DNA damage. There are some particularly dangerous chemicals that can do that, but no scientist thinks those are the cause of the cancer pandemic. Apart from very carcinogenic chemicals that are not present in our food, the only thing that can cause such DNA damage is a certain type of radiation: Alpha radiation.

Smoking kills because of Polonium 210

Nearly no ordinary person is aware of this, but scientists have known for decades that smoking only causes cancer due to the alpha emitters in tobacco due to radioactive fertilizer, as even the EPA publicly admits and warns for and has been thoroughly documented by scientists. Consequently, Native Americans who grow their own tobacco using natural means do not get lung cancer from smoking. Scientific data on how it's the Polonium 210 in tobacco due to fertilizer from radioactive mines can be found here, here, here, here and here.


Low-dose alpha radiation kills cells effectively

This is an enormous scandal by itself, and that is why we wrote our article about how alpha-radiation is the cause of lung cancer in smokers. Instead of forcing tobacco growers and cigarette producers to prevent the pollution of their tobacco with radioactive fertilizer, instead of putting on a packet of cigarettes how much Polonium 210 they contain, instead of educating smokers about the fact that their smoke is radioactive and therefore causes cancer, the government keeps us in the dark. They still discourage smoking, but they remain silent on why exactly smoking causes cancer. We can only guess at their motives, but when it becomes widely known that the alpha radiation from tobacco causes all smoking-related lung cancer, people may start to wonder whether nearly all breast- and prostate cancer is caused by alpha-radiation from their potatoes, when they're grown with radioactive phosphate fertilizer. And that would be a problem, because the world's population is orders of magnitude too large to stop using such fertilizer. Not unless people would start growing their own food again, using proven natural methods, yielding a tastier, more nutritious (because not using depleted soil), non-radioactive product. Or at least less radioactive, because all soil has been contaminated by nuclear tests and -accidents. The CDC thinks 11 thousand Americans will die of cancer caused by nuclear tests and they say that people today are still being affected by the fallout. They admit they have no idea whether their figure of 11000 is correct or whether it is much higher, so they suggest a pilot study being done to assess the feasibility of studying this further.

Alpha radiation in food from nuclear accidents

There have been several reported major reactor accidents but it is lesser known that smaller releases of radioactivity are literally daily routine, in nuclear power plants. Literally thousands of unreported minor accidents occur in Europe, Russia, China and the US every year. There is plenty of evidence that living near a nuclear power plant greatly increases your risk of cancer:


Toxic paint cannot break DNA strands. Alpha particles in food can.

And then there are the unreported major nuclear accidents as well that killed dozens of people outright, released large quantities of radiation into the air and polluted the surrounding countryside. More about this Chernobyl/Fukushima sized disaster can be read here and here. The CIA knew about it but kept it top secret for three decades. Again, this is in line with our suspicion that nuclear powers do not want research done into the relationship between radiation in the food supply and cancer. It would have been beneficial, during the cold war, for the US to point out how "primitive and dangerous and contemptuous towards workers' safety" conditions in the USSR were, but for some reason this major nuclear accident was classified as top secret by the CIA and only declassified thirty years later, in 1999 when the Soviet Union had been dissolved for eight years already. Physicist professor Ernest J. Sternglass wrote a book on how nuclear accidents and even the bombs on Japan caused radioactive pollution of the US with major associated mortality from Cancer and other illness. This book, entitled "Secret Fallout" can be downloaded for free here.

Nuclear accidents kill millions

Hundreds of experts have written peer-reviewed scientific articles and studies about how many people died as a direct consequence of the nuclear accident in Chernobyl. The consensus was that more than one million people lost their lives due to cancer, congenital abnormalities, immune deficiencies and other health problems caused by the radioactive contamination still active today. The studies and their results are in this book (free PDF). Belarus used to have nearly zero cases of Thyroid cancer before the Chernobyl disaster. In 1986, when the reactor exploded, they started to track cases of Thyroid cancer in people of three age groups. Below you can see that older people went from 0 to 12 cases per 100000 individuals. The reason that the number of cases went down in 2000 is not because the radiation damage got less in that year but because the people in the study were at that time all older than 62 and the life expectancy of Belarusians at that time was around 65 years old. So the people in the study were dying, that's why they measured less Thyroid cancer in that group, and that's why the number of cases still went up sharply in the age group 20-46. Imagine that instead of Belorussia, we'd be talking about a nuclear accident similarly affection the US and that the excess Thyroid cancer incidence would be 10 in 100000 people. That would be an extra 36000 Americans with Thyroid cancer. And that's just one single form of cancer we have limited data on.



Alpha radiation from nuclear tests

Not many people realize how many atomic bombs have been exploded in the air. Many think this number is only two: "Fat man" on Hiroshima and "Little Boy" on Nagasaki. The reality is different. 512 (five hundred and twelve) nuclear bombs have been exploded into the air. Most of them were much larger than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was one such bomb, the "Tsar Bomba", that was three thousand times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan. The equivalent of more than ten thousand Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs were exploded in the air in Russia, the US, China and all around the Pacific and other areas of the world, and wind and rain spread the fallout far and wide, in many cases several times around the Earth, as is well-documented. The people alive since 1945, the year that atmospheric nuclear explosions started - with 1951 being the date that one was detonated every three weeks on average, exactly when global cancer rates started to rise sharply - are all living in a nuclear fallout "hell" from those 512 bombs. Some of these bombs caused particularly dangerous fallout. Remember that all of these explosions were tests. They wanted to see how much Plutonium would be converted to energy. Whether it would be 1% or only 0.7%. When a Plutonium nuke explodes, most of the Plutonium is gasified and pulverized and is spread with the wind. The Trinity test for example used 6.2 kg of Pu and had a 16% efficiency. That means that 5.2 kilo was aerosolized and spread with the wind. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima used 64 kilo of highly enriched, weapons-grade Uranium, and only 1.5% of that was converted into energy, the rest, 63 kilo of U235 was dispersed in the atmosphere and rained down over sea and land worldwide. The half-life of U235 is 703,800,000 years. Long after humans roam the Earth, this artificially concentrated, highly carcinogenic alpha-emitter will still pollute the soil. Nearly all of that is still in our water and soil today, because its half-time is 24000 years. The radioactive isotopes in Plutonium's decay chain are all extremely potent DNA-shredders. Plutonium as well as its daughters are extremely powerful alpha-emitters. And every time a nuclear test was done, more of these alpha-emitters ended up in our soil - forever, since it takes decades for those isotopes to percolate even a few tens of centimeters into the soil in the best of cases. Combined with the increased radioactivity when Plutonium decays into nucleotides with a much shorter half life, this deeper-going of the contamination means that plant roots take up increasing levels of contaminants, and that's why wild boars in German forests and Swedish reindeer have never been so radioactive since the Chernobyl disaster, three decades ago. France exploded nine very powerful nuclear bombs in the air in 1974. The radiological contamination effects of these bombs will last thousands of years. To comprehend the scale of the contamination, to understand that we are living in the aftermath of what is the equivalent of a nuclear war where thousands of Hiroshima & Nagasaki-sized bombs exploded in the air all over the world, below an animation of all nuclear tests ever done, including the 512 nukes that exploded in the air. Many underground tests released radioactive debris into the air as well, because their yield was unexpectedly high and the explosion breeched the earth above it and released heavily contaminated isotopes into the air, extra contaminated because the minerals in the soil had become irradiated and turned into an exotic cocktail of isotopes with half lives from minutes to millennia.

The sad thing about industry-sponsored disinformation is that when you search for "plutonium toxicity", high-ranking search results are "The Myth of Plutonium toxicity", "Plutonium is cool" and "How deadly is Plutonium?", where it is claimed that everyone was wrong about Plutonium after all, and that in fact it's pretty harmless and you can eat it without much consequence. It would be naive to assume that random bloggers would spend the effort cheerleading for Plutonium. Plutonium is absolutely wonderful, one such article maintains. "The fuel of the future".

The fact is that radioactive pollution of soil and fertilizer causes food and tobacco to be radioactive and, when contaminated food or tobacco enters the body, the extremely energetic alpha particles are able to sever both strands of many DNA helixes. When a single DNA strand is broken, the cell can detect and repair this. A double broken strand cannot be repaired and the cell must do "apoptosis", it must commit suicide, it must be sacrificed in order not to become the seed of a tumor.

There exist few people who truly understand the relevant aspects of radioactive radiation, as it concerns the risk of it causing cancer. In fact, I have hardly ever read a correct explanation except from scientists who've dedicated their lives to researching this topic and educating the public. Those scientists (Dr. Chris Busby is a prime example) are marginalized by the nuclear lobby and military-industrial complex and are accused of being criminals and kooks. Their career is railroaded and in some cases there are "ex"-military persons threatening publishers with lawsuits in case they publish anything these scientists wrote. But Dr. Busby is not a lone loon. There are highly respected senior nuclear scientists who used to advise US presidents on the risk of radiation from nuclear tests ending up in our food, causing cancer. One of such scientists is Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, who found a strong relationship between cancer, infant mortality, other serious illness and above-ground nuclear testing as well as radiation escaping from nuclear reactors in nuclear power plants:

Part 2 and 3 of these videos are not permitted to be embedded by YouTube, but highly recommended. The Dr. mentions how tiny increases in background radiation from nuclear tests done thousands of miles away doubled the rate of Leukemia in children. Sternglass says there is a global nuclear cover-up. Here are all his videos on YouTube.

The fact is that we have been mislead about radiation. We've been hoodwinked into believing that all types of radiation are the same. We've been taught to lump in all types of radiation and all forms of our exposure to it into the same category, to treat it all the same way: Measure how much general "radiation" comes off something from a certain distance (by holding a Geiger counter or scintillator close to it for example) and then calculating how much a person then would be "have body exposure to", and then comparing this with cancer data on people who survived the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The result predictably is always the same: "There is no increased risk of cancer".

As usual, it's not some kind of massive conspiracy. Humans are a hierarchical lot and ordinary school teachers believe what's written by the professors, and professors believe the studies by their most respected peers in that field. The problem is that certain studies are taboo, and that attempting to do them will meet with so much resistance from so many sides, that they simply are never done. The people who caused this sorry state of affairs occupy high positions in multinational industry and the military. What's at stake is shareholder value and the jobs or even freedom of the CEO's of global agribusiness, the tobacco industry, the fertilizer industry, the nuclear industry and a large chunk of the military-industrial complex.

The dirty little secret about radiation is that there are several very different types and forms of radiation and important differences in way to be exposed, and some are a thousand times more dangerous than others. If you combine a type of radiation that is 1000 x more dangerous with an exposure type that is many billions or trillions of times more dangerous (internal exposure is nearly infinitely more risky than external exposure), the risk increases from near-insignificant to nearly certain to cause cancer. The situation goes from quite harmless to a third of all women getting breast cancer in their lives. We're being deceived. By people thoughtlessly parroting what they've been told by others, who did the same.

Radiation in food causes nearly all cancer

To recap: The big cover-up is that apart from radiation from smoking, radiation from food is the cause of the cancer pandemic in the western world. It's not that our food lacks in essential nutrients, which it indeed does, both due to a bad diet as well as modern farming methods, using depleted soil. No, the reason our food causes the great majority of all non-smoking related cancer cases is a particularly dangerous type of radiation: Alpha particles. The reason that organically grown food causes less cancer than industrially grown food is that organic food is not fertilized with mined phosphate fertilizer, because that is often radioactive due to certain radioactive isotopes naturally present in fertilizer from most major phosphate fertilizer mines worldwide.

You're not off the hook when you grow your own food and strictly use compost and natural fertilizers. Because your soil, as well as all soil on this planet, has been thoroughly contaminated by the fallout of thousands of above-ground nuclear tests as well as thousands of smaller nuclear accidents where some radioactive gas or water escapes from a nuclear power plant and it's kept out of the press as a matter of course. For every Windscale, Three Mile Island, Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima there are literally a thousand "tiny" accidents, but those, depending on wind and rain, either badly contaminate a small area in the vicinity of the plant or an area the size of a city. Cancer clusters have been found in the broad vicinity of nuclear plants wherever such (aggressively discouraged and stonewalled) research took place.

For the number of cancer casualties it does not make a difference whether the pollution is severe but limited in area or relatively minor but more widespread: It is the total amount of radiation released that determines how many people will get cancer from it, not how much it is concentrated. Because every tumor comes into existence from one single breakage of the double helix of the DNA in one single cell, and this breakage is achieved by one single alpha particle shredding it.

You can't test food with any Geiger counter

But the real cancer risk comes from radioactive pollution in our food, and it's totally unavoidable unless you switch to hydroculture and use only nutrients that are verified to be "clean" with a very sensitive radiation testing device. Geiger counters of all types, also the alpha-sensitive types using pancake tubes with mica windows are wholly useless to test food for alpha emitters. Sure, if you put some Americium 241 from an old smoke detector in front of such a tube it detects the alphas, but the alphas from food can't penetrate even a fraction of a mm of the food itself, so you won't detect nearly a thing with such a $750 top-of-the-range Geiger counter. Much more specialized, complex and sensitive methods must be used to detect the presence of alpha emitters in food. Not many institutions have access to such expensive devices, the use of such devices by employees to satisfy their own interest is prohibited and test results are confidential and not made available by the governmental bodies that commissioned them. Below is an explanation why it's very hard to test food for radiation with even the most advanced Geiger counter. In short, the only type of radiological contamination of food you can detect with a top-of-the-line Geiger counter is when your food is so radioactive that it would nearly glow in the dark. Severe contamination from a nuclear catastrophe is definitely nearly undetectable with any type of Geiger counter, especially not when the radiation is mainly alpha.

To test for alpha emitters in food, you'd have to take a sample, freeze-dry it, heat the residue to turn it into ash, micronize the ash, take a certain measure of it, suspend it into an alpha-scintillating liquid (a liquid that produces photons when hit by alpha particles), put the container with the liquid into a device with photo-multiplication tubes or sensitive photodiode elements and leave it there for a long time, like an hour or more.

Then the energy spectrum of the measured light emissions is used to calculate which isotopes were present in how much of them. Certain isotopes emit alpha radiation in their decay chain, others do not. This is currently the only way to know whether a food sample carries the risk of causing cancer. One would expect our government to protect us from the risk of getting cancer from our food. Surely, the radiation experts, the people specialized in the effects radiation has on our biology, will be in charge and will prevent the sale of contaminated food? This is because the entire concept of low-level internal radiation emitters significantly increasing the risk of cancer has been made "controversial". It simply is a taboo subject to discuss or research about, and when a scientist even gives a hint of thinking about doing such research, he or she will soon be looking for a new job. Research that has managed to slip through the cracks is stonewalled by journals, its researchers are marginalized by their peers, the media, universities, corporations and governments. This is because when it becomes known that radioactive pollution is the cause of nearly all cancer, this means that growers become liable, fertilizer producers become liable, the US, Russian, French, Chinese and Indian military becomes liable, the tobacco growers and cigarette producers become liable, the entire nuclear power industry becomes liable and all governments in the world as well as many leading radiation experts and cancer researchers become liable for the deaths of countless millions of people. No one wants to consider the fact that they've been looking into all the wrong places to find the cause of cancer. No one wants to be taken to task for covering up or conveniently ignoring the obvious. Cancer charities and research foundations don't want the funding spigots to stop. Big Pharma does not want prevention or a cure - their business model is to sell largely ineffectual treatments and symptom relievers until ideally hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient have been spent - until the very end.

What about those with access to pro equipment?

One would expect that if radiological contamination of food was such a big problem there would be at least some folks with access to professional equipment such as scintillators, finding contamination with isotopes from nuclear accidents and the nuclear industry or atmospheric testing. Surely there must be people who have spent some serious time and effort investigating this subject. Yes, those people exist. By far the most comprehensive forum for people who build their own extremely sensitive radiation testing equipment or refurbish commercial units and use them on a hobby basis is Yahoo's GeigerCounterEnthusiasts group. The wealth of knowledge there is stunning. Some of these people are walking encyclopedias on the subject and give the impression that they could design their own nuclear reactor or -bomb. That idea is not too far-fetched when you realize that many of the participants had or still have a career in the US nuclear industry or military. Some work in radiation testing laboratories. So the GCE group should have people interested in measuring radiation in food and doing literature research into the risk certain isotopes pose, etc. Indeed, such people post on GCE. But they do not post about the health risks of radiation. Because that is not allowed. I am a member of that group and I was warned that even the mere mention that you're building a radiation measuring instrument to test food with, let alone posting any results, will result in a deletion and a ban, respectively. The entire topic of radiation in food and its effects on human health is a forbidden subject:


"Discussion concerning those topics is extremely limited" does not mean "sadly there is not much information about that here" but: "The moderators here severely limit such discussion". The final highlighted sentence makes that clear.

Alpha radiation causes nearly all cancer

Let's go back to alpha particles, and why they are so uniquely dangerous when they are produced inside the body. This graph shows that alpha radiation is much more damaging to cells than X-rays (gamma radiation) or even Neutron radiation, often seen as the most dangerous radiation of all. Even at low doses, alpha radiation kills cells much more effectively than any other radiation:


Linear Energy Transfer vs. cell survival

Wikipedia says this about alpha particles:

"When alpha particle emitting isotopes are ingested, they are far more dangerous than their half-life or decay rate would suggest, due to the high relative biological effectiveness of alpha radiation to cause biological damage, after alpha-emitting radioisotopes enter living cells. Ingested alpha emitter radioisotopes (such as transuranics or actinides) are an average of about 20 times more dangerous, and in some experiments up to 1000 times more dangerous, than an equivalent activity of beta emitting or gamma emitting radioisotopes."


"If alpha-emitting radionuclides do enter the body (upon being inhaled, ingested, [...], alpha radiation is the most destructive form of ionizing radiation. It is the most strongly ionizing, [...] It is estimated that chromosome damage from alpha particles is anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than that caused by an equivalent amount of gamma or beta radiation"


DNA spirals spiraled up many times, creating a dense fiber packed with DNA

It is easy to understand why alpha particles are so uniquely dangerous when you look at how relatively large they are and how fast they fly. It's all about their kinetic energy. Gamma radiation is not made of particles at all, but is a wave. Beta particles are electrons and their diameter is thousands of times smaller than that of an alpha particle. Gamma and beta radiation can cause damage to DNA, but in the great majority of such cases, only a single strand of the dual-strand DNA is severed, and the cell continuously verifies its DNA integrity and has ways to reliably repair such damage.

However, the damage to a cell's DNA done by a single alpha particle can be compared to what would happen to a rabbit after the infamous a A10 "Warthog" Thunderbolt tank-killer airplane would shoots its entire load of armor-penetrating exploding rounds into it. And we are not even exaggerating. An alpha particle, when it hits the many-folded DNA strands in a cell nucleus, will turn this DNA into a shredded mess of thousands of breakages of the double helix. Because when a radioactive atom is inside your body, it is by definition always inside or next to a cell. The positively charged alpha particles wreak such havoc by ripping, on average, a total of ten thousand electrons off of ten thousand atoms, turning all those atoms into positive ions, which will then bind randomly with neighboring atoms, or damage them by stealing their electrons. The result, when an alpha particle traverses through a cell nucleus, can be irreparable DNA damage in thousands of places. Because DNA is stored very efficiently in our cell nuclei. It is folded and again until it's a microscopic ball of DNA called a chromosome. This extreme compression is necessary because the total unwound length of the DNA in a single cell would otherwise be a meter long.

LETSo when we shoot a "canonball" (alpha particle) through this "spaghetti lump" (chromosome), enormous damage is the result, because the alpha particle will randomly pass through countless tightly-wound DNA loops. If you'd unwind that huge ball of spaghetti, you'd find very many breaks. The same with the multiply-wound DNA strands in chromosomes. As illustrated in this picture, photons introduced by gamma radiation usually sever only one strand of the double helix, whereas alpha particles are so energetic that they go to both strands (and then keep on destroying many more). Wikipedia says about how cutting both strands causes cancer: "double-strand breaks and a cross-linkage joining both strands at the same point is irreparable because neither strand can then serve as a template for repair. The cell will die in the next mitosis or in some rare instances, mutate."

Trajectory of an alpha particle though multi-folded DNA strands

Trajectory of an alpha particle though multi-folded DNA, breaking it in many places


Genetic predisposition to cancer means genetic inability to repair radiation-induced DNA damage

A small minority of people are genetically predisposed to get cancer. This is because they lack the gene that codes for the protein XRCC1, which is required to repair single-stranded DNA damage. The debate on how much cancer is caused by genetic predisposition is beside the point. That debate ignores the actual cause of the DNA damage, which is ionizing radiation produced by internal emitters present in our food.

The dirty secret about internal emitters

The aforementioned stakeholders in keeping us ignorant about the risks of radiologically contaminated food know full well that alpha radiation is the elephant in the room, the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of everyone who eats. Obesity is linked to cancer in reality because people who eat more, ingest more internal radiation emitters, including the very dangerous alpha emitters. The more you eat, the more alpha emitters end up in your blood stream and in your cells, and the greater the risk of a double DNA strand breakage that can't be repaired and turns into cancer because the cell does not commit suicide, neither stops dividing and the immune system is not in the full 100% of cases able to kill the tumor before it's larger than a grain of sand or at most a grain of rice. When you're older, these mechanisms become less efficient and will eventually fail. Alpha exposure from an internal emitter will then inevitably result in cancer. Public information on alpha emitters obfuscates the issue. Alpha radiation is portrayed as the lowest risk of all, in pictures that show that alpha particles can't even penetrate the skin. It is as if they want to make them appear harmless:

alpha particle radiation dangerous

Alpha radiation can't hurt you - except when it comes from inside your body!

The official sources of information on radiation seem to try to avoid bringing up the risk of radiation in our food. They all focus exclusively on external sources of radiation, like how much radiation you receive when you take a walk in a forest, its soil contaminated by the nuclear accident in Chernobyl. They even show you calculations on how much that soil will irradiate you, and how very much less radiation you'll receive compared to a dental X-Ray or a holiday flight. But all that is beside the point. Increased levels of background radiation are wholly irrelevant. All that counts is how much DNA damage is done to you by radiation emitters in what you eat, drink and breathe. The absorbed dose is all that counts, and that dose is enormous for even ingesting a tiny "hot particle". When the particle lies on the ground, there is no danger, as the absorbed radiation is minute. When the particle is adjacent to a cell, that cell's DNA turns into random confetti. The continued focus on background levels only serves to prevent protests against the nuclear industry and it keeps letting Big Agro using radioactive fertilizer. Meanwhile, the cancer research lobby keeps raking in billions in donations and subsidies, never finding a cause or a cure. And those responsible for the deaths of millions will never be held accountable. That is every government in the world that did not severely restrict the sale and import of many foods for a very long time after each nuclear accident. That is every government that secretly raised the "safe levels" for radiological contamination in foods ten- or twenty-fold, as happened in Europe and the US after the Fukushima catastrophe. That is the government of the US, Russia, France and China, for doing above-ground nuclear testing. Any food producer using radioactive fertilizer. It would ruin tens of thousands of rich, powerful people worldwide. They can now allow the true cause of cancer ever to become known. It would instantly do away with all cancer research and all cancer charities. Cancer "experts" would instantly become unemployed and their "knowledge" valueless and ridiculed. Big Pharma would have one less major cash cow, because we'd of course have to find a way to remove the alpha-emitters from soil and mined phosphate fertilizers. Humanity is in a difficult situation. We are with so many that we need to mine fertilizer, which is radioactively contaminated.

We have nuclear plants because we want nukes

The military-industrial complex needs uranium-based reactors in order to produce plutonium for nuclear bombs. An accident with a Thorium reactor would not cause a radiological disaster, but Thorium reactors are useless for producing nukes. That's why France, which is plastered with nuclear plants that produce nearly all its electricity, also is a major nuclear power. Nuclear plants are a prerequisite for nuclear bombs because the fissionable material is "bred" in a reactor. If you want a lot of nukes, you'll need a lot of large reactors. And if we don't want cancer, major powers have to basically stop renewing the nuclear arsenal.

Fukushima caused the release of the powerful alpha-emitter Plutonium, the most carcinogenic substance on Earth. Fukushima reactor #3 was a MOX reactor and had 6% Pu in it. Plutonium fragments were found miles from the reactor and Plutonium in the air was found on the other side of Japan. Japan obtained sufficient Plutonium for thousands of nuclear bombs. Because Japan is afraid of China. The US worries that China will become too powerful, and would eventually like to see Japan and China nuke each other back into the Ming dynasty, getting rid of two competitors. And of course Russia distrusts the US and wants to keep their nukes. They all want to keep their nukes. It is a matter of national security. That's why protests against nuclear power plants are a matter of national security. That is why even after Fukushima, which scared many experts advising governments, governments initially pledged to phase out nuclear power stations and even shut down some due to safety concerns, but now are backpedaling again. The people have been lulled to sleep again. "Noone had died of cancer yet from Fukushima", they say. While nearly half of all people alive today will get cancer, sooner or later. And it didn't use to be that way.

Radioactive dust from DU shells reached Europe

Yet another man-made source of radiological pollution has entered the Western food supply: Radioactive (alpha-emmitters again..) dust from highly radioactive Depleted Uranium shells, vaporized when they were used against tanks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Nuclear scientist Christopher Busby has written a study on this, using measurement data from the UK. If DU dust from Iraq was found in the UK, it will have reached the East coast of the US as well. For a documentary on how extremely radioactive DU shells are (often contaminated with enriched Uranium or even Plutonium - DU shells are made using reactor waste and sometimes they are accidentally contaminated with highly radioactive waste), watch the documentary The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children on YouTube. In 1995, Professor Siegwart-Horst Gunther spent five weeks in a Kiel penitentiary for refusing to pay a fine of 3000 Marks for the "traffic of radioactive materials". His offense? Bringing a spent DU shell he had found in Iraq. It set of the detectors for nuclear materials at the German customs at the airport. Trained forensic scientist and PhD in Health Physics Major Dr. Doug Rokke is the former head of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project. He spreads awareness of the very severe damage to health that occurs when people come into contact with the Uranium dust spread by Depleted Uranium shells. In one of Rokke's reports, he states that DU (Depleted Uranium) is a potent alpha emitter, and that alpha particles cause great damage to cells and thus health. This is exactly Busby's main point: The negative health effects of internal emitters (esp. alpha-emitters) is greatly underestimated and deliberately and actively covered up by the nuclear industry and the medical-industrial complex.

1.  violetdoll    Monday, May 9, 2016

Thank you for this very interesting report. This makes absolute sense to me.I have never been able to comprehend why any nuclear testing has been allowed or why nuclear power was ever considered to be a safe form of energy.! One thing I would like to say though is that having suffered from EHS for over 15 years I have researched non-ionising radiation in recent years and apparently there are studies showing dna breakage caused by microwave radiation. I'm not saying you are incorrect as you may well have information that disproves this, I only want to share what I have found in my own research. Here is one example

2.  Sarah Vaughter    Tuesday, May 10, 2016

I am also convinced that microwave radiation can break DNA strands. Indirectly, via the boiling of the protoplasm and via the mechanism Christopher Busby proposes. Then there is the even more controversial hypothesis that microwave radiation can induce a LENR reaction in certain isotopes of heavy metals. When traces of those would be present in food, the food would become carcinogenic instead of merely toxic.

3.  Frank Energy    Thursday, June 16, 2016

How much radiation was blasted into our atmosphere by Fukushima?

195 Tons, at least. Proof is here.


4.  Captain Obvious    Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Radiation is not measured in tons. Also the article title "Radioactive radiation is the true cause of most cancer" proves that the author is playing checkers at a chess tournament. The term "radioactive radiation" immediately flags this person as a quack. There is ionizing radiation, electromagnetic radiation, even photonic (light) radiation. But "radioactive radiation" means you never passed high school science. Even if your observation has merit, and I'm not saying it does, your terminology belies your amateur credentials.

5.  Sarah Vaughter    Tuesday, June 21, 2016

You're mixing up an indeed nonsensical response from "Frank Energy" and my extremely well researched and factually correct article. My article was written for laypeople. I meant with "radioactive radiation" alpha and beta particles as well as gamma emissions resulting from nuclear fission. And I explained that, using the correct terminology. Particularly the devastating effect of alpha particles and to a lesser extent betas. Ionizing radiation. I was extremely clear, explaining the issue.

Attacking the person and not the message is the hallmark of people with no arguments. You may be a smoker in denial, part of the fertilizer industry, part of the nuclear-military-industrial complex or someone with a modicum of knowledge of nuclear physics and jealous of someone who knows more than you - in any case you have contributed exactly nothing to this conversation, on the contrary, you sought to sow doubt in the mind of the reader using nothing but an ad-hominem.

I had a look at your commenting history. Apart from the fact that you like to attack people on their spelling instead of on their arguments, you demonstrated not to know the difference between alpha, beta, gamma and neutron radiation here:

You throw everything on the same "microsievert" heap, regardless what type of radiation we're talking about. (1) You do not know the difference, in terms of DNA damage, between an alpha particle or a gamma ray. (2) You do not know the difference between an external dose of radiation and an internal dose. So you're either a putz or a shill. Occam's Razor says you're a putz.

6.  Frank Energy    Tuesday, June 21, 2016

You are replying to me as if I am the author?

That is amazing.

7.  Frank Energy    Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Yo girlfriend. What does estimating the amount of radioactive materials aerosolized by Fukushima with "non sensical". That is insulting.

What I did is amazing work, pulling real data out of a government coverup.

8.  Frank Energy    Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Yo Captain! If she said Ionizing Radiation, no one would know what she was talking about. Just saying, its an odd way to say it, but it gets the point across.

9.  Sarah Vaughter    Wednesday, June 22, 2016

"Tons" is not a metric of radiation so your comment was nonsensical. Your good intentions are duly noted, however.

10.  Sarah Vaughter    Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Hey Einsteins! Can any of you READ? I mentioned "ionizing radiation" at least SIX times in the article..

11.  blondie43    Friday, July 8, 2016

I recently read an article by a well educated Japanese scientist who said that Fukushima was basically adding injury to insult. His point was that the atmospheric testing completely polluted the world with lots more radiation that Fuku. This is why he theorizes the US isn't screaming at Japan for the damage because they wouldn't want it known how much more they and the other countries that tested have irradiated the world. What a mess and what kind of a world have our children inherited? Makes me very sad and very angry which is another reason why this is being kept so quiet. People who find out they are doomed and that their children and grandchildren have been poisoned would be very dangerous and a large threat not to mention the fact that they don't have the foggiest clue what to do. My gut tells me they are hiding still how bad it really is.

12.  areq_ciliq_antiq_    Wednesday, August 3, 2016


13.  Fredrik Eich    Wednesday, September 14, 2016

The radio active fall out from atomic weapons testing started in 1945 and ended
around 1985. And it just so happens that there are two global trend breaks in lung cancer an upturn around 1950 and a down turn about 1990. Which
is a perfect match with the nuclear fall out period.



14.  Frank Energy    Wednesday, September 14, 2016


Commenting on this article is not possible anymore.
Our store has instructions for our products.