The deafening silence about Polonium-210 from organizations such as Cancer Research UK has prompted me to have another think about a Very Strange Thing that happened six months ago. More on that in a moment but first we need to take a look at the lucrative and ever expanding chemical fertilizer industry.
The rock mineral apatite, which US farmers are by law obliged to use in the form of phosphate fertilizer, contains radon. One of the resulting products of radon decay is polonium-210, a radioactive substance which ends up on the fine hairs of the tobacco plant and is subsequently inhaled by smokers. Not naturally occurring in tobacco, but it is a deliberately added by-product of the phosphate mining industry.
ny of the many substances found in cigarette smoke can be shown to cause poor health and lead to disease, but laboratory trials consistently and repeatedly demonstrate that the only component that causes lung cancer tumours is polonium-210. The tobacco industry has been fully aware since the 1960’s that cigarettes contain significant levels of polonium-210.
Prior to 1930 and the advent of chemical fertilizers lung cancer was virtually unknown whereas today the incidence is greater than that for heart disease. Between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium-210 in US grown tobacco tripled as the use of chemical fertilizers increased. The US Surgeon General, C Everett Koop is on record in 1990 stating publicly that tobacco radiation is probably responsible for 90% of tobacco-related cancer.
An awkward discrepancy exists in explaining the increased lung cancer rate from 4 per 100,000 in 1930 to 72 per 100,000 today and rising, despite the 20 percent reduction in tobacco use.
There are four thousand or so substances variously found in different brands of cigarettes. Some of them are added and some occur as a result of burning but the general public is not allowed to know what is added to tobacco despite a 1984 law obliging cigarette manufacturers to release this information.
Health Authority departments may request a list of additives but are forbidden to show this to anyone else.
In December 2006 an anti-smoking campaign funded by the UK Department of Health and promoted by Cancer Research UK was to be shown as a series of advertisements on national television. Programmed to run concurrently with a targeted display of posters across the country and the distribution of beer mats in bar venues, it was suddenly and inexplicably curtailed. Someone made a decision to drop all mention of polonium-210 but to proceed with the remaining material. Why?
When questioned the Department of Health’s response was ‘It would be inappropriate’.
The remaining ads have hard-hitting messages about the dangers of cigarette smoke and the poisonous substances it contains
Department of Health spokeswoman
We are surely entitled to ask why the Department of Health, without a valid explanation would think it ‘inappropriate’ to share information about the single most deadly substance to be found in cigarette smoke.
Could it be that the hitherto rarely mentioned and largely unheard of, but highly radioactive polonium-210 had overnight become worldwide headline news? The graphic illustrations of a painfully slow death by polonium-210 poisoning of the unfortunate Mr Alexander Litvinenko in London was the number one news item in the UK for several days. Would the passive information fed television audience of millions be able to make the connection between the inexorable rise in lung cancer and the polonium-210 content in cigarettes?
Were the tobacco industry chiefs quaking in their boots? Maybe they were – but only for a moment or two. Because our compliant Department of Health obliged and in collaboration with Cancer Research UK deleted all mention of the offending word ‘polonium-210’ from their upcoming anti-smoking campaign.
You didn’t know this? Welcome to the real world of big business ethics.
Elga Mackie writes extensively on the astonishing power of our subconscious mind and the often controversial, thought provoking information about hidden secrets that prevent many people from experiencing perfect health.
http://www.justmindpower.com Copyright 2007 Elga G Mackie - All Rights Reserved Worldwide. Reprint Rights: You may reprint this article as long as you leave all of the links active, do not edit the article in any way, give author name credit and follow all of the EzineArticles terms of service for Publishers
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Elga_Mackie
1 comment:
The following has acually been deleted from my laptop three times. There has been not other hacking:
HOW POWERFUL IS THE TOBACCO LOBBY?
Tom Dennen
May 30 Was World No Tobacco Day
The fact that polonium 210 is one of the 6000 poisons present in cigarette smoke, both original and second-hand, has to my knowledge only been reported in the South African Weekend Witness on December 16, 2006, the New York Times (under the by-line of my senior source) on December first, 2007, Reporter.co.za and on John Rivero's weblog whatreallyhappened.com.
It has since been blogged all over the Internet, but the Mainstream Media (MSM) have not only ignored the story about a known serial killer that has been on the loose since 1968 when the first reports were coming in from the scientific community, but kept a blind eye.
And who is that serial killer?
The tobacco industry.
Mainstream media is forcing people to get their truth from the Internet.
The interesting thing is that the British Department of Health and the UK's biggest cancer charity, Cancer Research, knew about polonium 210 in cigarettes (and were prepared to shout that from the rooftops) at least six months to a year before Alexander Litvinenko was killed.
That is about the amount of time it takes to conceive, research, script, storyboard, shoot and edit five television commercials on a fifty million pound budget..
During the preparation time for the commercials, print ads and other material were also produced.
Toward the launch of the campaign, which contained very hard-hitting messages about the dangers of smoking because of the carcinogenic materials cigarettes contain including polonium 210, beer mats were distributed to pubs all over the entire British North Country with the legend: "Where do you find radioactive Polonium 21? In your cigarettes!"
'POLONIUM' BEER MATS DITCHED: The controversial "polonium 210" anti-smoking beer mats have been withdrawn across the country after the charity Cancer Research were accused of insensitivity and "appalling bad taste". The mats were aimed at shocking smokers into quitting by revealing that one of the poisons inhaled was polonium, the radioactive material that killed the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko.
Source: Devon Herald Express (15 December 2006)
Before the launch of the powerful anti-smoking campaign, Litvinenko was killed.
The beer mats were immediately recalled and two of the television commercials that graphically portrayed the fact that polonium 210 is present in cigarettes were pulled without ever being seen. Why?
And this at a cost of at least forty percent of the advertising budget – twenty million pounds. Why?
'Appalling bad taste' does not work for me as ammunition against serial killers.
A spokesman for the BDH said at the time that the polonium material (including the beer mats) was removed from the campaign so as not to "upset the Litvinenko family".
Twenty million pounds discarded to protect the sensibilities of a murdered Russian's family? Why?
In England, where Anglo-Russo tensions are at best strained?
I think not.
But what was the real reason?
Am I a conspiracy theorist who believes that the tobacco lobby is so powerful it can simply order the British Health Department and the UK's biggest cancer charity to drop from its anti-tobacco campaign the fact that polonium 210 is and has been a clear and present danger to human health?
Am I to believe that it is so powerful that having known since 1968 that Polonium 210 is present in cigarettes it can debunk any claims against any polonium stories and stop any relevant information from getting to the mainstream media?
And therefore to you?
Looks like it.
The most pressing question remains the Béte Noir of journalism, "Why?"
Why has there been no pursuit of the question, why did the UK's Department of Health 'pull' the polonium advertising material?
That question still needs an answer.
Post a Comment