The Medical Association for Prevention of War has released a statement signed by 45 medical doctors calling on uranium mining company Toro Energy to stop promoting the view that low-level radiation is beneficial to human health. Toro Energy, which plans to mine uranium at Wiluna in WA and has interests in uranium exploration ventures in the NT and SA, has sponsored speaking tours by controversial Canadian scientist Doug Boreham. The joint statement notes that recent research has heightened rather than reduced concern about the adverse health impacts of low-level radiation.

TORO ENERGY PROMOTES RADIATION JUNK SCIENCE , Statement by 45 doctors – (signatures at end ) 1 May 2012
Toro Energy is an Australian company involved in uranium exploration in Western Australia, the  Northern Territory, South Australia and in Namibia, Africa. The company’s most advanced project is  the proposed Wiluna uranium mine in the WA Goldfields.
Toro Energy has consistently promoted the fringe scientific view that exposure to low-level radiation  is harmless. Toro Energy has sponsored at least three speaking visits to Australia by Canadian  scientist Dr Doug Boreham, who argues that low-level radiation is actually beneficial to human health.
Those views are at odds with mainstream scientific evidence and expert assessment. For example:
• A 2010 report by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
states that “the current balance of available evidence tends to favour a non-threshold response for
the mutational component of radiation-associated cancer induction at low doses and low dose
rates.”
• The 2006 report of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR) of the
US National Academy of Sciences states that “the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at
lower doses without a threshold and … the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase
in risk to humans.” The report also concludes that claims that low-level radiation exposure may be
beneficial to human health are “unwarranted”.
• A review published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US) in 2003
concluded that: “Given that it is supported by experimentally grounded, quantifiable, biophysical
arguments, a linear extrapolation of cancer risks from intermediate to very low doses currently
appears to be the most appropriate methodology.”
It is irresponsible for Toro Energy to consistently promote fringe scientific views and to ignore
mainstream scientific evidence and expert assessment.
Even more alarming is that Toro Energy has sponsored “employee radiation training” by Dr Boreham.
Recent scientific research has heightened concern about exposure to radon, the main source of
radiation doses to uranium industry workers. In 2009, the International Commission on Radiological
Protection concluded that radon gas delivers almost twice the radiation dose to humans as originally
thought and the Commission is in the process of reassessing permissible levels. Previous dose
estimates to miners need to be approximately doubled to accurately reflect the lung cancer hazard.
We call on Toro Energy to stop promoting fringe scientific views to uranium industry workers and to  the public at large.

1 May 2012: Toro Energy promotes radiation junk science
Signatories (all medical doctors working in Australia, or retired from working in Australia):
1. Margaret Beavis MBBS FRACGP
2. Peter Karamoskos MBBS, FRANZCR
3. Hilary Tyler MBChB, FACEM
4. Tilman Ruff MBBS (Hons), FRACP
5. Jenny Grounds MBBS, DRANZCOG, Grad Dip Med Acup.
6. Bill Williams MBBS
7. Rosalie Schultz MBBS, FAFPHM
8. James Rossiter AM, DU Deakin Honoris Causa, FRACP, FRCP Ed, MRCS, LRCP, MMSA,
DCH, DObstRCOG
9. Rachel Darken MBBS, DPM
10. Michael Fonda MBBS, B.Med.Sci, FRACGP
11. Sue Wareham OAM, MBBS
12. Peter Shannon, MBBS, DPM, FRANZCP
13. Jason Garrood MBBS, FACRRM
14. Simon Leslie MBBS
15. Ben Bartlett MBBS, MPH, FAFOEM, FAFPHM, MRACGP
16. Fiona Russell BMBS, FRACP, MPHTM, Grad Dip(Clin Epi), PhD
17. Megan Passey B.Med (Hons), MPH, MSc, DipFP
18. Ken Harvey MBBS, FRCPA
19. Sandra Thompson BSc(Med), MBBS, MPH, PhD, Grad Dipl Management
20. Marion Carey MBBS (Hons.), MPH, FAFPHM, FRSPH
21. George Crisp MBBS, MRCGP
22. Harry Cohen AM, MBBS, FRACOG
23. Heath Kelly MBBS, Bsc, MPH, FAFPHM
24. Catherine Silsbury MBBS, MHSc, FAChAM
25. Colin D. Butler BMedSci(Hons), BMed, DTM&H, MSc(epi), PhD
26. Peter Tait MBBS, DipRACOG, FRACGP, MClimChng, MPHAA
27. Stephen Connor MBBS, MPH, BPharm (Hons), MRPharmS, Dip.Clin. Pharm
28. Chris Wright MBBS, FRACP, FCICM
29. Bobby Sundaralingam MBBS, FRANZCR, ANZSPNM, BSc
30. Frederick Mendelsohn AO, MD, PhD, FRACP, FAA,
31. Sally Attrill MBBS, B.Med.Sci., FRACGP, DRANZCOG
32. Elizabeth Moore MBBS
33. Ruth A. Mitchell BMBS, BA, BSc
34. Janet Bodycomb BSc, MBBS, FRACGP
35. Adam Badenoch BSc BMBS
36. Kristen Pearson MBBS, FRACP
37. Jane Ralls MBBS MRCGP (UK)
38. Tom Keaney MBBS
39. Peter Markey BMBS, DA, DRCOG, DTM&H, MPH, FAFPHM
40. Alison Creagh MBBS, DRANZCOG
41. Linda Selvey MBBS(Hon), PhD
42. Lucy Owen MBBS
43. Kate Jackson MBBS, DTM+H, FRCA, FAChPM (RACP), FFPMANZCA
44. Lisa Bohlscheid MBBS, FRACGP
45. Miriam Brooks MBBS, FRACGP

• http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs291/en/index.html
• http://www.icrp.org/page.asp?id=16
• http://www.epa.gov/radon/beirvi.html
• www.wise-uranium.org/uhm.html

First comes the admission – “ The rate of corporate and generational change has been slowed [ a better word than plummeted?] by external circumstance”

But this is followed quickly by the new nuclear dogmas:   about  ”robust returns on invested capital”,…..”The failure of the Fukushima nuclear plants was an industrial [ not a nuclear?] catastrophe within the context of a major natural disaster.”…

…as the fog of disinformation [does he mean the facts on radiation?] clears , it is again clear nuclear power generation is safe and made even safer by the lessons of Fukushima,…

“…….It is eminently reasonable to propose a process flow sheet for Olympic Dam which does not include recovery of uranium but still allows for copper, gold and silver to be produced… This report .. proposing  a technically viable alternative for operating Olympic Dam in the next expansion which excludes uranium recovery….”

Politics and uranium mining | GoDanRiver.com, RICHARD D. WOOD 6 Jan 2011, With all the study and attention to the mining of uranium in Pittsylvania County, I would like to comment. As for the independent study, the so-called independents, in the real world will be working for who hired them to do the so-called independent study.

One must remember that those people do not live here and probably never will. When studies are done on the safety of mining, it only takes one accident to render a very big and everlasting problem; just look at the Gulf and oil spill in Alaska as well as others.

One would think that industry would not want to build or invest in Pittsylvania County with any possibility of mining to take place because of the potential risk involved. One could think that the combination of potential uranium mining brings in a number of jobs as predicted how many times that number would the actual cost to the job market be due to an industry not caring to locate and the potential health risk.

One would wonder if the surrounding area becomes unsafe for whatever reason, due to mining, would the uranium industry be willing to compensate property owners and industry for their loss and relocation. When looking at the scope of finding a few hundred jobs at the cost of possibly thousands of jobs and property loss, one would think that uranium mining is not good for the area or people of Pittsylvania.

One would think, taking this into consideration, people in this district should vote for someone who lives in Pittsylvania and has our interests at heart.

Politics and uranium mining | GoDanRiver.com

The Australian Conservation Foundation is agreeable to the matter being discussed at the ALP’s conference but says there should be an open debate, not one where factions decided the matter behind closed doors….

Uranium industry claims nuclear attitudes are changing | The Australian, 27 Dec 10, ….…………anti-nuclear campaigners say the industry’s claim that nuclear power can help address climate change problems is a cover for trying to increase exports……..

……Australia’s main environmental groups have signed a statement declaring nuclear power was unsafe, as there was not yet sufficient safeguards to dispose of waste safely while the industry was not commercially feasible and would require large public subsidies.

The Australian Conservation Foundation is agreeable to the matter being discussed at the ALP’s conference but says there should be an open debate, not one where factions decided the matter behind closed doors….

He said there may be some support for the idea of a nuclear industry but such support evaporated when a nuclear plant was proposed at a specific location.

“There won’t be a nuclear industry in Australia because of this – what this debate is about now is allowing Australian uranium to be exported.”

Uranium mining is allowed in South Australia, the Liberal government in Western Australia is keen to develop the industry there, while the Queensland Labor government remains opposed to the industry…

BHP Boss Casts Doubt On Coal’s Future, Energy Efficiency, September 18th, 2010 When the world’s largest mining boss Marius Kloppers warns Australia should look beyond coal and towards other energy sources, you have to wonder whether its spin or otherwise. According to the BHP Billiton CEO, the Australian economy will suffer if it does not significantly reduce its carbon emissions in anticipation of a global carbon price
BHP – one of the world’s largest producers of thermal coal making almost 10% of its revenue -  have seemingly acknowledged the need for action on climate change, even though the mining industry (the Minerals Council of Australia), was a very vocal opponent of Rudd’s emissions trading scheme…….
But is BHP just playing the uranium card ?
…….With Peak Coal predicted for Australia in 2040, is BHP more interested in nuclear power for Australia so they can dig more coal to sell elsewhere; is it an announcement to push the South Australian government to OK the Olympic Dam mine expansion; would nuclear reactors reduce our greenhouse emissions ?

Whatever the question and answer, if an honest approach is used, then nuclear power will not be a solution … ever; the simple reason is that an honest approach is one where the embodied energy and GHG emissions emitted in developing the land, building and commission a nuclear power plant and decommissioning the plant and ensuing emissions to do so are added to the emissions of the plant while it is running and being maintained; and then when you have added that in and then considered – rationally – where the nuclear waste is to be stored, that the real cost emerges; and it won’t be a simple Prof Ross Garnaut type solution like dumping tailings at sea either…..

BHP Boss Casts Doubt On Coal’s Future

Cameco uranium mining company is running “Community Liaison Forums”.  And guess what?  They’ve found that low dose ionising radiation is not only healthy – it even prevents illness!

Not a surprise, really, from Cameco. For years they’ve been pitching radiation to kids, as a fun thing.

DU is in fact much more dangerous than tungsten.  It may be depleted of some of its neutrons but it is still radioactive enough to cause cancer and birth defects.

US Government web site psyop promoting depleted uranium munitions | qbit.cc June 23rd, 2010 “…….This propaganda is expertly crafted to avoid directly stating that Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions are as safe as tungsten, while belittling the (valid) belief that DU is incredibly dangerous, implying that the reader thinks the sound of the term “depleted uranium” is scary because it’s a big scientific word that we aren’t used to hearing, or something to this effect– not the fact that it’s well known that DU, and all forms of uranium are highly toxic.

But what would we expect from the same government that thought it was ok to feed plutonium and other radioactive metals to pregnant women and children?

This is from: http://www.america.gov/conspiracy_theories.html

Yes both uranium and tungsten are heavy metals, but also have very different properties and toxicity.  DU spontaneously ignites sending a spray of molten material and radioactive dust into the surrounding area, contaminating soil for the next 4 billion years (the half-life of DU).

Uranium is incredibly dense– 2x denser than lead, which makes it ideal for heavy bullets to penetrate armor.  The US military has used DU munitions and armor extensively in the Middle East and Bosnia, with incalculable cost to the health of local populations and the world.

Tungsten rounds and armor just sit there and slowly oxidize. Tungsten is also dense but very hard and not incindiery. It does not disintegrate and ignite on impact like DU.

DU is in fact much more dangerous than tungsten.  It may be depleted of some of its neutrons but it is still radioactive enough to cause cancer and birth defects.  The issue here is that it’s more effective at penetrating armor, and our military and US government doesn’t give a rats ass about the health of innocent people or their own troops.

Here’s a great documentary about the effect DU is already having in Iraq: Silent genocide – Depleted uranium

US Government web site psyop promoting depleted uranium munitions | qbit.cc