This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Killing the Unborn ... With Radiation
Preface: I am not against all nuclear power, solely the unsafe type we have today.
The harmful affect of radiation on fetuses has been known for decades.
As
nuclear expert Robert Alvarez - a senior U.S. Department of Energy
official during the Clinton administration - and journalists Harvey
Wasserman and Norman Solomon wrote in 1982 in a book called Killing Our Own:
In recent years controversy has arisen over the particular vulnerability of infants in utero
and small children to the ill-effects of radiation. Exposure of the
fetus to radiation during all stages of pregnancy increases the chances
of developing leukemia and childhood cancers. Because their cells are
dividing so rapidly, and because there are relatively so few of them
involved in the vital functions of the body in the early stages, embryos
are most vulnerable to radiation in the first trimester--particularly
in the first two weeks after conception. This period carries the
highest risk of radiation-induced abortion and adverse changes in organ
development. During this stage of development the tiny fetus can be
fifteen times more sensitive to radiation-induced cancer than in its
last trimester of development, and up to a thousand or more times more
sensitive than an adult. In general it is believed that fetuses in the
very early stages of development are most vulnerable to penetrating
radiation such as X rays and gamma rays.
In all stages, they are
vulnerable to emitting isotopes ingested by the mother. For example, if
a pregnant mother inhales or ingests radioiodine, it can be carried
through the placenta to the fetus, where it can lodge in the fetal
thyroid and where its gamma and beta emissions can cause serious damage
to the developing organ. Once the fetal thyroid is damaged, changes in
the hormonal balance of the body may result in serious--possibly
fatal--consequences for the development of the child through pregnancy,
early childhood, and beyond. Such effects include underweight and
premature birth, poorly developed lungs causing an inability to breathe
upon delivery, mental retardation, and general ill-health.
Other
emitters can lodge in other fetal organs. For example, yttrium-90, a
decay product of strontium 90, can gravitate toward the pituitary gland.
Overall, fetal irradiation during the second and third trimester has
been linked to microcephaly (small head size), stunted growth and mental
retardation, central nervous system defects, and behavioral changes.
Exposure of the fetus to radiation during all stages of pregnancy
increases the chances of developing leukemia and childhood cancers.
Young children also undergo more rapid cell division than adults, as do
children in puberty. This rapid growth makes them very susceptible to
radiation damage. Also at high risk are the elderly and chronically
ill. These groups have weakened immune systems because of less active
red bone marrow. Healthy immune systems can often isolate and remove
damaged cells before malignancies develop. Older people generally have
less vigorous immune systems; they have also generally experienced more
radiation from both natural and human-made sources than young people,
and thus may be more susceptible to additional exposure.
Women
are also considered to be twice as sensitive to radiation as men because
of their predominance in contracting breast and thyroid
cancers.[However, radiation safety standards are set based on the
assumption that everyone exposed is a healthy man in his 20s.]
Cancers shown to be initiated by radiation include leukemia, and
cancers of the pancreas, lung, large intestine, thyroid, liver, and
breast. Life-shortening anemia and other blood abnormalities, benign
tumors, cataracts, and lowered fertility are other random effects
attributed to radiation exposure.
I noted in 2009:
An entire field of science called "epigenetics", which studies changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence.
Epigeneticists say that genetic changes can be caused by interaction with the environment may last for multiple generations.
Brian Moench, MD, noted last month:
Administration
spokespeople continuously claim "no threat" from the radiation
reaching the US from Japan, just as they did with oil hemorrhaging into
the Gulf. Perhaps we should all whistle "Don't worry, be happy" in
unison. A thorough review of the science, however, begs a second
opinion.
That the radiation is being released 5,000 miles away
isn't as comforting as it seems.... Every day, the jet stream carries
pollution from Asian smoke stacks and dust from the Gobi Desert to our
West Coast, contributing 10 to 60 percent of the total pollution
breathed by Californians, depending on the time of year. Mercury is
probably the second most toxic substance known after plutonium. Half
the mercury in the atmosphere over the entire US originates in China.
It, too, is 5,000 miles away. A week after a nuclear weapons test in
China, iodine 131 could be detected in the thyroid glands of deer in
Colorado, although it could not be detected in the air or in nearby
vegetation.
The idea that a threshold exists or
there is a safe level of radiation for human exposure began unraveling
in the 1950s when research showed one pelvic x-ray in a pregnant
woman could double the rate of childhood leukemia in an exposed baby.
Furthermore, the
risk was ten times higher if it occurred in the first three months of
pregnancy than near the end. This became the stepping-stone to the
understanding that the timing of exposure was even more critical than
the dose. The earlier in embryonic development it occurred, the
greater the risk.
A new medical concept has
emerged, increasingly supported by the latest research, called "fetal
origins of disease," that centers on the evidence that a multitude
of chronic diseases, including cancer, often have their origins in
the first few weeks after conception by environmental insults
disturbing normal embryonic development. It is now established
medical advice that pregnant women should avoid any exposure to
x-rays, medicines or chemicals when not absolutely necessary, no
matter how small the dose, especially in the first three months.
"Epigenetics"
is a term integral to fetal origins of disease, referring to
chemical attachments to genes that turn them on or off
inappropriately and have impacts functionally similar to broken
genetic bonds. Epigenetic changes can be caused by unimaginably small
doses - parts per trillion - be it chemicals, air pollution,
cigarette smoke or radiation. Furthermore, these epigenetic changes
can occur within minutes after exposure and may be passed on to
subsequent generations.
The Endocrine Society,
14,000 researchers and medical specialists in more than 100
countries, warned that "even infinitesimally low levels of exposure
to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, indeed, any level of exposure at
all, may cause endocrine or reproductive abnormalities, particularly
if exposure occurs during a critical developmental window.
Surprisingly, low doses may even exert more potent effects than higher
doses." If hormone-mimicking chemicals at any level are not safe for
a fetus, then the concept is likely to be equally true of the even
more intensely toxic radioactive elements drifting over from Japan,
some of which may also act as endocrine disruptors.
Many
epidemiologic studies show that extremely low doses of radiation
increase the incidence of childhood cancers, low birth-weight babies,
premature births, infant mortality, birth defects and even diminished
intelligence. Just two abdominal x-rays delivered to a male can
slightly increase the chance of his future children developing
leukemia. By damaging proteins anywhere in a living cell, radiation
can accelerate the aging process and diminish the function of any
organ. Cells can repair themselves, but the rapidly growing cells in a
fetus may divide before repair can occur, negating the body's
defense mechanism and replicating the damage.
Comforting
statements about the safety of low radiation are not even accurate
for adults. Small increases in risk per individual have immense
consequences in the aggregate. When low risk is accepted for billions
of people, there will still be millions of victims. New research on
risks of x-rays illustrate the point.
Radiation
from CT coronary scans is considered low, but, statistically, it
causes cancer in one of every 270 40-year-old women who receive the
scan. Twenty year olds will have double that rate. Annually, 29,000
cancers are caused by the 70 million CT scans done in the US. Common,
low-dose dental x-rays more than double the rate of thyroid cancer.
Those exposed to repeated dental x-rays have an even higher risk of
thyroid cancer.
***
Beginning
with Madam Curie, the story of nuclear power is one where key
players have consistently miscalculated or misrepresented the risks
of radiation. The victims include many of those who worked on the
original Manhattan Project, the 200,000 soldiers who were assigned to
eye witness our nuclear tests, the residents of the Western US who
absorbed the lion's share of fallout from our nuclear testing in
Nevada, the thousands of forgotten victims of Three Mile Island or the
likely hundreds of thousands of casualties of Chernobyl. This could
be the latest chapter in that long and tragic story when, once again,
we were told not to worry.
And Dr. Moench writes today:
The
official refrain, boldly repeated, is, "Not to worry, perfectly
harmless, no health threat," even though the six Fukushima reactors
contain thousands of times more radioactivity than the bomb dropped over
Hiroshima. Some of our best scientists of the previous century would be
rolling over in their graves.In the 1940s, many of the world's
premier nuclear scientists saw mounting evidence that there was no safe
level of exposure to nuclear radiation. This led Robert Oppenheimer, the
father of the atom bomb, to oppose development of the hydrogen bomb.[1]
In the 1950s, Linus Pauling, the only two-time winner of the Nobel
Prize, began warning the public about exposure to all radiation. His
opinion, ultimately shared by thousands of scientists worldwide, led
President Kennedy to sign the nuclear test-ban treaty.In the
1960s, Drs. John Gofman, Arthur Tamplin, Alice Stewart, Thomas Mancuso
and Karl Morgan, all researchers for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
or the Department of Energy (DOE), independently came to the conclusion
that exposure to nuclear radiation was not safe at any level. The
government terminated their services for coming up with what Gofman has
called the "wrong answer" - that is, the opposite of what the AEC wanted
to hear.[2] The top Russian nuclear physicist in the 1960s, Andrei
Sakharov, also a Nobel Prize winner, and Vladimir Chernousenko, whom the
Soviet Union placed in charge of the Chernobyl cleanup, are among other
international experts who drew similar conclusions.To put
lipstick on the pig of radioactive fallout, we hear from nuclear
cheerleaders that common activities like watching TV and airline travel
also expose us to radiation. True enough, although they never mention
that airline pilots and flight attendants do have higher rates of breast
and skin cancer.[3] But equating those very different types of
radiation is like equating the damage of being hit with ping pong balls
(photons) with being hit by bullets (beta particles). Your TV doesn't
shoot bullets at you. Even if your TV was only shooting a few bullets
per show, you probably wouldn't watch much TV. Furthermore, the damage
done by these radioactive "bullets" can vary tremendously depending on
which organs are hit. To carry the analogy one step further: spraying a
few bullets into a large crowd can hardly be considered safe for
everyone in the crowd, even if the ratio of bullets per person is very
low.Bioaccumulation causes an increasing concentration of many
contaminates as one moves up the food chain. That's why beef is much
higher in dioxins than cattle feed, tuna fish have much higher mercury
than the water they swim in and fetal blood has higher mercury levels
than maternal blood.[4] Radioactive iodine, cesium and strontium, all
beta emitters, become concentrated in the food chain because of
bioaccumulation. At the top of the food chain, of course, are humans,
including fetuses and human breastmilk.In 1963, one week after
an atmospheric nuclear bomb test in Russia, our scientists demonstrated
the power of bioaccumulation when they detected radioactive iodine in
the thyroids of mammals in North America, even though, with 1963
methods, they could not detect smaller amounts in the air or on
vegetation.[5]Bioaccumulation is one reason why it is dishonest
to equate the danger to humans living 5,000 miles away from Japan with
the minute concentrations measured in our air. If we tried, we would now
likely be able to measure radioactive iodine, cesium, and strontium
bioaccumulating in human embryos in this country. Pregnant mothers, are
you okay with that?Hermann Muller, another Nobel Prize winner,
is one of many scientists who would not have been okay with that. In a
1964 study, "Radiation and Heredity" [6], Mueller clearly spelled out
the genetic damage of ionizing radiation on humans. He predicted the
gradual reduction of the survival of the human species as exposure to
ionizing radiation steadily increased. Indeed, sperm counts, sperm
viability and fertility rates worldwide have been dropping for decades.These scientists and their warnings have never been refuted, but they are still widely ignored.
Moreover, radiation standards are up to a 1,000 times higher than is safe for human health. And Forbes' blogger Jeff McMahon and Truthout writer Mike Ludwig
both note that FDA radiation standards for milk and other foods are 200
times higher than EPA standards for drinking water, and are based more
on commercial than safety concerns.
And
even with unreasonably lax standards, radiation exceeding government
safety levels has been found in drinking water and milk throughout the
United States. See this and this.
- advertisements -
Perhaps the plan Is to decrease human population. Ionizing radiation should be an excellent tool for that purpose. Ionizing radiation - enough linear energy to knock an electron out of orbit around one of your bodies cells.
Finally - some info on the temperature in reactor 3 (although they say reactor 1 by mistake?)...
[quote]Meanwhile, the NISA said Thursday that the temperature is rising in the No. 3 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 plant. The temperature, which stood at about 170 degrees on Tuesday, rose to about 200 degrees on Wednesday, and to about 250 degrees on Thursday, although the cause remains unknown.[/quote]
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201104150130.html
A little bit more bad news...
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201104150135.html
This article may provide a bit of a different perspective:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/busby-makes-absurd-claim-that-400000.html#more
Understanding how civil nuclear technology is the safe green solution, Oxford Physics
Oxford Physics Estimate using the study of survivors of the atomic bombs based on radiation exposure as they were tracked for many decades - 28(acute)+3(thyroid)+
c.78(solid cancers)+c.3(leukaemia). Crude but unbiased estimate. Anyway less than 200 deaths.
•Radiation is like other hazards –life has defenses
•Low-dose repair time is on the scale of a day or so
•Doses below threshold (100mSv) cause no damage.
•Above threshold, permanent damage (scar tissue) results. Such scar tissue may remain benign, or later become malignant, like other scars
<snip>
An extraordinary incident occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan. Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 (half-life: 5.3 y), was formed into construction steel for more than 180 buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years. They unknowingly received radiation doses that averaged 0.4 Sv - a collective dose of 4,000 person-Sv.
Based on the observed seven cancer deaths, the cancer mortality rate for this population was assessed to be 3.5 per 100,000 person-years. Three children were born with congenital heart malformations, indicating a prevalence rate of 1.5 cases per 1,000 children under age 19.
The average spontaneous cancer death rate in the general population of Taiwan over these 20 years is 116 persons per 100,000 person-years. Based upon partial official statistics and hospital experience, the prevalence rate of congenital malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children. Assuming the age and income distributions of these persons are the same as for the general population, it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure.
Oh and this on the impending collapse of the Kan government...over a small utterance of truthiness.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110415004549.htm
Pressure grows on Kan to quit / Alleged remark on Fukushima draws fire from both sidesThe Yomiuri Shimbun
Calls are growing louder in both the ruling and opposition camps for Prime Minister Naoto Kan to step down over his alleged remark that evacuees from around the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant "will not be able to return for 10 to 20 years."
Kenichi Matsumoto, an advisor to the Kan administration, said Wednesday the prime minister made the remark during talks the two had that day. Kan has strongly denied Matsumoto's claim.
Kan again denied making the remark during a Thursday meeting with Michio Furukawa, the mayor of Kawamatamachi, a town to be included in an expanded evacuation zone due to radiation from the nuclear complex in Fukushima Prefecture.
Kan was quoted as saying Thursday that the central government will do its utmost to achieve the "earliest possible solution" to the question of evacuations prompted by the nuclear plant.
At a press conference after the talks, however, Furukawa appeared unconvinced by the prime minister's denial.
"The statement [attributed to Kan] that people from the evacuation zone will be unable to return home for up to 20 years is outrageous," he said. "I wonder how much the prime minister is aware of the hardships we are going through in the radiation-affected sites."
With the repercussions of the controversial remark expected to spread, close aides to the prime minister have been actively defending Kan.
Koichiro Gemba, Policy Research Committee chairman of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan and one of the prime minister's close associates, said in a committee meeting Thursday that Matsumoto should bear the blame for misquoting the prime minister.
Indicating that Matsumoto alone should be held responsible for the remark, Gemba stressed, "We politicians must, as a matter of course, bear people's sorrow and pain in mind."
Matsumoto is a writer and historian specializing in Asian diplomacy. He took the post of Cabinet adviser in October.
A longtime friend of Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku, Matsumoto is known as part of Kan's brain trust, and recently made a series of proposals to the prime minister regarding restoration work in the disaster-stricken areas.
Just after his talks with Kan on Wednesday, Matsumoto quoted the prime minister as having said evacuees near the plant would be unable to return to their hometowns for 10 to 20 years. Matsumoto also cited Kan as saying he was considering developing an environmentally friendly town in an inland area for about 50,000 to 100,000 people, "in case residents need to leave their homes" near the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear complex.
Later the same day, however, Matsumoto said he had misquoted the prime minister. What was reported as a statement by Kan was actually something said by Matsumoto, he said.
Kan himself told reporters: "I did not say that."
The perception has nevertheless remained, in and outside the government, that the remark might actually have been made by Kan, touching off criticism against the prime minister even within the DPJ.
One of the DPJ lawmakers critical of Kan is Shinji Tarutoko, chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Fundamental National Policies.
In a Thursday meeting of DPJ Diet members he heads, Tarutoko said, "I strongly believe such circumstances are not beneficial to the interests of the nation." He was apparently referring to the alleged remark.
A senior DPJ lawmaker close to party heavyweight and Kan rival Ichiro Ozawa said: "The prime minister just doesn't understand how disaster victims feel, and I want him to quit after the first supplementary budget for fiscal 2011 [for disaster relief programs] becomes law."
DPJ bigwig Azuma Koshiishi said at a meeting Thursday of government and DPJ executives regarding Wednesday's talks between Kan and Matsumoto: "You [Kan] had better not meet so many people."
Koshiishi heads the DPJ's caucus in the House of Councillors.
The opposition camp has been more aggressive, with Liberal Democratic Party President Sadakazu Tanigaki calling on Thursday for Kan to resign as prime minister as soon as possible.
LDP legislator Bunmei Ibuki, a former finance minister, said at a meeting of his group the same day: "The existence itself of the Kan Cabinet is a massive disaster [for this country]." Ibuki also said some DPJ legislators have asked the LDP "to help topple the Kan administration."
(Apr. 16, 2011
)
Interesting.
They can deny all they want. Exclusion zones for their land and their products will be set for them by outsiders. Maersk shipping, U.S. Military, India, Korea and Russia have all set limits either geographically or on trade relations.
More to follow.
Q2 will be the wake-up call for global markets.
Does Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry know about this? Horning in on their business - they won't like that!
Oh and this....like I said, nothing for the MSM to see.
Germany to end reliance on nuclear power
German Chancellor Angela Merkel says her government will end its reliance on nuclear power as soon as possible by increasing energy generation from renewable sources.
Merkel spoke to reporters about the plan on Friday after meeting with ministers and all 16 state governors to discuss the energy issue. Earlier, she had suspended a plan to extend the life of existing nuclear power stations following the crisis at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant.
The Chancellor said German efforts would focus on developing power grids and renewable technologies, including for wind and solar power.
Last year, Merkel reversed a decision by a former government to shut down all German nuclear plants by about 2022.
Saturday, April 16, 2011 09:04 +0900 (JST)
Thanks Jim, I regard your posts on this issue with weighted interest. A former team-mate of mine consults with various nuclear facilities on physical security. An inside view gives all of us a head's up on the operational side. Thank you.
Yawn....nothing happening today....just three mag 5 quakes, steam coming off on the live webcam, and rain in Fukushima City....the usual....all outdoor activities banned for schoolkids prefecture-wide....
Ho hum.
Wasn't it King George, on July 4th, 1776, that said in his journal that "nothing of importance happened today" or something along those lines?
The Sick Rose
O Rose, thou art sick!
The invisible worm,
That flies in the night,
In the howling storm,
Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy;
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.
--William Blake, contemporaneous to King George.
oh, btw thanks, web bot. if i didn't have you to remind me to think, i wouldn't know what to do...
+1....seems integrating various info sources, verifying, and forming a hypothesis is beyong the ZH crowd. It seems that's why I'm more apt to post here. Who knew? But consider my lowly perspective. /sarc
Well done, GW (the article i mean). Yeah, nature gave us a shot, just like it gave the dinosaurs. Earth abides...
What's the #uckin problem?
We've been killing the unborn in the western world for decades... so why worry about it now? Eventually, we'll see the elderly (that means some of you as you get older) will be taken care of by the state when you are no longer economically useful.
Ever wonder why politics, ethics, morals have decayed and descended to the level that its at today where people are just investment tokens for others to profit from???? It all start when you stop realizing that people are human beings.
Think long and hard on this one.
Radiation Madness. As a child of the mid 1950's, before ultrasound, my mom was x-rayed once a month during her pregnancy, which of course, meant I was, too. If you're my age, you were, too. Perhaps this explains the sociology of all these NY bankers and DC advisors in my "cohort" age group. We were zapped crazy before birth. Must. Print. Money. And. Steal. It. Grraaahhhh!!!
it blows me away how little MSM soul searching is going on while a 1st world country like Japan is suffering nuclear devestation at the hands of old overhyped technology that was given a new lease from a 'stable democracy' with every decade of corporate bonuses.
.
and now we will honor the samuri
.
after the english kings marrige celebration is finished being televised of coarse
.
The king is dead, long live the king
Probably the most useful and best referenced post from GW I have read recently. My wife is in her third trimester with our first... Putting us squarely in the second trimester when the Fukushima event started. Here in SoCal it's all smiles and celebrities, but having grown up on a farm in Oregon, I'd say there is more to worry about than MSM spouting it's "all ok." I am concerned that the truth is not getting to those who most need it. I've been vigilant with the suplements for the 'fam' but is it enough? Trav777 and the like would say there is nothing to worry about, but I know that the jetstream carries dust, and dust is made up of millions of molecules (see Avagadro) and CAN carry even "heavy" molecules. Maybe I'm too alarmist, but I just want the best info I can get so that decisions can be made in the best interests of the next generation. Just how a worm sees it....
worms eye view
Dude the BIL is in Santa Barbara. They just had a kid. I told him about the radiation as it was coming toward CA. He said he hadn't heard anything that if it were a problem they would have been told.
Not much one can do when they choose to ignore a threat to the health of their new child.
Nobody told me about this threat. In fact everybody I tell, tells me I'm fuck-nuts, been reading too many loonie tune web sites, spending too much time with my head up my arse. Have lost touch with reality. Crazy as a poop-bug. (Yes, a poop-bug.) Need serious professional help. Over a year ago told me the same shit when I told 'em what I was investing in... commodities, PM's, non US $ dollars.....
Fuck-nuts, poop-bug, loonie tune...
Now they come to me and ask what to invest in, and I tell them about the equity layer in a deal named Abacus....
I cannot imagine that spending time talking to people who use the term 'poop-bug' would be very much different than spending time with your head up your ass.
but good luck.
> Just two abdominal x-rays delivered to a male can slightly increase the chance of his future children developing leukemia.
I came across this paper a few months ago, which is probably the source of that comment:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7881337
Click on Full Text in the upper right corner to read it all.
Luckily for me I didn't father children soon after receiving my pelvic-abdominal CT scan. No thanks at all to the ordering physician who didn't mention this risk at all.
privet
I had six weeks of five days a week Xray for Cancer. For a while I had monthly CT scans then yearly. I've had yearly PET scans.
No one ever worried about causing future Cancer by treating me for my present Cancer. No one ever mentioned the chance.
Aha! Now you know. Doctors know little about ionizing radiation. Radiologist know little about ionizing radiation. The less you ask of them, the less you receive incorrect answers.
I'm just waiting patiently for that Radioactive Spider to bite me... then I will spend my off time learning to shoot web.
ParaZite
You understand that Peter Parker was kind of a genius and invented those web throwers. If he had inherited the ability to spin a web his spinneret would be in his ass. Not really the same image is it?
abortion kills them even faster
Try crossing a modest twist on the Mayan Valentine's Day Ritual with abortion by throwing both angelic mother and innocent child, all into the seething pit of hyper critical reactor #4 at the moment of it's yet to be most magnificent neuron beam burst.
Oughta take care of any body's lingering doubts as to the efficacy of radiation or abortion.
Probably could make a national tourist attraction/industry out of the stuff while they're at it.
Waste not want not, recycle.
As a resident of planet Earth, I thank you for getting this information out.
Anne Coulter is a fetus in her 147'th trimester. She may have to rethink her opinions on how good radiation is for you.
AP Breaking News:
Anne Coulter's response: "Thmlxvup sss fuigglum"
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzttt t sss st s s s ss
Coultergeist should have been an abortion.
Super great job George....hope this information will be widely spread..
It's almost enough to make you want to buy a huge ranch in Chaco, Paraguay, where you're thousands of miles away from anything nuc-u-lar.
<Bush buys 98,000 acres of land in Paraguay>
don't forget that 100,000 acres has water rights & is in a country with a non-extradition treaty !! BUSH sure knew what he was doing when he bought that land ...... great place to run to .
Thanks for this. I'd never heard of reference man, but there he is wondering around at IAEA headquarters -- a suspect character if ever I've seen one. Keep up with the great posts.