TOO HOT TO HANDLE: WHAT IF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY STUDIES ARE TELLING THE TRUTH - IF RADIATION IS IN FACT GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH!

Sometimes I have wondered whether others have thought about the possible consequences of believing the many studies sponsored mainly by the nuclear industry, nuclear weapons industry and organizations promoting nuclear power (and nuclear weapons aside) like IAEA. The studies clearly show out that some amount  of ionizing radiation exposure (It varies from a few millisieverts per year to 50 - 200 millisieverts per year) are in fact not dangerous at all, but strengthening your immunity system and can therefore be seen as a health sustaining factor. Studies like this have been released for decades now and many authorities seem to think now it's time to raise the accepted radiation levels up to 20 millisieverts per year for public as did the Japanese Government  in Fukushima accident fallout area.

Link - ENENEWS:

http://enenews.com/goodards-journal-us-govt-study-says-radioactive-pollution-is-good-for-you-current-radiation-limits-may-not-be-necessary-exact-opposite-conclusion-of-accepted-scientific-research-video

This kind of thinking can be found here: Professor Gerry Thomas sees no radiation risks for eggs and sperm even in Nagasaki and Hiroshima bomb -survivors. This FENSHUI-site makes you understand it all - don't listen to the bulls--- that the anti-nuclear movement is trying to sell to you. All the scientists are saying there is absolutely no evidence of mutations and birth defects caused by nuclear accidents. In fact some level of radiation is good for you! All the anti-nuclear "scientists"  are lacking any competence. They have no real studies to show to support there claims.

It is sad that this type of  thinking is really driving this planet towards a nuclear nightmare. Denying facts is easy but everyone taking this road will have to taste their own medicine some day.

http://www.fengshuisociety.org.uk/?link=SocietyNews&pullNews=671 

But I have found nobody thinking further what this kind of denying the excisting reality means for us all if it will be accepted worldwide.

So, let me explain a bit what I mean (- a few words of wisdom follows - just a warning):

If we think about our post-World War II international politics the most important factor has been preventing a global nuclear war.
And if we ask the military why not to use nuclear weapons in the war they will be answering that the use of such weapons would cause a long lasting radioactive fallout which would not be respecting national borders. And the idea for using them in battle is banned by the international community.


But why is it banned? Because of the great distruction these weapons are causing on the battle field (and for the civilians)? How about napalm or modern effective conventional explosive super-bombs that all the super-powers have? They are not banned by the international community. And why is that? Beacuse they don't leave radioactive fallout that affects people and animals decades afterwards and cause mutations to chromosomes for generations to come as does ionizing radiation spread by the nuclear blasts.

Evidence of this kind of thinking can be found in Gulf War and Balcan War widespread use of depleted uranium in anti-tank munitions. Only few were strongly criticising it before great amount of civilians and allied soldiers got sick and died of this "harmless" substant called DU. The fallout could be detected and diagnosed by scientists, and despite of studies showing no harm of DU for the soldiers involved, more and more alarming studies have showed that people - especially children - are really getting sick and dying because of DU-contamination. So numerous countries have joined to coalition that wants to ban all DU-weapons and their use in battle.
But what if? - It can't be true - or can it?

IF RADIATION IS IN FACT GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH AND IS USED BY THE EVOLUTION PROCESSES AS A SPECIES STRENGTHENING AGENT! SO THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULDN'T DIFFER SO MUCH FROM THE USE OF OTHER WEAPONS...

So tactical use of these weapons wouldn't be so bad after all. Just a limited strike, when necessary. The fallout would only strengthen the survivors... so why not?

If we continue with this kind of logic we'll end up to nuclear WWIII.

That's why I feel it is irresponsible to think that radiation could be good for your health. Please read also the studies that have the opposite point of view! Read the recent low-level radiation health effect studies! And use your own brain and heart!

Alternative studies and links:

 
Nuclear Controversies - IAEA and WHO meetings of Chernobyl -radiation effects on population -video (hard stuff) ENENEWS (Watch the whole video to make conclusions):

http://enenews.com/must-see-top-radiation-expert-50-bqkg-in-humans-leads-to-irreversible-lesions-in-vital-organs-then-top-un-official-refutes-effects-of-internal-radiation-video

Radiation - cancer -ratio is linear - ENENEWS:

http://enenews.com/nuclear-radiologist-dont-be-fooled-paid-industry-consultants-low-doses-ionizing-radiation-cancer
Fresh low level radiation study - 15 countries - ENENEWS/Goddard's Journal video:

http://enenews.com/report-fukushima-safety-levels-safe-video

JPS