Army Air-Sprayed Poor Americans in Texas and St. Louis

neverknwo

Member
So what is the point of spraying 'virtually nothing anymore than general pollution' or at least 'nothing toxic' to test the results?

I think Jazzy should have volunteered as the guinea pig to aid the war effort.
They were testing dispersion of airborne particles, not toxicity. Zinc Cadmium Sulfide is visible under an ultraviolet light and that quality makes it easily identifiable in particle dispersion tests.



Asbestos causes Mesothelioma, which is one way of identifying asbestos related mortality.

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report Files/2007/Long-Term-Health-Effects-of-Participation-in-Project-SHAD-Shipboard-Hazard-and-Defense/ZINCCADMIUMSULFIDE.pdf

"Poison Playgrounds" was the local tv news report titled after the cancer society recieved so many complaints about the toxic hazards and this is an expert from the book.


Here's another stat for the addition and the chemicals most responsible for the toxicity outside it's school.

http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/school/31037
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And radon is not a problem in some parts of the country.

Yes a lot of folks get cancer. Folks are living longer and we do have better ways of diagnosing it. People working or living near a lot of industrialized plants is another factor, so was the big increase in smoking after WW II.
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
Also some areas have a bad radon problem like Las Vegas. If people were dying from radiation shouldn't non smoking/non mesothelioma lung cancer jump?
 

neverknwo

Member
And neverknwo what did any of that have to do with the topic at hand?


connecting the dots to Post #32 to show mick the epidemiological links to cadmium exposure with lung and prostate cancer in humans


Is there any epidemiological evidence of harm? Anything of statistical significance?

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report Files/2007/Long-Term-Health-Effects-of-Participation-in-Project-SHAD-Shipboard-Hazard-and-Defense/ZINCCADMIUMSULFIDE.pdf


 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
connecting the dots to Post #32 to show mick the epidemiological links to cadmium exposure with lung and prostate cancer in humans

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report Files/2007/Long-Term-Health-Effects-of-Participation-in-Project-SHAD-Shipboard-Hazard-and-Defense/ZINCCADMIUMSULFIDE.pdf

Easier link to click on

From the executive summary:

and from the "Worst Case Scenario" section:


Cadmium is dangerous at high levels of exposure, having mutagenic effects and acute exposure can also be dangerous:

So basically, no - there were no health effects reported, even at exposure levels 500 times the maximum that anyone could possibly have received the lab animals were found to have only "minor and transitory" effects, and there's no positively known carcinogenic effects either!!

and from your 2nd link - Project 112/SHAD:


All in all it looks like there was no actual danger from the levels citizens were actually exposed to.

Thanks for putting all our minds at rest.
 
Last edited:
Top