Debunked: "Nuke Cancer" from 9/11 (PressTV, Gordon Duff)

[Mick West]

This story from Iran's PressTV, written By Gordon Duff, claims there is evidence of nuclear bombs (or at least radioactive drywall) being used in the World Trade Center towers.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/21/359423/nuke-cancer-from-911-revealed/ (http://archive.today/SR9C7)

[bunk]
A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a “nuclear event,” but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York, radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem cell therapy and physically devastating “chemo.”

One of the biggest medical cover-ups in history was exposed this week when Wall Street brokers suffering from cancer after 9/11 made the news. While telling their story, the New York Post revealed that 70,000 New Yorkers have applied for 9/11 victim compensation, most for cancers that can only be attributed to direct exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear weapons.

Officials would not give a breakdown of cancer victims, but 10,800 downtown workers make up the second-largest group of registered claimants after 39,500 Ground Zero responders. There are another 16,600 in smaller categories such as residents, students, child-care and health-care workers.[/bunk]

The bunk here is twofold:

Firstly there are not 70,000 cancer victims. That's an entirely made up number. The NY Post story cited gives figures of:

http://nypost.com/2014/04/20/wall-street-workers-with-911-linked-cancers-seek-compensation/

Of 622 cancer claims approved so far, the fund has awarded $15.5 million to 39 victims, a spokeswoman told The Post.

Officials would not give a breakdown of cancer victims, but 10,800 downtown workers make up the second-largest group of registered claimants after 39,500 Ground Zero responders. There are another 16,600 in smaller categories such as residents, students, child-care and health-care workers.

Content from external source

If you add those together, that's 66,900. However that's not the number of people who have applied for victim's compensation, it's just the number of people who have registered with the VCF (Victims Compensation Fund). The number of people who have actually applied for compensation [see attached PDF] is 13,863. Of these 5,603 have been found to be eligible for a decision , and of those, 622 (according to the NY Post) have been for cancer.

Other stories put estimate the total of 9/11 adjacent cancer at around 1,100
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/11/health/911-cancer-treatment/

More than 1,100 people who worked or lived near the World Trade Center on 9/11 have been diagnosed with cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Content from external source

Secondly, Nuclear radiation is not the only source of cancer. In fact it's not even a cause that's being significantly considered here by any of the experts. A much more obvious and well known candidate is asbestos, but there are many others, such as the byproducts of the fires (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), and other toxins like dioxin and PCBs - all things that are known to cause cancer. These are things that were actually found in significant quantities in the dust, unlike ionizing radiation, which was not found at all:
http://www.si.edu/MCI/downloads/articles/wtc_dust.pdf

no ionizing radiation has been detected at the site.

Content from external source

And a difficult point to acknowledge is that a significant portion of the people involved would have got cancer anyway, as most people eventually get cancer at some point in their lives. The toxic environment though is thought to increase the risk. However it was not entirely clear if ANY of the cancer cases could be directly attributable to exposure at the WTC.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/11/health/911-cancer-treatment/

Dr. John Howard, administrator of the WTC Health Program, had said the year before that cancer treatments would not be covered by the compensation fund. At the time, he said there was inadequate "published scientific and medical findings" to link 9/11 exposures to cancer.

9/11 responders wait for compensation for illnesses

Others argued that hundreds of chemical compounds, among them known carcinogens, were present in the dust surrounding ground zero.

Potential cancer-causing agents such as asbestos that coated the World Trade Center buildings' lower columns, and benzene, a component of jet fuel that caused uncontrollable fires when planes barreled into the twin towers, have long been a cancer concern for researchers. Scientists were also worried about the high volume of particulates and gases inhaled by responders, survivors and people who lived in the area.

Yet some officials were worried about making the connection between 9/11 and cancer too soon. When the proposal to add cancer coverage was made, experts estimated the cost would total between $14.5 million and $33 million. And while someone's cancer may have been caused by his or her work at ground zero, it might also have been a coincidence -- they may have gotten cancer anyway.

Content from external source

However the consensus is that there has been some increase in cancers (19%), and that they should be covered, even if a direct link cannot be found.

In the end, it was a study of firefighters that helped persuade the government to include cancer in the WTC Health Program. Researchers found firefighters who worked at ground zero were 19% more likely to develop cancer than firefighters who did not. According to the 2011 study, published in The Lancet medical journal, the increase occurred during the first seven years after 9/11. There were subtle increases seen in a few cancers in particular, including gastro-esophageal cancers and blood cancers such as multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Content from external source

So the PressTV article is total nonsense. There are not 70,000 cancer victims. There's only about 1,100. And of those, only about 200 might possibly be due to exposure of something at ground zero, and of those 200, none are thought to be from exposure to radiation.

PressTV and Gordon Duff are clearly just writing baseless nonsense for propaganda purposes.

 

[jaydeehess]

70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem cell therapy and physically devastating “chemo.”

Were that but true. It would be a good study to see how effective this stem cell therapy is.

 

[Mick West]

And I think "chemo" is in quotes there because the conspiracy press likes to promote the idea that chemo is a big-pharma conspiracy.

 

[Keith Beachy]

Not sure how anyone is fooled by Gordon Duff.

Gordon Duffin reply to baz
4/21/2014 6:46:34 PM
The claim is made by the medical proof, the Defense Intelligence Agency, Russian nuclear intelligence services, the FBI, Dr. James Fetzer and others. I am simply reporting this. The medical evidence is the proof. There is no chemical explosive that produces radiation nor can "dustify" steel. Perhaps our government can develop one, given time.

Hope "Dustify" steel, debunks itself. How can anyone join/believe 911 truth when the "dustified steel" card is played?

The comment section, a sad display of ignorance.

Gordon Duff in reply to Marcus
4/21/2014 3:09:56 PM
Dimitri and I are good friends. He says in contact with me and Gene (Col. Khrushchev). When he speaks of his own experiences, he is dead on. Dimitri is a very real witness that should have sent many to the gallows.

I think Dimitri is the guy who says nukes were used. Also self-debunking.

Who does Gordon Duff want to hang?

 

[Mick West]

People are fooled by Gordon Duff because at first glance his "Veterans Today" site looks legitimate. PressTV can also look like a legitimate news organization at first glance.

 

[Chew]

A nuke goes off and all he can think about is cancer? Yeah, ok.

In a comment in his press release Duff said each nuke had a yield of 18.2 kilotons.

From the Effects of Nuclear Weapons FAQ #5:

The fission of 57 grams of material produces 3x10^23 atoms of fission products (two for each atom of fissionable material). One minute after the explosion this mass is undergoing decays at a rate of 10^21 disintegrations/sec (3x10^10 curies). It is estimated that if these products were spread over 1 km^2, then at a height of 1 m above the ground one hour after the explosion the radiation intensity would be 7500 rads/hr. Link​

Content from external source

The aforementioned fission of 57 grams produces the equivalent of 1 kiloton of TNT.

The dose rate from fallout scales to the t^-1.2 power (where t is hours after detonation) so the 29 minute time difference between "detonations" is easily accounted for. One hour after the second nuke the dose rate from the first nuke would be 62% of the dose rate of the second nuke.

If two 18.2 kt nukes went off below the WTC and the fallout was evenly distributed within 1 km of the site then the dose rate one hour after the detonation would produce 7500 rads/hour per kt * (1 + .62) * 18.2 kt / (1 km² * pi) = ~70,400 rads/hour.

A 1000 rad dose is invariably fatal with death occurring within two weeks. An 8000 rad dose will instantly incapacitate a person. At the exposure rate calculated above, a person entering the area one hour after the second tower collapsed would receive a 1000 rad dose in 51 seconds and become incapacitated in 6.8 minutes.

Cancer. Yeah.

 

[Mick West]

Except the theory has the nukes going off a few hundred feet underground, creating a hole that the towers fall into, hence minimizing radiation, and exlaining why the rubble pile was so small.

I kid you not.



Oh, and WTC7:

 

[Chew]

Bwahahahaha!

 

[Chew]

If you know the yield and depth of burst you can compute if a surface crater will form and if it does form, what its surface radius and depth will be.

See section 6.70 here: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/effects/eonw_6.pdf#zoom=100


Plugging in the numbers for a 150 KT nuke and a 77 meter DOB in hard dry rock it would make a surface crater 178 meters in radius and 96 meters deep.

So when the first one went off the crater would have encompassed the other tower which would have immediately collapsed into the crater. Funny how no one noticed that...

Subsurface nuclear weapons craters are paraboloids. The surface area would be 0.124462 km².

A person entering the crater one month after each tower collapsed (got to give them time to clear the rubble!) would receive a fatal dose in 18 minutes.

 

[Joe]

Died from cancer .

 

[WeedWhacker]

Died from cancer .

Many, many, many, many people die from cancer.....AND have never, ever, ever been to New York City.

 

[Mick West]

Died from cancer .

And you have our sympathy. But unfortunately as explained in the OP, there's no way of knowing for sure if an individual cancer case can be directly attributable to WTC site exposure. A friend of mine just died of cancer, he was 45.

Since there's evidence that it increased the incidence of cancer though, I fully support compensation being paid to sick first responders. I'm with Jon Stewart there.

 

[Joe]

And you have our sympathy. But unfortunately as explained in the OP, there's no way of knowing for sure if an individual cancer case can be directly attributable to WTC site exposure. A friend of mine just died of cancer, he was 45.

Since there's evidence that it increased the incidence of cancer though, I fully support compensation being paid to sick first responders. I'm with Jon Stewart there.

They said the WTC was in the process of removing Asbestos .http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/ He died with nothing his daughter (my Niece ) is in and out of rehab . They abandoned most of them to die . There is no history of cancer in the family .Sorry about your friend . Too young .

 

[Mick West]

They said the WTC was in the process of removing Asbestos .http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/

Yes, I mentioned in the OP that Asbestos was in the dust, and is a cause of cancer.
Good infographic there

 

[jonnyH]

Except the theory has the nukes going off a few hundred feet underground, creating a hole that the towers fall into, hence minimizing radiation, and exlaining why the rubble pile was so small.

I kid you not.

They don't seem to have considered that to create an enormous cavity underground the granite that formerly filled that space has to go somewhere.

 

[Joe]

They don't seem to have considered that to create an enormous cavity underground the granite that formerly filled that space has to go somewhere.

If there was a nuke under the WTC the Bathtub as its called wouldn't have survived the blast .

 

[Mick West]

Yes, the nuke part of the story is quite obviously ridiculous. I've moved threads on it to the rambles section before, as it's like arguing with flat-earthers. There's no real need to debunk that here. My focus was on the nonsense about cancer.

 

[Jason]

If you add those together, that's 66,900. However that's not the number of people who have applied for victim's compensation, it's just the number of people who have registered with the VCF (Victims Compensation Fund). The number of people who have actually applied for compensation [see attached PDF] is 13,863. Of these 5,603 have been found to be eligible for a decision , and of those, 622 (according to the NY Post) have been for cancer.
Other stories put estimate the total of 9/11 adjacent cancer at around 1,100
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/11/health/911-cancer-treatment/
Content from external source
More than 1,100 people who worked or lived near the World Trade Center on 9/11 have been diagnosed with cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I wonder if there were any studies done prior to 9/11 in this location. So that we could see the #of people diagnosed with cancer pre 9/11 vs post 9/11. It would give us a clearer picture towards understanding how many claimants got cancer as a result of 9/11.

 

[Mick West]

I wonder if there were any studies done prior to 9/11 in this location. So that we could see the #of people diagnosed with cancer pre 9/11 vs post 9/11. It would give us a clearer picture towards understanding how many claimants got cancer as a result of 9/11.

I think the 19% figure is probably fairly accurate, and not that location dependent.

 

[Paul JF]

According to medicalnewstoday and BBC this number, 70000, was the number of new eligible claimants (with cancer) who can claim because the NIOS expanded the program to include more different types of cancer.

Previously the program only included "Respirotary deseases" eg lung cancer, throat cancer etc.

But when they added "colorectal, breast, bladder, leukaemia, melanoma and all childhood cancers". The number of eligables went up to 70000.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250138.php

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-19553253

 

[jaydeehess]

I too was diagnosed with Cancer in 2001. Little early, mine was colorectal cancer, diagnosed in Feb. of 2001. I underwent chemo(no scare quotes) and radiation therapy after having had surgery. I was between rounds of chemo on Sept 11.
Probably unrelated to the events in NYC since I also live 1500+ miles away.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that I survived.

Cancer is a fact of life, and death. I also note that had I lived in Manhattan at the time though I would not qualify in the NIOS program since mine was not respiratory in nature (though some would disagree and claim that since they believe I speak out of the region of my cancer tumour that therefore I can breath through the nearest orifice as well.)

 

[jaydeehess]

If there was a nuke under the WTC the Bathtub as its called wouldn't have survived the blast .

Absolutely!
It is astounding that people simply ascribe power and effect they wish for to the technology of their choice or imagination. Nukes at ground zero is no different in that respect than Judy Wood's steel-dustifying-space-a-beams. For that matter its no different than the ridiculous notion that a layer of therm?te "paint" could melt the steel members of the towers or that silent high explosives are even possible.

 

[BombDr]

If there was a nuke under the WTC the Bathtub as its called wouldn't have survived the blast .

Not only that, it was one of those super-secret SILENT nukes....

Those NWO boys certainly do know how to fool us all..... (though couldn't plant a single WMD in Iraq...)

 

[Hevach]

Previously the program only included "Respirotary deseases" eg lung cancer, throat cancer etc.

But when they added "colorectal, breast, bladder, leukaemia, melanoma and all childhood cancers"

If they want to use that list to claim a nuke was used, the eligible cancers are missing most of the cancers commonly caused by ionizing radiation, and include a number that aren't.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...cer-risk-do-xrays-and-gamma-rays-cause-cancer
Section on Atomic bomb survivors:

Much of what we know about cancer risks from radiation is based on studies of the survivors of the atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. These people had higher risks of some, but not all cancers. Studies have found an increased risk of the following cancers (from higher to lower risk):

• Most types of leukemia (although not chronic lymphocytic leukemia)
• Multiple myeloma
• Thyroid cancer
• Bladder cancer
• Breast cancer
• Lung cancer
• Ovarian cancer
• Colon cancer (but not rectal cancer)
• Esophageal cancer
• Stomach cancer
• Liver cancer
• Lymphoma

Content from external source

Claims cover rectal, melanoma, and a wider set of respiratory cancers than bomb survivors displayed, and do not cover myeloma, thyroid, ovarian, stomach, esophageal, liver, or lymphoma. More than half the list associated with atomic bomb exposure.

 

[BombDr]

(Politeness Policy shield on)

From reading more than a few of Mr Duff's assertions, he does sometimes state things as facts that are inaccurate.

He also appears to have a disproportionate interest in Jews and Israel in particular.

His employment with PressTV is no doubt a co-incidence.

(Politeness Policy shield off)

 

[Playing Games]

From my understanding cancer associated with radiation is usually thyroid. If there was a radiological bomb wouldn't there be a huge mushroom cloud?

 

[Hevach]

From my understanding cancer associated with radiation is usually thyroid. If there was a radiological bomb wouldn't there be a huge mushroom cloud?

Thyroid is one of the highest, leukemia and myeloma are higher, but I can't find figures on just how much higher.

An underground detonation won't always produce a mushroom cloud, but it will produce *something*. The material in that cavity doesn't just vanish, it has to go somewhere. 150 kilotons is a pretty big nuke, though. We tested multiple megaton bombs, but most of the global arsenal now is actually smaller than the ones dropped on Japan.

 

[jaydeehess]

Thyroid is one of the highest, leukemia and myeloma are higher, but I can't find figures on just how much higher.

An underground detonation won't always produce a mushroom cloud, but it will produce *something*. The material in that cavity doesn't just vanish, it has to go somewhere. 150 kilotons is a pretty big nuke, though. We tested multiple megaton bombs, but most of the global arsenal now is actually smaller than the ones dropped on Japan.

IIRC thyroid cancer is a big one because a nuke produces radioactive isotopes of iodine which get concentrated in the thyroid. Taking iodine pills can flood the thyroid with non-radioactive iodine and protect you from that effect.


If its far enough underground so as to not have a mushroom cloud then less radioactive material will escape into the atmosphere but the seismic effects will now also affect a wider area at the surface.

The CT seems to want it both ways, far enough underground so as to not have a huge amount of radioactive fallout while not being coupled to the earth too much and thus keeping the strong seismic effect limited to the WTC complex to the point of only collapsing fully the structures directly over the bomb.
A fictitious wise man once said: " Stupid is as stupid does".

 

[jaydeehess]

Multiple myeloma is the result of ionizing radiation producing genetic defects in the bone marrow. Monoclonal stem cells are then produced which give rise to immune cells, immunoglobulins, that are all clones and which do nothing that normal immunoglobulins do. Instead they form plaques in organs leading to liver or kidney failure, oesteoporosis. In addition, the monoclonal tumours in the marrow tend to take over leading to less and less true immune cells being produced and leaving the patient susceptible to infections.

 

[BombDr]

From my understanding cancer associated with radiation is usually thyroid. If there was a radiological bomb wouldn't there be a huge mushroom cloud?

Mushroom clouds are usually associated with surface or air burst nuclear detonations.

Having said that, I doubt if something like this would have gone unnoticed in lower Manhattan.

 

[Chew]

Good reads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud

 

[WeedWhacker]

Good reads:

Also, the 'denouement', or coda at the end of the classic film "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb":

(AND I am sorry to Mick....I tried to link this with just the url, but your site automatically embeds the video):

 

[Playing Games]

Mushroom clouds are usually associated with surface or air burst nuclear detonations.

Having said that, I doubt if something like this would have gone unnoticed in lower Manhattan.

I doubt it either. I'm not an expert on radiological nuclear bombs. My first instinct would be to see a big mushroom cloud. Yeesh, I probably watch too many movies.

 

[BombDr]

I doubt it either. I'm not an expert on radiological nuclear bombs. My first instinct would be to see a big mushroom cloud. Yeesh, I probably watch too many movies.

Your instinct is perfectly correct!

Underground detonations are usually associated with testing, dastardly plots by villains in James Bond movies, and the fantasies of conspiracy theorists....

 

[Efftup]

maybe the conspiracy theorists have been watching too much Broken Arrow. I seem to recall an underground nuclear explosion there that didn't really seem to do much , radiation wise

 

[Playing Games]

Lets hope we never see one in our lifetime!

 

[jaydeehess]

I doubt it either. I'm not an expert on radiological nuclear bombs. My first instinct would be to see a big mushroom cloud. Yeesh, I probably watch too many movies.

All nukes are radiological in that they produce radioactive isotopes of elements that get bombarded with neutrons, and the byproducts of the few pounds worth of fissionable materials involved.

All bombs dropped by aircraft or as missile warheads will produce a mushroom cloud since even if they are ground burst, or designed to penetrate the surface, they cannot get deep enough not to.
Deep underground testing was done, iirc, specifically to reduce the escape of radiological materials into the atmosphere. The bomb design could be tested for efficiency and yield therefore, without much, if any, atmospheric fallout.