PAN w Z-nem (35): „Deadly Dust – Depleted Uranium” (a film, 2007) as an example of „the greatest hoax of the twentieth century” (Jaworowski, 1994)

Deadly Dust – Depleted Uranium” (a film, 2007as an example of the greatest hoax of the twentieth century” (Jaworowski, 1994)

In hommage to my elder colleague and mentor, professor Zbigniew Jaworowski

Zbigniew Jaworowski was a Polish physician, and alpinistSince 1993 he was the chairman of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (CLOR) in Warsaw, and former chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR, 1981–88). He has held posts at Centre d’Etudes Nucleaires near Paris; the University of Oslo; the Norwegian Polar Research Institute, and the Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo.

3400 words

A the beginning of this September I participated in „Mut zur Ethik” yearly Congress in Switzerland, for which I prepared a relatively controversial text titled „Will the „G-d blessed” Criminals realize their OT Plan of World Dominion? (You can find it at two more websites „sowa/eule” and „rafzen”.) During this year conference I was disappointed with certain topics it was centered on, in particular with the presentation of a lasting about 20 minutes film, prepared by actual Serbian authorities, demanding from USA indemnifications for the alleged appearance of about 16 thousand additional cases of cancer in this country in last two decades. Such an increase in frequency of cancers they attribute to bombardment of Yugoslavia, in spring 1999, with circa 30 tons of munitions containing weakly radioactive depleted uranium (DU).

This topic was raised already in 2017 at our „Mut zur Ethik” meeting, and my voice at that time that DU cannot be at the origin of the increase of number of cancers in Serbia (and not only in Serbia), was not welcomed by participants. So I was silent this time, not wanting to spoil the atmosphere of our meeting. Only to my colleague, professor of physics from Montpelier, Jean-Claude Manifacier I remarked that already after bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, there was not noticeable increase of number of cancers among people, which survided heavy irradiations. Being a physicist by my basic training, I learned about this fact only 9 years ago during lasting 3 hours discussion, with Zbigniew Jaworowski, at his home in Konstancin near Warsaw. J.P. Manifacier was surprised – like me 9 years earlier – learning about this fact, and asked me for more information. Here are recent papers on this, camouflaged for over 70 years, topics.

@1a. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Have the long-term effects been exaggerated?

By Tim Newman, Published Friday 12 August 2016

It is commonly believed that the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a high cancer burden, a significantly shortened lifespan, and children with high rates of mutations and abnormalities. After a careful examination of the data, the author found this to be an incorrect assumption.

Newman recalls data collected by Bertrand R. Jordan (see @1b):

(…) the majority of survivors (around 80 % of them! – MG) did not develop cancer. Because most people only had a modest exposure to radiation, the overall risk of developing solid cancers between 1958 and 1998 increased by 10 percent. This represents 848 additional cancer cases among 44,635 survivors. (…) Even in those who received the highest doses of radiation, although cancer risk was greater, their lifespan was reduced by just 1.3 years.

(…) So far, no negative health effects or mutations have been found in the offspring. (…) What is clear, is that if there are negative health consequences for the children of survivors, they are very small.

More precise data we find in Jordan’s own paper, published ina prestigious „Genetics” journal:

@1b. The Hiroshima/Nagasaki Survivor Studies: Discrepancies Between Results and General Perception

Bertrand R. Jordan

Genetics August 1, 2016

I quote from this text:

Figure 1 shows the solid cancer cases in the whole exposed group from the LSS survivor cohort, with the excess cases (in white) attributable to radiation (by comparison with the control group “not in town” from the same cohort). It is quite obvious from Figure 1 that there is a measurable excess of cancer cases in the exposed group, but also that this excess is relatively limited, amounting at most to an increase of ∼30%, often much less.

As expected, the fraction of excess cancers increases with radiation dose, from a nearly negligible 1.8% below 0.1 Gy to 61% at 2 Gy or above.(…) The children of survivors show no detectable radiation-related pathology. The incidence of malformations at birth does not increase if both parents have been exposed (Neel and Schull 1991)

The picture obtained from these extensive and careful studies is very different from the impressions that prevail in the general public and even among many scientists (Perko 2014). The general perception is that survivors from these cities were heavily affected by various types of cancer, and suffered much shorter lives as a result. While it is true that the rate of cancer was increased by almost 50% for those who had received 1 Gy of radiation, most of the survivors did not develop cancer and their average life span was reduced by months, at most 1 year. Likewise, it is generally thought that abnormal births, malformations, and extensive mutations are common among the children of irradiated survivors, when in fact the follow-up of 77,000 such children (excluding children irradiated in utero) fails so far to show evidence of deleterious effects (Douple et al. 2011; Grant et al. 2015).

Jordan concludes:

Concerning the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, there is indeed a large gap between the results of careful studies backed by more than 100 scholarly publications, and the perception of the situation as seen by the general (and even scientific) public (Ropeik 2013).


MG ads, Sept 2018: Jordan wrote that “control group was of people ‘not in town’ from the same cohort”, and it is known that rural ‘out of town’ people, are habitually more exposed to various hormetic stressors, and thus have lower preponderancy for Civilization Diseases, cancers included. The influence of these stressors, on the general health of population, is demonstrated in the following, hardly known to the  publics, article:

@2. Radiation Hormesis: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

T.D. Luckey, Dose Response. 2006; 4(3): 169–190.

The author of this copious work writes:


Over 3,000 scientific research papers show that low dose irradiation is stimulatory and/or beneficial in a wide variety of microbes, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates (Luckey, 1980a, 1991, Muckerheide, 2001). Using the parameters of cancer mortality rates or mean lifespan in humans, no scientifically acceptable study was found which showed that less than 10 cGy was harmful (…)

In a 600 page report, the French Academy of Sciences document other groups subjected to unusual levels of ionizing radiation with either no or beneficial effects (Aurengo et al., 2005). 1) The incidence of solid cancers decreased in 21,500 exposed workers at Mayak, a Russian plutonium production complex. 2) The total cancer deaths in 8,600 cleanup workers at Chernobyl (who received an average of 5 cGy) was 12% lower than that of the general Russian population. 3) The leukemia death rate in 96,000 nuclear workers (in three countries) exposed to over 40 cSv was only half that predicted. 4) No increased cancer was found in 222,400 radiologists and radiation technicians who received more than 20 cGy in 20 years. 5) There was no increased cancer rate in 46,740 flight crews (mostly European) who received over 1.5 mGy/y. 6) Repeated diagnostic exposures of patients who have received less than 10 cGy radiation results in no perceptible leukemia, the most radiosensitive of all cancers. 7) There was no increased cancer in adjoining tissues which received less than 5 cGy radiation in 160,000 women exposed to high doses of radiation to the cervix. 8) No excess thyroid cancer was found in two million children who were irradiated by the Chernobyl explosion. 9) Twin pregnancies receive twice the number of diagnostic radiobiologic examinations as do single pregnancies; some studies show considerably reduced cancer incidence in twins.

The best of the good includes the epic study of Cohen which showed that lung cancer deaths decreased with increased radon concentration in homes (Cohen, 1995). (…) Other studies confirm this benefit from low doses of radon (Bogoljubov, 1988, Becker, 1995, 2005, Deetjen, 1998). One must conclude that increased home radon reduces lung cancer.



The bad is the promulgation of a false concept by many radiobiologists: all radiation is harmful. Brucer noted Health Physics had become a religious cult: “In 1979 the National Committee for Radiation Protection (NCRP) … dropped all pretense at science and assumed there was a risk in every radiation exposure.” (Brucer, 1990). (…) When geneticists chanted “all radiation is harmful” and “genetic monsters”, financial support for research on the effects of low dose irradiation vanished. Suddenly, editors were not interested in papers showing stimulatory or beneficial effects from low doses of ionizing radiation. Although no genetic monsters can be attributed to low dose irradiation, including atomic bombs, laws are based upon the false dogma that all radiation is harmful. “This is the greatest hoax of the twentieth century.” (Jaworowski, 1994).

(…) Luckey continues:

Over 23,000 Japanese atom bomb victims received less than 10 cGy; their cancer death rates were no greater than that of the 34,272 persons in the control population. A graph of cumulative total cancer death rates in Japanese atom bomb victims illustrates that small and large doses of ionizing radiation elicit diametrically opposite results (Fig. 6) (Shimizu, 1992, Luckey, 1991). The RERF conclusion is misleading: “In general, the dose response … failed to suggest the existence of hormesis.” (…) Contrary to their stated conclusion, their data exhibit hormesis. The threshold was about 6 cSv.

Cumulative cancer death rates in Japanese bomb victims. Numbers on the right list thousands of persons for each dose (Shimizu et al., 1989).

Luckey reinforces his argumentation by adding such provocative reference:

@3. „Apparently beneficial effect of low to intermediate doses of A-bomb radiation on human lifespan”

Mine M. Yokohama Med Bull. 1991;422:2–3.


An essential text on the origin of RADIOPHOBIA was published  by Zbigniew Jaworowski in 2010:

@4. „Radiation hormesis – the remedy for fear”

Jaworowski writes:

The fear of lethal doses was a highly cherished element of the deterrence value of nuclear weapons, loudly voiced by their owners. (…) But it was the leading physicists responsible for inventing the nuclear weapons, having realized how dangerous were their inventions, who instigated the fear of small doses. In their noble, wise and highly ethical endeavor to stop preparations for atomic war, and the ‘hysterical’ amassment of enormous arsenals of nuclear weapons, they were soon followed by many scientists from other fields. The general strategy was to attack the crucial component of military nuclear efforts of the time – atmospheric nuclear testing. Later on, this developed into opposition against atomic power stations and all things nuclear. Although the arguments of physicists and their followers were false.”

As famous scientists, which contributed to the „antinuclear histeria” are considered, Jaworowski quotes inventors and promotors of atomic armament, which initially received Nobel Prizes in Physics, and than the same Prize for fighting for Peace: in USA Albert Einstein and Linus Pauling, and in Soviet Union Anderi Sakharov the father of Soviet H-bomb.

He continues:

“Ionizing radiation is very widely used in many walks of life. Only in its medical applications, some 330 million people are being exposed every year at low doses for radiodiagnostic purposes, and another 5 million undergo radiotherapy at high doses. Since its discovery until 1992, there were only 402 fatal victims among medical professionals, and between 1944 and 2001 only 134 fatalities occurred in all radiation accidents. (…) Reluctance to demonstrate clearly how unimportant is any radiation hazard to population from nuclear industry, the Chernobyl accident, nuclear explosion tests, and medical irradiation, in relation to the broad range of natural radiation exposure, at which no adverse health effects were ever observed, reflects a ‘vested group interest’ approach. (…)

I was disappointed that the phenomenon of hormesis was ignored in all UNSCEAR documents since its first report. Therefore, in 1980, as chairman of the Committee, I suggested that it was the duty of UNSCEAR to peruse the large body of publications on radiation hormesis, some 1200 articles, published since the beginning of the century, to assess whether this phenomenon is real, and if so, how might it influence the methodology of risk estimates. A large review on this literature had already been published by then, and the Committee had it in its library. The proposal was supported only by the delegation of Poland, and UNSCEAR rejected it. Every following year, I repeated this proposal in vain, until after the Chernobyl accident of 1986, in 1987, it finally gained support, first from the representatives of France and Germany, and then from other delegations. Seven years later, UNSCEAR published a report, rubber-stamping the existence of the phenomenon of radiation hormesis, termed as ‘adaptive response.’ (etc.)”

MG – The word ‘hormesis’ (from ‘hormon‘ – the excitation in Greek) I learned only 9 years ago during the discussion with Zbigniew Jaworowski. Looking in a Piagetian manner, this ‘excitation’ (irritation, perturbation) is at the origin of INTELLIGENCE of all living organisms, permitting them to cope, successfully, with challenges they encounter during their life. Jean Piaget called this phenomenon, known also in developmental psychology, “majorant requilibration of not critically disturbed bio-structures”. (see my speech at “Mut zur Ethik” meeting in 2016).

@5. “Benficial irradiations” of Z. Jaworowski

Ia an article (in “Wiedza i Życie”, Warszawa 3/1997) Jaworowski skeched the scheme of hormesis, which scheme is valid not only for irradiations, but also for all other kinds of so-called “stressors”:

(Please notice that on this graphics I labelled as “Hellenists” these researchers, which strive to obtain the possible perfection in all subjects they investigate; by “Hebraists” these neoDarwinian ones, which blindly follow the St. Paul’s advice concerning learning: “not to go beyond what is written (in OT, which ignores the existence of INTELLIGENCE in form of hormesis)” – 1 Cor 4:6; such distinction between human mindsets was observed already by Matthew Arnold in his “Culture and Anarchy”, 1869)

In @5 Jaworowski provides an example of BENEFICIAL INFLUENCE of irradiation of Hungary after the Czernobyl catastrophe in 1986:


Already 38 years ago, while making research in Geneva, I discovered the work

@6. “Radioresistivity”, Tushl et al.,Radiation Research, 81, 1-9, 1980

The above statistics  indicate the significantly faster, than in a control group, repair of UV induced DNA damages, in blood samples taken from Austrian physicians working in a Radon Sanatorium, located in a former uranium mine in Austria. (In columns are counts of 3H-thymidine markers incorporated into repaired strands during 30 minutes following UV irradiation.)


How do the data present in works@1 to @6 relate to “scientific documentation” in a film

@7. “Deadly Dust – Depleted Uranium” (2007)?

I was unable to find, via google, the film about DU evil effects, presented by our Serbian colleagues during our 2018 “Mut zur Ethik” meeting. But I found a longer German film, which provided “the master copy” for this recent Serbian production. Here are few scenes from this masterpiece of art of filming:


It is an opinion of the internationally known anti-DU fighter, dr Siegeart-Horst Gumpel, the hero of “Deadly Dust” film. But after Chernobyl accident it wasn’t observed an increase of number of cancers and other developmental aberrations in children. To the contrary, after it was observed an improvement of their health – see @3 and the table from @5. So logically, also in Iraq as well as in Serbia, we had beneficial effects in DU affected population (? – the antique Romans proverb states “What has not killed you, will make you stronger” – it is the principle of hormetic INTELLIGENCE.)


It is the opinion of dr Durakovic (probably from USA) – and how it relates to @2 and @6, indicating that alpha radiation of radon is beneficial for us?


It is an opinion of a researcher in a German laboratory, which confuses the high level of radiation of natural uranium with practical absence of radiation of DU. Logically, the postulated intensive radiation of terrain at the Gate 6 in Baghdad, shall contibute to the improvement of health of crossing this place Irakians – see @2, @3 and @5.


This scene demonstrates the complete misunderstanding of a basic notion of atomic physics, characterising both the young Serbian officer and accepting his argument old dr Gumpel.


Jaworowski has told me in 2009 that one of his CLOR workers was in Kuwait at the time of 1991 Gulf War. Having the appropriate equipment he checked Iraqui tanks destroyed by DU munition, and was not able to detect a rise of radiation level in them; also during the conference on DU dangers in Prague in March 2000, an Italian professor from CERN in Vienna, has told us that he has lead a special commision, which visited fields in Kosovo shelled months earlier by DU munition. The increase of radiation in these places was “smaller than the one detected in cigaret’s smoke”.


Nearly a dozen of such horrible photographs of DU produced monstrosities, allegedly photographied by dr Gumpel in hospital of Basra, were exposed at our “Mut zur Ethik” Congress in Feldkirch, Austria in 2006. When I wanted to show these photographs to Jaworowski 3 years later, he laughed at me: these surely are fake pictures, even heavy irradiations do not cause malformations and cancers in children born after them – see @1a, @1b, @2, @3 and @5. (On a photo at right,  the dammage of tissue on the neck of this ugly doll is visible.)


Why do this HOAX, of existence of weak radiation produced monstrosities, is still propagated?

In article @5 “Beneficent irradiations” Jaworowski recalls that in Soviet Union, after Czernobyl accident in 1986, more than million of people suffered serious psychosomatic diseases out of a fear of irradiation consequences, and that 300 thousand of people have lost their homes being forcibly displaced to secure areas (while it was sufficient to displace only 15 thousands). And what is more important, the head of the Soviet Comparty Mikhail Gorbatchev later on overtly admitted that thanks to this accident, he has realized that the Soviet Union is a not viable country – which he managed to dissolve five years later. (There are rumors that Czarnobyl accident, which costed the life of 31 rescue pilots dropping sand from helicopters at burning nuclear reactor, was a purposeful sabotage.)

During one of previous “Mut zur Ethik” meetings, the former Soviet KGB officer, specialized in bio-warfare, Alexander Kuzminov has informed us that Secret Services have realized that it is sufficient to spread “histerical rumors” about appearance of a harmful agent, and the dumb “well informed” populace will be scared of it up to the point permitting “a victory without a shot” over conquered in this way country. The case of Czarnobyl is an excellent example how this shrewd military method works. And the cultivation of “the greatest hoax of 20th century” (Jaworowski, 1994). of dangers of small irradiations, is probably the reason that it is planned to be applied once again during the present “Hebraist” (Arnold, 1869) onslaught onto the Planet Earth. It is evident that dumb Serbs, which seek pecuniar indemnations for NATO DU shellings of their empty fields, behave like popular in USA today effeminized solicitors of indemnations for a leg hurt on a not appropriately paved street. And like such solicitors they demonstrate their imaginary scars – voluntarily turning themselves into “effeminized” nation, easy to manipulate by “Hebraist” masters of post-Yugoslavia.

The film below, which was completed on May 11-13, 2012 at Goethe Institute in Berlin, documents that efforts to “Hebraise” the entire EU population, are shamesly under way:


Marc Siegel is leading in it (in English) a “brain storm” among young Jews (?) from Germany, Poland and Israel/USA, how to organize the “Hebraization” of Poland. They plan: 1. to subvert the Catholic Church; 2. to “effeminize” Polish males, which will help Poles to lose their national identity; 3. to impose Hebrew as the second language in Poland (sic!).


More on this topic in “The evil principle of the Judeo-Christian faith”, which I hope to be able to add to the present acid commentary of the recent MzE meeting.

Best greetings from Zakopane,



This entry was posted in Ad PODHALAŃSKA AKADEMIA NAUK, ENGLISH TEXTS, genetics of bio-development, politics of globalism. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.