RIP
> RIP
Sorry, forgot the link. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5254426,00.html He died at home from thyroid cancer. This was one of the judges that voted against allowing developers to seize private property.
>>RIP > Sorry, forgot the link. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5254426,00.html > He died at home from thyroid cancer. > This was one of the judges that voted against allowing developers to > seize private property.
That’s too bad… Besides honoring individual rights in those cases, He was also an ardent supporter of states rights. He certainly wasn’t the right person for some opinions; but he was damn sure on the right side of those! That’s ok though, I’m sure that we can count on peerless leader to pick someone moderate enough as to offend neither his hard line supporters, nor the screaming NNN (Nattering Nabobs of Negativity) of the minority opposition. </sarcasm> John King Moderate Independent
>>RIP > Sorry, forgot the link. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5254426,00.html > He died at home from thyroid cancer. > This was one of the judges that voted against allowing developers to > seize private property.
IIRC, he voted against Roe vs Wade as well… gtski
>>>RIP > Sorry, forgot the link. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5254426,00.html > He died at home from thyroid cancer. > This was one of the judges that voted against > allowing developers to seize private property. >IIRC, he voted against Roe vs Wade as well…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist "Rehnquist also created a unique robe for himself as Chief Justice in 1994. It has four golden bars on each sleeve. In the past, Chief Justices had not dressed differently from any of the Associate Justices. Rehnquist’s robe was modeled after a robe he had seen in a production of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operetta Iolanthe, first staged in London in 1882. "Rehnquist has also led the way in establishing more governmental leniency towards state aid for religion, writing for another 5-to-4 majority in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), approving a school voucher program that aided parochial schools." The Repair Guy http://repairguy1993.netfirms.com/
> and I got a thyroxin Harmon as tablets about 200 mg per day > after this high dose all my body was very active and diarrhea attacked > me very hard > and I lost control > Doctors said to me that thyroxin dose is irrelevant and I had to take > the 200 mg > and if I did not take the dose my body will shut down
mmm I think the very good folks at alt. support thyroid have a different opinion on this. You are on a very high dose of thyroid medication ( is Harmon a brand name?). And this can certainly cause diarrhea. Please post latest blood tests, preferably on the thyroid group for more knowledgeable info. They can help in this area. What country are you in? Another thyroid medication, something which contains T3 might be much more suitable for you but not always obtainable in every country. It is very possible your T4 stays low, or you have symptoms and they just give more T4. The body suppose to convert this to T3 but sometimes has trouble doing this. There are a lot of doctors who dispute this possibility. If that is the case with your doc he probably didn’t even test for T3. Do give your lab values with the testing numbers though. They can vary a lot from lab to lab and country to country ( different testing methods) Please note, usually on these support groups there are no doctors, but on the thyroid group there are some very knowledgeable people who might know more then the average endocrinologist. Please do give your blood test results for an opinion; but also what happened with your thyroid. Why does your doc think it will shut your body down? Did you have thyroid cancer, or radiation, or…. Please include all that info. It does change things.
I have sever and chronic diarrhea from 14 year and I did a lot of investigations in 3 different countries I spent at Germany about 15 days in investigation but unfortunately all investigations was negative the only test that I was positive is lactose intolerance but I already did not eat any milk product from 14 years the result of all investigations that I have not any physical disease and my colon move very fast for no reason may be as Irritable Bowel Syndrome I take 10 tablets of Imodium 2 mg Lopramide HCL every day and a lot of other colon medicine but I still suffer too much from this disease and some doctors said to me that may I have a disease but they did not discover I tried with all colon ulcer medicines and I tried a lot of anti bacterial diseases and other medicine for no reasons but Imodium is the only medicine that have effect Now after 10 years for stable case with Imodium I was sick from thyroid my thyroid vanished through 3 years as doctors said and they don’t know why and I got a thyroxin Harmon as tablets about 200 mg per day after this high dose all my body was very active and diarrhea attacked me very hard and I lost control Doctors said to me that thyroxin dose is irrelevant and I had to take the 200 mg and if I did not take the dose my body will shut down Now the last test I did is colonodcopy and Gastroscopy at 3-9-2004 and apparently I have normal 100% result as my G.P said and Now I am again suffer too much from this disease any one have any help or even suggestion? if any doctor interested at my case I can send all my papers thanks
>This diet eliminates all snacks. > It’s obvious you haven’t read the diet. This is not true. Even on > phase 1 snacks are required. Don’t slam the diet unless you have > actually looked into it.
I did read the diet. At least I read the link that somebody (Wendy Baker?) provided. I am not slamming the diet. I simply said it would not work for me. And it wouldn’t. I wouldn’t be able to stick to it. — Type 2 http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->It would be doable for me, only if I were allowed to eat other protein foods >that are not meat! But this diet doesn’t seem to allow such things. At >least not for the first two weeks. > This is not true either. Here is a list of the foods you can eat on > Phase 1: > BEEF Lean cuts, such as: > Sirloin (including ground) > Tenderloin > Top round
Don’t eat any of this except for occasional fround beef. > POULTRY (SKINLESS) > Cornish hen > Turkey bacon (2 slices per day) > Turkey and chicken breast
Eat none of these things except for occasional turkey. > SEAFOOD > All types of fish and shellfish
Eat none of this except for occasional tuna. > PORK > Boiled ham > Canadian bacon > Tenderloin
Don’t eat. > VEAL > Chop > Cutlet, leg > Top round
Don’t eat. > LUNCHMEAT > Fat-free or low-fat only
Don’t eat. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> CHEESE (FAT-FREE OR LOW-FAT) > American > Cheddar > Cottage cheese, 1-2% or fat-free > Cream cheese substitute, dairy-free > Feta > Mozzarella > Parmesan > Provolone > Ricotta > String
Don’t eat reduced fat cheese with the exception of 2% cottage. The rest tastes terrible to me and the texture is bad. > NUTS > Peanut butter, 1 tsp > Peanuts, 20 small > Pecan halves, 15 > Pistachios, 30
1 tsp. of peanut butter? Why bother? I could eat the peanuts and pecans, but not much protein in those small amounts. > EGGS > The use of whole eggs is not limited unless otherwise directed by your > doctor. Use egg whites and egg substitute as desired.
Don’t like just the whites of the eggs. > TOFU > Use soft, low-fat or lite varieties
Don’t eat. > VEGETABLES AND LEGUMES > Artichokes
Don’t eat. > Asparagus
Don’t eat. > Beans (black, butter, chickpeas, green, Italian, kidney, lentils, > lima, pigeon, soy, split peas, wax)
Eat some of these. Try to avoid soy. > Broccoli
Don’t eat. > Cabbage
Don’t eat, except tiny amounts in salad. > Cauliflower
Don’t eat except for the occasional piece of raw cauliflower. > Celery > Collard greens
Don’t eat. > Cucumbers
Don’t eat. > Eggplant
Eat only occasionally. But must be drowned in sauce and cheese. > Lettuce (all varieties) > Mushrooms (all varieties)
Don’t eat. > Snow peas
Eat very rarely. > Spinach > Sprouts, alfalfa
Don’t eat. > Turnips
Don’t eat. > Water chestnuts
Don’t eat. > Zucchini
Don’t eat unless in something like lasagna or drowned in Marina sauce. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> FATS > Oil, canola > Oil, olive > SPICES AND SEASONINGS > All spices that contain no added sugar > Broth > Extracts (almond, vanilla, or others) > Horseradish sauce > I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter! Spray > Pepper (black, cayenne, red, white) > SWEET TREATS (LIMIT TO 75 CALORIES PER DAY) > Candies, hard, sugar-free
Don’t eat. > Chocolate powder, no-added-sugar
Don’t eat. > Cocoa powder, baking type
Don’t eat. > Fudgsicles, sugar-free
Don’t eat. > Gelatin, sugar-free
Don’t eat with the exception of an occasional salad type thing. > Gum, sugar-free > Popsicles, sugar-free > Sugar substitute
I no longer have the link to it, but I could swear that it said no dairy in the first two weeks. So as you can see, there wouldn’t be very much for *me* to eat on this diet. For this reason, it would not work for me. — Type 2 http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/
>It would be doable for me, only if I were allowed to eat other protein foods >that are not meat! But this diet doesn’t seem to allow such things. At >least not for the first two weeks.
This is not true either. Here is a list of the foods you can eat on Phase 1: BEEF Lean cuts, such as: Sirloin (including ground) Tenderloin Top round POULTRY (SKINLESS) Cornish hen Turkey bacon (2 slices per day) Turkey and chicken breast SEAFOOD All types of fish and shellfish PORK Boiled ham Canadian bacon Tenderloin VEAL Chop Cutlet, leg Top round LUNCHMEAT Fat-free or low-fat only CHEESE (FAT-FREE OR LOW-FAT) American Cheddar Cottage cheese, 1-2% or fat-free Cream cheese substitute, dairy-free Feta Mozzarella Parmesan Provolone Ricotta String NUTS Peanut butter, 1 tsp Peanuts, 20 small Pecan halves, 15 Pistachios, 30 EGGS The use of whole eggs is not limited unless otherwise directed by your doctor. Use egg whites and egg substitute as desired. TOFU Use soft, low-fat or lite varieties VEGETABLES AND LEGUMES Artichokes Asparagus Beans (black, butter, chickpeas, green, Italian, kidney, lentils, lima, pigeon, soy, split peas, wax) Broccoli Cabbage Cauliflower Celery Collard greens Cucumbers Eggplant Lettuce (all varieties) Mushrooms (all varieties) Snow peas Spinach Sprouts, alfalfa Turnips Water chestnuts Zucchini FATS Oil, canola Oil, olive SPICES AND SEASONINGS All spices that contain no added sugar Broth Extracts (almond, vanilla, or others) Horseradish sauce I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter! Spray Pepper (black, cayenne, red, white) SWEET TREATS (LIMIT TO 75 CALORIES PER DAY) Candies, hard, sugar-free Chocolate powder, no-added-sugar Cocoa powder, baking type Fudgsicles, sugar-free Gelatin, sugar-free Gum, sugar-free Popsicles, sugar-free Sugar substitute "Live as though there is no tomorrow, Love as though you have never been hurt, Dance as if no one is looking…" Satchel Paige
>This diet eliminates all snacks.
It’s obvious you haven’t read the diet. This is not true. Even on phase 1 snacks are required. Don’t slam the diet unless you have actually looked into it. Dana "Live as though there is no tomorrow, Love as though you have never been hurt, Dance as if no one is looking…" Satchel Paige
> well… how about you read it, study it, then take the info and adapt a new > "diet" for yourself, one that you can live with and try it, see if it helps > some? > actually, the SBD is more of what I eat daily anyhow, which I adapted from > atkins, because thats just TOO low for me.. I still eat about 100-150gm a > day.. few days.. lol like friday I hit 200+ opps. > never can hurt to try.. 
I see no way I could adapt such a diet for me. If the diet is one I can’t stick with, I won’t stick with it. I am a very picky eater and I simply won’t eat foods that I dislike. Currently, the only problem I have with my BG is morning fasting. This diet eliminates all snacks. Were I to eliminate my bedtime snack, the morning fasting BG would be higher still. I know this because I have tried it. Can’t see how any other parts of this diet would help me. On most days, eating less carbs is not an option for me. I have to be very careful with this not to eat too many, yet if I don’t eat enough I will go hypo if active. Being that it’s summer, I am active most every day. — Type 2 http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/
> Julie, I didn’t look at the whole SB diet, but I can assure you that no > dairy for two weeks is quite doable, if necessary. I’ve done it now three > times, as a part of a low iodine diet before radioiodine treatment & scans > related to my thyroid cancer treatment & followup. The LID includes a few > other doozies as well. But at least it is only for 2-3 weeks at a time! (if > you really want more on that, see link at www.thyca.org)
It would be doable for me, only if I were allowed to eat other protein foods that are not meat! But this diet doesn’t seem to allow such things. At least not for the first two weeks. If it were necessary for some kind of medical reason, I could do that kind of diet for two weeks, but I would be very hungry the entire time. I just can’t bring myself to eat much meat at all, and certainly not twice a day. — Type 2 http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/
:
: > http://www.prevention.com/cda/feature2002/0,4780,5345,00.html : : Thanks! That’s one diet I’d never be able to stick to. No dairy for the : first two weeks? And no more than two beverages with caffeine per day, : ever? No thanks! The first two weeks is mainly meat and vegetables. If I : had to eat meat every day for two weeks and limit myself to whatever few : other things they allow, I’d be VERY hungry! I don’t think I could make : myself eat meat as often as this diet recommends. : : — : Type 2 : http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/ : well… how about you read it, study it, then take the info and adapt a new "diet" for yourself, one that you can live with and try it, see if it helps some? actually, the SBD is more of what I eat daily anyhow, which I adapted from atkins, because thats just TOO low for me.. I still eat about 100-150gm a day.. few days.. lol like friday I hit 200+ opps. never can hurt to try.. RK
>Julie, I didn’t look at the whole SB diet, but I can assure you that no >dairy for two weeks is quite doable, if necessary.
Yes it is, I’ve done it before and I am doing it right now. I always tell myself that I can do anything that I can see the end to….this is only two weeks, so the end is in sight. Dana "Live as though there is no tomorrow, Love as though you have never been hurt, Dance as if no one is looking…" Satchel Paige
Julie, I didn’t look at the whole SB diet, but I can assure you that no dairy for two weeks is quite doable, if necessary. I’ve done it now three times, as a part of a low iodine diet before radioiodine treatment & scans related to my thyroid cancer treatment & followup. The LID includes a few other doozies as well. But at least it is only for 2-3 weeks at a time! (if you really want more on that, see link at www.thyca.org) bj
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> …That’s one diet I’d never be able to stick to. No dairy for the > first two weeks? ….
> http://www.prevention.com/cda/feature2002/0,4780,5345,00.html
Thanks! That’s one diet I’d never be able to stick to. No dairy for the first two weeks? And no more than two beverages with caffeine per day, ever? No thanks! The first two weeks is mainly meat and vegetables. If I had to eat meat every day for two weeks and limit myself to whatever few other things they allow, I’d be VERY hungry! I don’t think I could make myself eat meat as often as this diet recommends. — Type 2 http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/
> My wife has been on it for a little over two weeks so I have been kinda > following along with her but with some modifications since I am a type 2. I > have to say it seems to have helped me out with the so called dawn effect. > I have always been in the 130 – 160 range when I first tested in the morning > after I woke up. I have tried various snacks and stuff before bed to no > avail. For about the last week and a half I have been in the 100 – 120 > range.
What is different about your eating now? Can you give us a few sample menus? — Type 2 http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/
>OK< this suspense is killing me. What is in the diet? How are the carbs, >protein, fats allocated? How much and what can you eat?
http://tinyurl.com/fs8s or http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/65/72554.htm Excerpt: >It started out simply enough. Arthur Agatston, MD, a cardiologist, decided to develop an eating plan that would improve the cholesterol and insulin levels of his patients with heart disease. Now, the South Beach diet has grown into something much bigger. That’s because the plan Agatston created not only improves cholesterol and insulin levels, but it also has helped many people lose weight. >Agatston’s book about his plan, The South Beach Diet: The Delicious, Doctor-Designed, Foolproof Plan for Fast and Healthy Weight Loss, has become a best seller and it appears to be poised to overtake the controversial Atkins diet in popularity.
Dana "Live as though there is no tomorrow, Love as though you have never been hurt, Dance as if no one is looking…" Satchel Paige
http://www.prevention.com/cda/feature2002/0,4780,5345,00.html
: : My wife has been on it for a little over two weeks so I have been kinda : : following along with her but with some modifications since I am a type 2. I : : have to say it seems to have helped me out with the so called dawn effect. : : : I have always been in the 130 – 160 range when I first tested in the morning : : after I woke up. I have tried various snacks and stuff before bed to no : : avail. For about the last week and a half I have been in the 100 – 120 : : range. : : : :> : :> > : :> >Anyone know anything about this diet? : :> > : :> >Dana : :> >"Live as though there is no tomorrow, : :> > Love as though you have never been hurt, : :> > Dance as if no one is looking…" : :> > Satchel Paige : :> : :> : :> no, unfortunately I live to far North. : :> : :> : : : : OK< this suspense is killing me. What is in the diet? How are the carbs, : protein, fats allocated? How much and what can you eat? : : Wendy Baker
: My wife has been on it for a little over two weeks so I have been kinda : following along with her but with some modifications since I am a type 2. I : have to say it seems to have helped me out with the so called dawn effect. : I have always been in the 130 – 160 range when I first tested in the morning : after I woke up. I have tried various snacks and stuff before bed to no : avail. For about the last week and a half I have been in the 100 – 120 : range.
:> :> > :> >Anyone know anything about this diet? :> > :> >Dana :> >"Live as though there is no tomorrow, :> > Love as though you have never been hurt, :> > Dance as if no one is looking…" :> > Satchel Paige :> :> :> no, unfortunately I live to far North. :> :> OK< this suspense is killing me. What is in the diet? How are the carbs, protein, fats allocated? How much and what can you eat? Wendy Baker
>My wife has been on it for a little over two weeks so I have been kinda >following along with her but with some modifications since I am a type 2. I >have to say it seems to have helped me out with the so called dawn effect. >I have always been in the 130 – 160 range when I first tested in the morning >after I woke up. I have tried various snacks and stuff before bed to no >avail. For about the last week and a half I have been in the 100 – 120 >range.
Hmmm…this is encouraging. Dana "Live as though there is no tomorrow, Love as though you have never been hurt, Dance as if no one is looking…" Satchel Paige
My wife has been on it for a little over two weeks so I have been kinda following along with her but with some modifications since I am a type 2. I have to say it seems to have helped me out with the so called dawn effect. I have always been in the 130 – 160 range when I first tested in the morning after I woke up. I have tried various snacks and stuff before bed to no avail. For about the last week and a half I have been in the 100 – 120 range.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Anyone know anything about this diet? >Dana >"Live as though there is no tomorrow, > Love as though you have never been hurt, > Dance as if no one is looking…" > Satchel Paige > no, unfortunately I live to far North.
>Interesting, read a good article on it from Prevention magazine, sound’s >like someone finally >is going to show the world how to eat properly. Doesn’t just restrict you, >teaches you how >to eat normally and make better choices. From what i’ve read, it’s not high >protein & extreme >low carb. Folks should do fairly well on this.
Actually, I decided to give it a go. I started the diet this morning and I will see how I fare on it. I know one thing, its not as complicated or as severe as Atkins. Dana "Live as though there is no tomorrow, Love as though you have never been hurt, Dance as if no one is looking…" Satchel Paige
: : >Interesting, read a good article on it from Prevention magazine, sound’s : >like someone finally : >is going to show the world how to eat properly. Doesn’t just restrict you, : >teaches you how : >to eat normally and make better choices. From what i’ve read, it’s not high : >protein & extreme : >low carb. Folks should do fairly well on this. : : Actually, I decided to give it a go. I started the diet this morning : and I will see how I fare on it. I know one thing, its not as : complicated or as severe as Atkins. : I wish you luck let us know how your doing on it. RK : Dana : "Live as though there is no tomorrow, : Love as though you have never been hurt, : Dance as if no one is looking…" : Satchel Paige
>Isn’t that the one where some bully kicks sand in the food of a 97 pound weakling.
No, it isn’t. Actually, it appears that SBD is giving Atkins some competition. I have been reading up on it and it sounds like a more humane version of Atkins, with easy to follow guidelines. Dana "Live as though there is no tomorrow, Love as though you have never been hurt, Dance as if no one is looking…" Satchel Paige
: : Anyone know anything about this diet? : : Dana : "Live as though there is no tomorrow, : Love as though you have never been hurt, : Dance as if no one is looking…" : Satchel Paige Interesting, read a good article on it from Prevention magazine, sound’s like someone finally is going to show the world how to eat properly. Doesn’t just restrict you, teaches you how to eat normally and make better choices. From what i’ve read, it’s not high protein & extreme low carb. Folks should do fairly well on this. RK T1 -5/00
>Anyone know anything about this diet? >Dana >"Live as though there is no tomorrow, > Love as though you have never been hurt, > Dance as if no one is looking…" > Satchel Paige
no, unfortunately I live to far North.
> Anyone know anything about this diet?
Hmmm… Let’s see. Remembering South Beach fondly, I remember eating lot’s and lot’s of shrimp at sidewalk tables while drinking fruity rum drinks and oggling the nearly naked guys. Loki – oh, you meant for weight loss????
Anything with the word Diet, New, Improved, Scientificaly proven, Dr. Approved. Are not for me! Been there done that for many years. The best so far is just cut the carbs baby. Ira — — Happy moments, praise God Difficult moments, seek God. Quiet moments, worship God. Painful moments, trust God. Every moment, thank God.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Anyone know anything about this diet? > Dana > "Live as though there is no tomorrow, > Love as though you have never been hurt, > Dance as if no one is looking…" > Satchel Paige
> Anyone know anything about this diet? > Dana
Isn’t that the one where some bully kicks sand in the food of a 97 pound weakling.
Anyone know anything about this diet? Dana "Live as though there is no tomorrow, Love as though you have never been hurt, Dance as if no one is looking…" Satchel Paige
>but I didn’t want to look at these >photos remembering her loos – better to have pictures of her looking her >absolute best (like the one at http://www.kittecat.com/lexy1.jpg ).
Lexy was very beautiful, Vicki Lauren =^..^= See my cats: http://www.picturetrail.com/mickey4paws/703043
I’m sorry about your cat. I didn’t know chemo was even recommended for squamous cell cancers. I’ve been this with 2 cats myself. Chemo was never offered. Meantime, a question: I had heard that chemo in cats did NOT make them nauseous, etc., like humans. What have others heard/experienced?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 16 Apr 2002, > The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a > cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has > been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its > location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of > doing anything at all about it, as far as I know. > Hi (I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find your name on your post) > My furbaby Lexy, a desexed female, developed SCC of the mouth in 1998. > She had only had two anaexthetics in her life – her desexing one and the > one where they discovered this lump. She was actually only in for a > teeth cleaning procedure. The Vet called me and said there was a lump > present on the underside of her tongue (they found it when they were > trying to intubate her). > The lump was sent away for tests, and just like your cat, she had SCC, > but of the tongue. They offered two kinds of treatment – surgery but > that would remove about 2/3 of her tongue and she might never be able to > eat properly again and would have to be tube fed for the rest of her > life. The Vet definitely discouraged me from this action because it > would affect her quality of life so greatly that it would be bordering on > cruelty. The second option was to go through chemotherapy. Without > surgery, the chemotherapy might double her life expectantcy – but when > you hear that her life expectancy *without* treatment was only three > months, that means she’d have six months at the most. And during that > whole time she would suffer from chemo sickness making her nauseaus, > possibly having her hair fall out and generally making her miserable. > So I had to choose three months of gentle decline or six months of > discomfort. > I chose the three months and no treatment. It was the hardest decision I > have ever had to make in my entire life, but thinking only of *her* and > not of my own feelings, I knew that the fairest thing to do was let her > go with dignity when the time was right. > It turned out the cancer was much more advanced than first though. > Wihtin a week or so she started developing lumps down the side of her > body which the Vet said were probably secondary cancers and in the end > she developed bladder cancer as well. She lasted only six weeks from > that first diagnosis, but I made it the best six weeks of her life. At > the end, she became very lethargic, and one morning she just didn’t want > ot get up and eat or drink even. So I decided to help her across to the > Rainbow Bridge by having her put to sleep. I knew I had done all I could > do and I had made her last weeks as happy as possible. She was my first > cat and I loved her like my own child, but I also knew when to let go for > *her* sake. > I’m so sorry that my post doesn’t contain any kind of encouraging news > regarding this terrible, invasive cancer. But before you decide on any > treatment (or even whether you are going to treat at all) you need to get > your Vet to determine how far it has already spread. Once secondaries > develop there is very little chance that your furbaby can be helped, no > matter what they do. > I am sending you and you kitty all the vibes that I can muster that this > isn’t as bad as it was for my Lexy and that you are able to find a > treatment that works and gives you some more time with her. The only > thing I ask you to do is consider her life in your decisions. We, as cat > lovers, would always like more time with out babies, but if it means > making their life uncomfortable, is it really worth it. > I hope your furbaby does come through this and recover. Feel free to > write to me on private email if you have any other questions (to reply > take out the litter part of my email address). > — > Purrs > Vicki Whyte // // // // > http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= > Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie > Take out the litter to email me. > Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. > Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and > get used to the idea.
So glad Alex is doing so well. You have really done so much for him, Barb
> So glad Alex is doing so well. You have really done so much for him,
Thanks, Barb. Seeing him standing next to me purring and licking his chops after yet another trip to the food bowl has made it all worthwhile. Laura — One man’s mundane and boring existence is another man’s Technicolor. -Tick, Strange Days
Hi again Firstly, I"m sorry that you are finding brick walls instead of assistance (I read your other post) with this whole issue. It’s very hard when we watch our furbabies fading away and feel totally helpless in finding options for things you can do. Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 25 Apr 2002, > Can I ask which chemo drug you were offered, and which vet you saw? > If you don’t wish to post that here, email me by all means, throwing > out all of the letter n’s from my address.
I never went to a specialist so I didn’t get any information on the kind of chemo that might be used. Now, after all you’ve done trying to help your furbaby, you might this this was wrong of me – but remember, this was five years ago. I remember doing a web search at the time for SCC in cats (particularly in the mouth) and I found exactly two articles. Both of them were just basically saying that the most common form of cancer in cat’s mouths is SCC and that the prognosis is nearly always bad. It was my local Vet (in Queensland, if that helps) who did the biopsy that confimed the SCC and gave me treatment options. But in my situatino things were already too far gone with secondaries in her bladder (causing bloddy urine among other things) and in small discrete lumps on the side of her body (I couldn’t feel them when she was first diagnosed, but by the end they had reached about the size of a brazil nut, but Lexy never flinched when I touched them, so they weren’t causing her any pain. The hardest thing to watch was the most outward sign. As the lump got bigger on her tongue she couldn’t groom herself properly. That combined with an increase in saliva (which the Vet told me was normal in this situation) meant that her long haired coat always looked scruffy. I would have liked to have taken more photographs of her (even though I took an awful lot before she got sick) but I didn’t want to look at these photos remembering her loos – better to have pictures of her looking her absolute best (like the one at http://www.kittecat.com/lexy1.jpg ). Anyway, I drifted off the subject a little – I was never given the name of any chemo that might have been used because Lexy never saw a specialist. The thinking at the time (again reminding you this was five years ago) was that the chemo might give her some months extra life, she may well suffer terrible side effects of the chemo that would make her time, although longer, more miserable. To me that was the time to make a decision that was best for my Lexy and not for me. So I made her last six weeks the best of her life, I hope. Please don’t think of me badly for giving up on Lexy so quickly, but we all have to make our decisions based upon the information available to us at the time and with our main goal remaining being what is best for the cat. > By the way, I’m not sure that it helps that you mangle your > email address when your post, yet write it unaltered in your > signature.
Ohhh thanks for picking that up I don’t post to cat groups all that much anymore, so I don’t use this sig file often. It has been remedied now though The only thing I can do now is wish you the ver best. If you never lose sight of always doing what’s best for your cat, then you’ll be doing the right thing. I hope that you find something where I could not. I’ll be keeping you both in my thoughts and prayers. — Purrs Vicki Whyte // // // // http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie Take out the litter to email me. Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
You might like to check out this site: http://www.gladesvillevet.com.au and select the Nuclear Medicine link under Services. They mention "a form of Radiotherapy" and they have an email address. If you ever saw the Harry’s Practice story on the old Tasmanian man with the cat with thyroid cancer, this is where they sent the cat for treatment. I’m sorry I know nothing about the treatment of your cat, but will include her in our healing meditations. All the best, Val – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Radiation treatment I’m told is not available in Australia at all.
Galen Knight has obtained some interesting results from informal field tests of his synthetic vitalethine: http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/cancer/060801_cancer_can2.shtml — _o Kristofer Dale, _ <,_ ragged individualist, _____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large… p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org
> Meantime, a question: I had heard that chemo in cats did NOT make them > nauseous, etc., like humans. What have others heard/experienced?
One of my cats has intestinal lymphosarcoma and has been undergoing chemo since December. The results have been absolutely amazing, and I really mean *amazing*. As I type this, a cat who would have been dead by Christmas is "burying" the ice cream bowl he just finished licking. He’s happy, unbelievably energetic, and more affectionate than he ever has been. With that said, here’s a little summary of side effects and so forth- Alex’s cancer made him vomit several times a day and caused diarrhea, so I really couldn’t say if the initial chemo caused him nausea, because he was already nauseated. During the first couple of months of his chemo, I would notice a _bit_ of lethargy, usually the day after his treatments. His treatments are weekly, with daily supplements of prednisone. He has vincristine and cytoxan for three of the weekly treatments, then the fourth week is L-asparaginase. (I had originally thought he was on a five-week cycle, then I learned to count and realized that it was a four-week cycle. 
) A couple of months into the treatment, Alex lost his appetite more than he’d already lost it due to the lymphoma, and geting him to eat was extremely difficult. It turned out that his appetite loss was due to his white cell count being low as a result of the aggressive chemotherapy regimen. His oncologist lowered the vincristine dose slightly and there has been not a single problem with nausea, lack of appetite or lethargy since then. In fact, it has been quite the opposite- Alex eats like a horse and tears around the house like somebody attached a rocket to him. So, in a nutshell, nausea/lethargy/appetite loss can usually be dealt with. There are, however, some side effects that are usually unavoidable. For one, the cat’s fur changes. Because chemo attacks fast-growing cells, the cat will stop producing guard hairs (undercoat) and whiskers. Eventually, the whiskers fall out and the coat will sporadically look almost "oily" or "dirty" as the effects manifest themselves. If the season changes (winter to summer or summer to winter), there is a noticeable difference in the cat as s/he sheds the old coat but doesn’t grow new guard hairs. Alex had been *very* slowly regrowing fur that had been shaved for various treatments/surgeries/injections/whatever, and it all disappeared when the cats started shedding and growing their summer coats. At this point, Alex has a very smooth, bald tummy (it had been shaved for exploratory surgery and biopsy in November but it had been slowly growing back), and he’s down to one whisker on the right side of his mouth. His "eyebrows" disappeared first, then his largest whiskers, then the rest of the whiskers (except for that one that just keeps hanging in there). Another side effect that people often don’t mention is issues with the cats veins. Cats have small veins, and as the cat undergoes repeated injections, the veins form scar tissue at the injection sites that makes it harder to get a clean "stick". It’s much like the scarring you’ll get if you’re a regular blood donor- it’s harder to get the needle in and it’s more painful, to boot. At this point, Alex’s veins are pretty much shot, meaning that he has a lot of scar tissue and the vets have to be more creative in finding spots to stick (which usually means shaving another inch of his leg and injecting higher up in the vein). The injections are made in his legs- neck veins are only used for drawing blood as a central line would have to be run in order to administer chemo there. The scarring of Alex’s veins has caused one problem. His weekly Vincristine treatments are at my local vets’ office, while his L- Aspar is 90 miles away at the oncologist’s. There is a newer vet at the local veterinarians’ office who apparently isn’t as skilled with needles as the other vets. One one occasion, he either missed Alex’s vein or pushed the needle out the other side of the vein. The result was "sloughing" due to perivascular injection (injection outside of the vein). Vincristine is very caustic to tissue, and if it is injected outside of the vein, the tissue and/or skin in the area where the drug "spilled" kind of dissolves, for lack of a better word. Alex ended up with a large patch of raw flesh on his right leg above the elbow. It was very uncomfortable for him, and I was furious. The same vet also had to postpone Alex’s chemo a couple of weeks later when he couldn’t get a good stick. I spoke with the vets and all of Alex’s injections are now being performed by the two veterinarians with whose skills I am more comfortable. So far, so good, but it was horrifying that this happened to him in the first place, and it’s crucial that the veterinarian doing the treatments have excellent needle skills. Okay, so this ended up being much longer than I intended. In a nutshell, cats generally experience *far* fewer unpleasant side effects than humans do, but there *are* side effects. It’s just that for the most part, they’re not uncomfortable to the cat (although they make the cat look a little strange ). Laura — One man’s mundane and boring existence is another man’s Technicolor. -Tick, Strange Days
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 16 Apr 2002, > The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a > cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has > been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its > location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of > doing anything at all about it, as far as I know. > Hi (I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find your name on your post) > My furbaby Lexy, a desexed female, developed SCC of the mouth in 1998. > She had only had two anaexthetics in her life – her desexing one and the > one where they discovered this lump. She was actually only in for a > teeth cleaning procedure. The Vet called me and said there was a lump > present on the underside of her tongue (they found it when they were > trying to intubate her). > The lump was sent away for tests, and just like your cat, she had SCC, > but of the tongue. They offered two kinds of treatment – surgery but > that would remove about 2/3 of her tongue and she might never be able to > eat properly again and would have to be tube fed for the rest of her > life. The Vet definitely discouraged me from this action because it > would affect her quality of life so greatly that it would be bordering on > cruelty. The second option was to go through chemotherapy. Without > surgery, the chemotherapy might double her life expectantcy – but when > you hear that her life expectancy *without* treatment was only three > months, that means she’d have six months at the most. And during that > whole time she would suffer from chemo sickness making her nauseaus, > possibly having her hair fall out and generally making her miserable. > So I had to choose three months of gentle decline or six months of > discomfort. > I chose the three months and no treatment. It was the hardest decision I > have ever had to make in my entire life, but thinking only of *her* and > not of my own feelings, I knew that the fairest thing to do was let her > go with dignity when the time was right.
I am sorry about your cat & her cancer; the fact that she was much more ill than at first thought, makes this a moot point in her case, but for other cats… … in general, cats (& dogs) tolerate chemo *much* better than humans. At one point I needed to contemplate chemo for one of my cats, depending upon her test results. After both talking w/ my vet & doing web searches, I’d decided to go ahead with it, if she had cancer. One of my sister’s dogs did have cancer & he tolerated his chemotherapy very well; he didn’t act/feel ill, & it did put his cancer into remission. If the chemo made the cats – & dogs – feel awful (& since it causes remission, not a cure), *then* I would say forget it – & most likely, so would vets. Cathy — "Staccato signals of constant information…" ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It turned out the cancer was much more advanced than first though. > Wihtin a week or so she started developing lumps down the side of her > body which the Vet said were probably secondary cancers and in the end > she developed bladder cancer as well. She lasted only six weeks from > that first diagnosis, but I made it the best six weeks of her life. At > the end, she became very lethargic, and one morning she just didn’t want > ot get up and eat or drink even. So I decided to help her across to the > Rainbow Bridge by having her put to sleep. I knew I had done all I could > do and I had made her last weeks as happy as possible. She was my first > cat and I loved her like my own child, but I also knew when to let go for > *her* sake. > I’m so sorry that my post doesn’t contain any kind of encouraging news > regarding this terrible, invasive cancer. But before you decide on any > treatment (or even whether you are going to treat at all) you need to get > your Vet to determine how far it has already spread. Once secondaries > develop there is very little chance that your furbaby can be helped, no > matter what they do. > I am sending you and you kitty all the vibes that I can muster that this > isn’t as bad as it was for my Lexy and that you are able to find a > treatment that works and gives you some more time with her. The only > thing I ask you to do is consider her life in your decisions. We, as cat > lovers, would always like more time with out babies, but if it means > making their life uncomfortable, is it really worth it. > I hope your furbaby does come through this and recover. Feel free to > write to me on private email if you have any other questions (to reply > take out the litter part of my email address). > — > Purrs > Vicki Whyte // // // // > http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= > Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie > Take out the litter to email me. > Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. > Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and > get used to the idea.
Well, maybe not necessarily. But keep reading to see why I suspect this. [I'd rather have replies posted to the newsgroup, but for email, throw away all of the n's from the above email address. ] (The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of doing anything at all about it, as far as I know. ) The female cat has had a number of eye operations to treat stubborn ulcers that wouldn’t heal properly. The ophthamologists insisted not to run any tests for what might be causing these ulcers (like tests for bacteria or viruses or dry eye[KCS] ) after they assessed her, because her eye didn’t appear to be infected in any way. They put it down to lack of healing from old age, so the only options were surgery and more surgery. I’ve noticed that her vocal chords have definitely grown weaker right since the start of these operations in September. She was far more croaky. Also, whereas her purrs were very quiet before, she quickly started to purr loudly when she was worried (for example, after waking her up to administer her eyedrops). About 2 weeks after her second-last eye operation, her purrs became even louder when she was stimulated, and they started to sound wrong – more like a pigeon noise. She also became a bit more lethargic and keeping to herself. She would make unusual noises when eating her food (gulping, exhaling air with short sounds, etc). Before her last eye operation, I told the ophthamologist about this, so that he could have a good look when he put the tube down her throat during anaesthesia. A mass was found next to her trachael opening. It is in the vicinity of where the tube goes: ‘….a proliferative mass dorso lateral to trachael opening. Left arytenoid and vocal fold abnormal – fleshy, pink mass extending caudally.’ As I said, I did ask him to have a good look, so that he found the mass. But he thinks that its size would have caused it to be noticed during her previous operations. They suspect therefore that the tumour is fast-growing. A biopsy was done, and the result was: ‘Epithelial cell tumour – "probable SCC" (squamous cell carcinoma). Laryngeal lymphosarcoma and granulomatous laryngeal disease can be ruled out.’ Well, the standard thing people with cancer is that it could be caused by anything. Although the tumour apparently wasn’t there or was still too small during her second-last operation, I still think from the fact that her vocal chords were affected since the start of the operations, that all of the tubes down her throat, or the anaesthesia itself, played a part in this. The cat is on prednisolone tablets (anti-inflammatory) and Clavulox antibiotics. These are just to make her more comfortable. Unless I get a suggestion from someone else, there is nothing much more that can be done. Any solutions are only short-term, as the cancer is likely to recur. Apparently, SCC responds very poorly to chemotherapy. The location of this particular tumour near the windpipe (it cannot be even monitored without anaesthesia, as it’s too far down to see otherwise) makes it very difficult if not impossible to do surgery on it, and it will likely recur. Tracheostomy to give her breathing relief when it becomes too difficult – cats don’t handle this operation very well. And the tumor I think still actually remain there(?) and continues to damage local tissue. Radiation treatment I’m told is not available in Australia at all. There is something promising called Photodynamic Therapy which has shown some good potential in destroying SCC cells, but it’s still fairly early stage in the US – I don’t think it’s anywhere in Australia, but if it is, do let me know! Anything else to suggest that may allow the cat to have a comfortable time as possible? Remember that this is not SCC on the ears or jaw where it can be accessed – it is next to the windpipe which is tough to access. [I'd rather have replies posted to the newsgroup, but for email, throw away all of the n's from the above email address. ]
Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 16 Apr 2002, > The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a > cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has > been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its > location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of > doing anything at all about it, as far as I know.
Hi (I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find your name on your post) My furbaby Lexy, a desexed female, developed SCC of the mouth in 1998. She had only had two anaexthetics in her life – her desexing one and the one where they discovered this lump. She was actually only in for a teeth cleaning procedure. The Vet called me and said there was a lump present on the underside of her tongue (they found it when they were trying to intubate her). The lump was sent away for tests, and just like your cat, she had SCC, but of the tongue. They offered two kinds of treatment – surgery but that would remove about 2/3 of her tongue and she might never be able to eat properly again and would have to be tube fed for the rest of her life. The Vet definitely discouraged me from this action because it would affect her quality of life so greatly that it would be bordering on cruelty. The second option was to go through chemotherapy. Without surgery, the chemotherapy might double her life expectantcy – but when you hear that her life expectancy *without* treatment was only three months, that means she’d have six months at the most. And during that whole time she would suffer from chemo sickness making her nauseaus, possibly having her hair fall out and generally making her miserable. So I had to choose three months of gentle decline or six months of discomfort. I chose the three months and no treatment. It was the hardest decision I have ever had to make in my entire life, but thinking only of *her* and not of my own feelings, I knew that the fairest thing to do was let her go with dignity when the time was right. It turned out the cancer was much more advanced than first though. Wihtin a week or so she started developing lumps down the side of her body which the Vet said were probably secondary cancers and in the end she developed bladder cancer as well. She lasted only six weeks from that first diagnosis, but I made it the best six weeks of her life. At the end, she became very lethargic, and one morning she just didn’t want ot get up and eat or drink even. So I decided to help her across to the Rainbow Bridge by having her put to sleep. I knew I had done all I could do and I had made her last weeks as happy as possible. She was my first cat and I loved her like my own child, but I also knew when to let go for *her* sake. I’m so sorry that my post doesn’t contain any kind of encouraging news regarding this terrible, invasive cancer. But before you decide on any treatment (or even whether you are going to treat at all) you need to get your Vet to determine how far it has already spread. Once secondaries develop there is very little chance that your furbaby can be helped, no matter what they do. I am sending you and you kitty all the vibes that I can muster that this isn’t as bad as it was for my Lexy and that you are able to find a treatment that works and gives you some more time with her. The only thing I ask you to do is consider her life in your decisions. We, as cat lovers, would always like more time with out babies, but if it means making their life uncomfortable, is it really worth it. I hope your furbaby does come through this and recover. Feel free to write to me on private email if you have any other questions (to reply take out the litter part of my email address). — Purrs Vicki Whyte // // // // http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie Take out the litter to email me. Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
>but I didn’t want to look at these >photos remembering her loos – better to have pictures of her looking her >absolute best (like the one at http://www.kittecat.com/lexy1.jpg ).
Lexy was very beautiful, Vicki Lauren =^..^= See my cats: http://www.picturetrail.com/mickey4paws/703043
I’m sorry about your cat. I didn’t know chemo was even recommended for squamous cell cancers. I’ve been this with 2 cats myself. Chemo was never offered. Meantime, a question: I had heard that chemo in cats did NOT make them nauseous, etc., like humans. What have others heard/experienced?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 16 Apr 2002, > The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a > cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has > been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its > location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of > doing anything at all about it, as far as I know. > Hi (I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find your name on your post) > My furbaby Lexy, a desexed female, developed SCC of the mouth in 1998. > She had only had two anaexthetics in her life – her desexing one and the > one where they discovered this lump. She was actually only in for a > teeth cleaning procedure. The Vet called me and said there was a lump > present on the underside of her tongue (they found it when they were > trying to intubate her). > The lump was sent away for tests, and just like your cat, she had SCC, > but of the tongue. They offered two kinds of treatment – surgery but > that would remove about 2/3 of her tongue and she might never be able to > eat properly again and would have to be tube fed for the rest of her > life. The Vet definitely discouraged me from this action because it > would affect her quality of life so greatly that it would be bordering on > cruelty. The second option was to go through chemotherapy. Without > surgery, the chemotherapy might double her life expectantcy – but when > you hear that her life expectancy *without* treatment was only three > months, that means she’d have six months at the most. And during that > whole time she would suffer from chemo sickness making her nauseaus, > possibly having her hair fall out and generally making her miserable. > So I had to choose three months of gentle decline or six months of > discomfort. > I chose the three months and no treatment. It was the hardest decision I > have ever had to make in my entire life, but thinking only of *her* and > not of my own feelings, I knew that the fairest thing to do was let her > go with dignity when the time was right. > It turned out the cancer was much more advanced than first though. > Wihtin a week or so she started developing lumps down the side of her > body which the Vet said were probably secondary cancers and in the end > she developed bladder cancer as well. She lasted only six weeks from > that first diagnosis, but I made it the best six weeks of her life. At > the end, she became very lethargic, and one morning she just didn’t want > ot get up and eat or drink even. So I decided to help her across to the > Rainbow Bridge by having her put to sleep. I knew I had done all I could > do and I had made her last weeks as happy as possible. She was my first > cat and I loved her like my own child, but I also knew when to let go for > *her* sake. > I’m so sorry that my post doesn’t contain any kind of encouraging news > regarding this terrible, invasive cancer. But before you decide on any > treatment (or even whether you are going to treat at all) you need to get > your Vet to determine how far it has already spread. Once secondaries > develop there is very little chance that your furbaby can be helped, no > matter what they do. > I am sending you and you kitty all the vibes that I can muster that this > isn’t as bad as it was for my Lexy and that you are able to find a > treatment that works and gives you some more time with her. The only > thing I ask you to do is consider her life in your decisions. We, as cat > lovers, would always like more time with out babies, but if it means > making their life uncomfortable, is it really worth it. > I hope your furbaby does come through this and recover. Feel free to > write to me on private email if you have any other questions (to reply > take out the litter part of my email address). > — > Purrs > Vicki Whyte // // // // > http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= > Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie > Take out the litter to email me. > Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. > Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and > get used to the idea.
So glad Alex is doing so well. You have really done so much for him, Barb
> So glad Alex is doing so well. You have really done so much for him,
Thanks, Barb. Seeing him standing next to me purring and licking his chops after yet another trip to the food bowl has made it all worthwhile. Laura — One man’s mundane and boring existence is another man’s Technicolor. -Tick, Strange Days
Hi again Firstly, I"m sorry that you are finding brick walls instead of assistance (I read your other post) with this whole issue. It’s very hard when we watch our furbabies fading away and feel totally helpless in finding options for things you can do. Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 25 Apr 2002, > Can I ask which chemo drug you were offered, and which vet you saw? > If you don’t wish to post that here, email me by all means, throwing > out all of the letter n’s from my address.
I never went to a specialist so I didn’t get any information on the kind of chemo that might be used. Now, after all you’ve done trying to help your furbaby, you might this this was wrong of me – but remember, this was five years ago. I remember doing a web search at the time for SCC in cats (particularly in the mouth) and I found exactly two articles. Both of them were just basically saying that the most common form of cancer in cat’s mouths is SCC and that the prognosis is nearly always bad. It was my local Vet (in Queensland, if that helps) who did the biopsy that confimed the SCC and gave me treatment options. But in my situatino things were already too far gone with secondaries in her bladder (causing bloddy urine among other things) and in small discrete lumps on the side of her body (I couldn’t feel them when she was first diagnosed, but by the end they had reached about the size of a brazil nut, but Lexy never flinched when I touched them, so they weren’t causing her any pain. The hardest thing to watch was the most outward sign. As the lump got bigger on her tongue she couldn’t groom herself properly. That combined with an increase in saliva (which the Vet told me was normal in this situation) meant that her long haired coat always looked scruffy. I would have liked to have taken more photographs of her (even though I took an awful lot before she got sick) but I didn’t want to look at these photos remembering her loos – better to have pictures of her looking her absolute best (like the one at http://www.kittecat.com/lexy1.jpg ). Anyway, I drifted off the subject a little – I was never given the name of any chemo that might have been used because Lexy never saw a specialist. The thinking at the time (again reminding you this was five years ago) was that the chemo might give her some months extra life, she may well suffer terrible side effects of the chemo that would make her time, although longer, more miserable. To me that was the time to make a decision that was best for my Lexy and not for me. So I made her last six weeks the best of her life, I hope. Please don’t think of me badly for giving up on Lexy so quickly, but we all have to make our decisions based upon the information available to us at the time and with our main goal remaining being what is best for the cat. > By the way, I’m not sure that it helps that you mangle your > email address when your post, yet write it unaltered in your > signature.
Ohhh thanks for picking that up I don’t post to cat groups all that much anymore, so I don’t use this sig file often. It has been remedied now though The only thing I can do now is wish you the ver best. If you never lose sight of always doing what’s best for your cat, then you’ll be doing the right thing. I hope that you find something where I could not. I’ll be keeping you both in my thoughts and prayers. — Purrs Vicki Whyte // // // // http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie Take out the litter to email me. Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
You might like to check out this site: http://www.gladesvillevet.com.au and select the Nuclear Medicine link under Services. They mention "a form of Radiotherapy" and they have an email address. If you ever saw the Harry’s Practice story on the old Tasmanian man with the cat with thyroid cancer, this is where they sent the cat for treatment. I’m sorry I know nothing about the treatment of your cat, but will include her in our healing meditations. All the best, Val – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Radiation treatment I’m told is not available in Australia at all.
Galen Knight has obtained some interesting results from informal field tests of his synthetic vitalethine: http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/cancer/060801_cancer_can2.shtml — _o Kristofer Dale, _ <,_ ragged individualist, _____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large… p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org
> Meantime, a question: I had heard that chemo in cats did NOT make them > nauseous, etc., like humans. What have others heard/experienced?
One of my cats has intestinal lymphosarcoma and has been undergoing chemo since December. The results have been absolutely amazing, and I really mean *amazing*. As I type this, a cat who would have been dead by Christmas is "burying" the ice cream bowl he just finished licking. He’s happy, unbelievably energetic, and more affectionate than he ever has been. With that said, here’s a little summary of side effects and so forth- Alex’s cancer made him vomit several times a day and caused diarrhea, so I really couldn’t say if the initial chemo caused him nausea, because he was already nauseated. During the first couple of months of his chemo, I would notice a _bit_ of lethargy, usually the day after his treatments. His treatments are weekly, with daily supplements of prednisone. He has vincristine and cytoxan for three of the weekly treatments, then the fourth week is L-asparaginase. (I had originally thought he was on a five-week cycle, then I learned to count and realized that it was a four-week cycle. ) A couple of months into the treatment, Alex lost his appetite more than he’d already lost it due to the lymphoma, and geting him to eat was extremely difficult. It turned out that his appetite loss was due to his white cell count being low as a result of the aggressive chemotherapy regimen. His oncologist lowered the vincristine dose slightly and there has been not a single problem with nausea, lack of appetite or lethargy since then. In fact, it has been quite the opposite- Alex eats like a horse and tears around the house like somebody attached a rocket to him. So, in a nutshell, nausea/lethargy/appetite loss can usually be dealt with. There are, however, some side effects that are usually unavoidable. For one, the cat’s fur changes. Because chemo attacks fast-growing cells, the cat will stop producing guard hairs (undercoat) and whiskers. Eventually, the whiskers fall out and the coat will sporadically look almost "oily" or "dirty" as the effects manifest themselves. If the season changes (winter to summer or summer to winter), there is a noticeable difference in the cat as s/he sheds the old coat but doesn’t grow new guard hairs. Alex had been *very* slowly regrowing fur that had been shaved for various treatments/surgeries/injections/whatever, and it all disappeared when the cats started shedding and growing their summer coats. At this point, Alex has a very smooth, bald tummy (it had been shaved for exploratory surgery and biopsy in November but it had been slowly growing back), and he’s down to one whisker on the right side of his mouth. His "eyebrows" disappeared first, then his largest whiskers, then the rest of the whiskers (except for that one that just keeps hanging in there). Another side effect that people often don’t mention is issues with the cats veins. Cats have small veins, and as the cat undergoes repeated injections, the veins form scar tissue at the injection sites that makes it harder to get a clean "stick". It’s much like the scarring you’ll get if you’re a regular blood donor- it’s harder to get the needle in and it’s more painful, to boot. At this point, Alex’s veins are pretty much shot, meaning that he has a lot of scar tissue and the vets have to be more creative in finding spots to stick (which usually means shaving another inch of his leg and injecting higher up in the vein). The injections are made in his legs- neck veins are only used for drawing blood as a central line would have to be run in order to administer chemo there. The scarring of Alex’s veins has caused one problem. His weekly Vincristine treatments are at my local vets’ office, while his L- Aspar is 90 miles away at the oncologist’s. There is a newer vet at the local veterinarians’ office who apparently isn’t as skilled with needles as the other vets. One one occasion, he either missed Alex’s vein or pushed the needle out the other side of the vein. The result was "sloughing" due to perivascular injection (injection outside of the vein). Vincristine is very caustic to tissue, and if it is injected outside of the vein, the tissue and/or skin in the area where the drug "spilled" kind of dissolves, for lack of a better word. Alex ended up with a large patch of raw flesh on his right leg above the elbow. It was very uncomfortable for him, and I was furious. The same vet also had to postpone Alex’s chemo a couple of weeks later when he couldn’t get a good stick. I spoke with the vets and all of Alex’s injections are now being performed by the two veterinarians with whose skills I am more comfortable. So far, so good, but it was horrifying that this happened to him in the first place, and it’s crucial that the veterinarian doing the treatments have excellent needle skills. Okay, so this ended up being much longer than I intended. In a nutshell, cats generally experience *far* fewer unpleasant side effects than humans do, but there *are* side effects. It’s just that for the most part, they’re not uncomfortable to the cat (although they make the cat look a little strange ). Laura — One man’s mundane and boring existence is another man’s Technicolor. -Tick, Strange Days
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 16 Apr 2002, > The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a > cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has > been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its > location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of > doing anything at all about it, as far as I know. > Hi (I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find your name on your post) > My furbaby Lexy, a desexed female, developed SCC of the mouth in 1998. > She had only had two anaexthetics in her life – her desexing one and the > one where they discovered this lump. She was actually only in for a > teeth cleaning procedure. The Vet called me and said there was a lump > present on the underside of her tongue (they found it when they were > trying to intubate her). > The lump was sent away for tests, and just like your cat, she had SCC, > but of the tongue. They offered two kinds of treatment – surgery but > that would remove about 2/3 of her tongue and she might never be able to > eat properly again and would have to be tube fed for the rest of her > life. The Vet definitely discouraged me from this action because it > would affect her quality of life so greatly that it would be bordering on > cruelty. The second option was to go through chemotherapy. Without > surgery, the chemotherapy might double her life expectantcy – but when > you hear that her life expectancy *without* treatment was only three > months, that means she’d have six months at the most. And during that > whole time she would suffer from chemo sickness making her nauseaus, > possibly having her hair fall out and generally making her miserable. > So I had to choose three months of gentle decline or six months of > discomfort. > I chose the three months and no treatment. It was the hardest decision I > have ever had to make in my entire life, but thinking only of *her* and > not of my own feelings, I knew that the fairest thing to do was let her > go with dignity when the time was right.
I am sorry about your cat & her cancer; the fact that she was much more ill than at first thought, makes this a moot point in her case, but for other cats… … in general, cats (& dogs) tolerate chemo *much* better than humans. At one point I needed to contemplate chemo for one of my cats, depending upon her test results. After both talking w/ my vet & doing web searches, I’d decided to go ahead with it, if she had cancer. One of my sister’s dogs did have cancer & he tolerated his chemotherapy very well; he didn’t act/feel ill, & it did put his cancer into remission. If the chemo made the cats – & dogs – feel awful (& since it causes remission, not a cure), *then* I would say forget it – & most likely, so would vets. Cathy — "Staccato signals of constant information…" ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It turned out the cancer was much more advanced than first though. > Wihtin a week or so she started developing lumps down the side of her > body which the Vet said were probably secondary cancers and in the end > she developed bladder cancer as well. She lasted only six weeks from > that first diagnosis, but I made it the best six weeks of her life. At > the end, she became very lethargic, and one morning she just didn’t want > ot get up and eat or drink even. So I decided to help her across to the > Rainbow Bridge by having her put to sleep. I knew I had done all I could > do and I had made her last weeks as happy as possible. She was my first > cat and I loved her like my own child, but I also knew when to let go for > *her* sake. > I’m so sorry that my post doesn’t contain any kind of encouraging news > regarding this terrible, invasive cancer. But before you decide on any > treatment (or even whether you are going to treat at all) you need to get > your Vet to determine how far it has already spread. Once secondaries > develop there is very little chance that your furbaby can be helped, no > matter what they do. > I am sending you and you kitty all the vibes that I can muster that this > isn’t as bad as it was for my Lexy and that you are able to find a > treatment that works and gives you some more time with her. The only > thing I ask you to do is consider her life in your decisions. We, as cat > lovers, would always like more time with out babies, but if it means > making their life uncomfortable, is it really worth it. > I hope your furbaby does come through this and recover. Feel free to > write to me on private email if you have any other questions (to reply > take out the litter part of my email address). > — > Purrs > Vicki Whyte // // // // > http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= > Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie > Take out the litter to email me. > Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. > Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and > get used to the idea.
Well, maybe not necessarily. But keep reading to see why I suspect this. [I'd rather have replies posted to the newsgroup, but for email, throw away all of the n's from the above email address. ] (The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of doing anything at all about it, as far as I know. ) The female cat has had a number of eye operations to treat stubborn ulcers that wouldn’t heal properly. The ophthamologists insisted not to run any tests for what might be causing these ulcers (like tests for bacteria or viruses or dry eye[KCS] ) after they assessed her, because her eye didn’t appear to be infected in any way. They put it down to lack of healing from old age, so the only options were surgery and more surgery. I’ve noticed that her vocal chords have definitely grown weaker right since the start of these operations in September. She was far more croaky. Also, whereas her purrs were very quiet before, she quickly started to purr loudly when she was worried (for example, after waking her up to administer her eyedrops). About 2 weeks after her second-last eye operation, her purrs became even louder when she was stimulated, and they started to sound wrong – more like a pigeon noise. She also became a bit more lethargic and keeping to herself. She would make unusual noises when eating her food (gulping, exhaling air with short sounds, etc). Before her last eye operation, I told the ophthamologist about this, so that he could have a good look when he put the tube down her throat during anaesthesia. A mass was found next to her trachael opening. It is in the vicinity of where the tube goes: ‘….a proliferative mass dorso lateral to trachael opening. Left arytenoid and vocal fold abnormal – fleshy, pink mass extending caudally.’ As I said, I did ask him to have a good look, so that he found the mass. But he thinks that its size would have caused it to be noticed during her previous operations. They suspect therefore that the tumour is fast-growing. A biopsy was done, and the result was: ‘Epithelial cell tumour – "probable SCC" (squamous cell carcinoma). Laryngeal lymphosarcoma and granulomatous laryngeal disease can be ruled out.’ Well, the standard thing people with cancer is that it could be caused by anything. Although the tumour apparently wasn’t there or was still too small during her second-last operation, I still think from the fact that her vocal chords were affected since the start of the operations, that all of the tubes down her throat, or the anaesthesia itself, played a part in this. The cat is on prednisolone tablets (anti-inflammatory) and Clavulox antibiotics. These are just to make her more comfortable. Unless I get a suggestion from someone else, there is nothing much more that can be done. Any solutions are only short-term, as the cancer is likely to recur. Apparently, SCC responds very poorly to chemotherapy. The location of this particular tumour near the windpipe (it cannot be even monitored without anaesthesia, as it’s too far down to see otherwise) makes it very difficult if not impossible to do surgery on it, and it will likely recur. Tracheostomy to give her breathing relief when it becomes too difficult – cats don’t handle this operation very well. And the tumor I think still actually remain there(?) and continues to damage local tissue. Radiation treatment I’m told is not available in Australia at all. There is something promising called Photodynamic Therapy which has shown some good potential in destroying SCC cells, but it’s still fairly early stage in the US – I don’t think it’s anywhere in Australia, but if it is, do let me know! Anything else to suggest that may allow the cat to have a comfortable time as possible? Remember that this is not SCC on the ears or jaw where it can be accessed – it is next to the windpipe which is tough to access. [I'd rather have replies posted to the newsgroup, but for email, throw away all of the n's from the above email address. ]
Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 16 Apr 2002, > The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a > cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has > been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its > location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of > doing anything at all about it, as far as I know.
Hi (I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find your name on your post) My furbaby Lexy, a desexed female, developed SCC of the mouth in 1998. She had only had two anaexthetics in her life – her desexing one and the one where they discovered this lump. She was actually only in for a teeth cleaning procedure. The Vet called me and said there was a lump present on the underside of her tongue (they found it when they were trying to intubate her). The lump was sent away for tests, and just like your cat, she had SCC, but of the tongue. They offered two kinds of treatment – surgery but that would remove about 2/3 of her tongue and she might never be able to eat properly again and would have to be tube fed for the rest of her life. The Vet definitely discouraged me from this action because it would affect her quality of life so greatly that it would be bordering on cruelty. The second option was to go through chemotherapy. Without surgery, the chemotherapy might double her life expectantcy – but when you hear that her life expectancy *without* treatment was only three months, that means she’d have six months at the most. And during that whole time she would suffer from chemo sickness making her nauseaus, possibly having her hair fall out and generally making her miserable. So I had to choose three months of gentle decline or six months of discomfort. I chose the three months and no treatment. It was the hardest decision I have ever had to make in my entire life, but thinking only of *her* and not of my own feelings, I knew that the fairest thing to do was let her go with dignity when the time was right. It turned out the cancer was much more advanced than first though. Wihtin a week or so she started developing lumps down the side of her body which the Vet said were probably secondary cancers and in the end she developed bladder cancer as well. She lasted only six weeks from that first diagnosis, but I made it the best six weeks of her life. At the end, she became very lethargic, and one morning she just didn’t want ot get up and eat or drink even. So I decided to help her across to the Rainbow Bridge by having her put to sleep. I knew I had done all I could do and I had made her last weeks as happy as possible. She was my first cat and I loved her like my own child, but I also knew when to let go for *her* sake. I’m so sorry that my post doesn’t contain any kind of encouraging news regarding this terrible, invasive cancer. But before you decide on any treatment (or even whether you are going to treat at all) you need to get your Vet to determine how far it has already spread. Once secondaries develop there is very little chance that your furbaby can be helped, no matter what they do. I am sending you and you kitty all the vibes that I can muster that this isn’t as bad as it was for my Lexy and that you are able to find a treatment that works and gives you some more time with her. The only thing I ask you to do is consider her life in your decisions. We, as cat lovers, would always like more time with out babies, but if it means making their life uncomfortable, is it really worth it. I hope your furbaby does come through this and recover. Feel free to write to me on private email if you have any other questions (to reply take out the litter part of my email address). — Purrs Vicki Whyte // // // // http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie Take out the litter to email me. Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
>but I didn’t want to look at these >photos remembering her loos – better to have pictures of her looking her >absolute best (like the one at http://www.kittecat.com/lexy1.jpg ).
Lexy was very beautiful, Vicki Lauren =^..^= See my cats: http://www.picturetrail.com/mickey4paws/703043
I’m sorry about your cat. I didn’t know chemo was even recommended for squamous cell cancers. I’ve been this with 2 cats myself. Chemo was never offered. Meantime, a question: I had heard that chemo in cats did NOT make them nauseous, etc., like humans. What have others heard/experienced?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 16 Apr 2002, > The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a > cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has > been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its > location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of > doing anything at all about it, as far as I know. > Hi (I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find your name on your post) > My furbaby Lexy, a desexed female, developed SCC of the mouth in 1998. > She had only had two anaexthetics in her life – her desexing one and the > one where they discovered this lump. She was actually only in for a > teeth cleaning procedure. The Vet called me and said there was a lump > present on the underside of her tongue (they found it when they were > trying to intubate her). > The lump was sent away for tests, and just like your cat, she had SCC, > but of the tongue. They offered two kinds of treatment – surgery but > that would remove about 2/3 of her tongue and she might never be able to > eat properly again and would have to be tube fed for the rest of her > life. The Vet definitely discouraged me from this action because it > would affect her quality of life so greatly that it would be bordering on > cruelty. The second option was to go through chemotherapy. Without > surgery, the chemotherapy might double her life expectantcy – but when > you hear that her life expectancy *without* treatment was only three > months, that means she’d have six months at the most. And during that > whole time she would suffer from chemo sickness making her nauseaus, > possibly having her hair fall out and generally making her miserable. > So I had to choose three months of gentle decline or six months of > discomfort. > I chose the three months and no treatment. It was the hardest decision I > have ever had to make in my entire life, but thinking only of *her* and > not of my own feelings, I knew that the fairest thing to do was let her > go with dignity when the time was right. > It turned out the cancer was much more advanced than first though. > Wihtin a week or so she started developing lumps down the side of her > body which the Vet said were probably secondary cancers and in the end > she developed bladder cancer as well. She lasted only six weeks from > that first diagnosis, but I made it the best six weeks of her life. At > the end, she became very lethargic, and one morning she just didn’t want > ot get up and eat or drink even. So I decided to help her across to the > Rainbow Bridge by having her put to sleep. I knew I had done all I could > do and I had made her last weeks as happy as possible. She was my first > cat and I loved her like my own child, but I also knew when to let go for > *her* sake. > I’m so sorry that my post doesn’t contain any kind of encouraging news > regarding this terrible, invasive cancer. But before you decide on any > treatment (or even whether you are going to treat at all) you need to get > your Vet to determine how far it has already spread. Once secondaries > develop there is very little chance that your furbaby can be helped, no > matter what they do. > I am sending you and you kitty all the vibes that I can muster that this > isn’t as bad as it was for my Lexy and that you are able to find a > treatment that works and gives you some more time with her. The only > thing I ask you to do is consider her life in your decisions. We, as cat > lovers, would always like more time with out babies, but if it means > making their life uncomfortable, is it really worth it. > I hope your furbaby does come through this and recover. Feel free to > write to me on private email if you have any other questions (to reply > take out the litter part of my email address). > — > Purrs > Vicki Whyte // // // // > http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= > Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie > Take out the litter to email me. > Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. > Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and > get used to the idea.
So glad Alex is doing so well. You have really done so much for him, Barb
> So glad Alex is doing so well. You have really done so much for him,
Thanks, Barb. Seeing him standing next to me purring and licking his chops after yet another trip to the food bowl has made it all worthwhile. Laura — One man’s mundane and boring existence is another man’s Technicolor. -Tick, Strange Days
Hi again Firstly, I"m sorry that you are finding brick walls instead of assistance (I read your other post) with this whole issue. It’s very hard when we watch our furbabies fading away and feel totally helpless in finding options for things you can do. Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 25 Apr 2002, > Can I ask which chemo drug you were offered, and which vet you saw? > If you don’t wish to post that here, email me by all means, throwing > out all of the letter n’s from my address.
I never went to a specialist so I didn’t get any information on the kind of chemo that might be used. Now, after all you’ve done trying to help your furbaby, you might this this was wrong of me – but remember, this was five years ago. I remember doing a web search at the time for SCC in cats (particularly in the mouth) and I found exactly two articles. Both of them were just basically saying that the most common form of cancer in cat’s mouths is SCC and that the prognosis is nearly always bad. It was my local Vet (in Queensland, if that helps) who did the biopsy that confimed the SCC and gave me treatment options. But in my situatino things were already too far gone with secondaries in her bladder (causing bloddy urine among other things) and in small discrete lumps on the side of her body (I couldn’t feel them when she was first diagnosed, but by the end they had reached about the size of a brazil nut, but Lexy never flinched when I touched them, so they weren’t causing her any pain. The hardest thing to watch was the most outward sign. As the lump got bigger on her tongue she couldn’t groom herself properly. That combined with an increase in saliva (which the Vet told me was normal in this situation) meant that her long haired coat always looked scruffy. I would have liked to have taken more photographs of her (even though I took an awful lot before she got sick) but I didn’t want to look at these photos remembering her loos – better to have pictures of her looking her absolute best (like the one at http://www.kittecat.com/lexy1.jpg ). Anyway, I drifted off the subject a little – I was never given the name of any chemo that might have been used because Lexy never saw a specialist. The thinking at the time (again reminding you this was five years ago) was that the chemo might give her some months extra life, she may well suffer terrible side effects of the chemo that would make her time, although longer, more miserable. To me that was the time to make a decision that was best for my Lexy and not for me. So I made her last six weeks the best of her life, I hope. Please don’t think of me badly for giving up on Lexy so quickly, but we all have to make our decisions based upon the information available to us at the time and with our main goal remaining being what is best for the cat. > By the way, I’m not sure that it helps that you mangle your > email address when your post, yet write it unaltered in your > signature.
Ohhh thanks for picking that up I don’t post to cat groups all that much anymore, so I don’t use this sig file often. It has been remedied now though The only thing I can do now is wish you the ver best. If you never lose sight of always doing what’s best for your cat, then you’ll be doing the right thing. I hope that you find something where I could not. I’ll be keeping you both in my thoughts and prayers. — Purrs Vicki Whyte // // // // http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie Take out the litter to email me. Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
You might like to check out this site: http://www.gladesvillevet.com.au and select the Nuclear Medicine link under Services. They mention "a form of Radiotherapy" and they have an email address. If you ever saw the Harry’s Practice story on the old Tasmanian man with the cat with thyroid cancer, this is where they sent the cat for treatment. I’m sorry I know nothing about the treatment of your cat, but will include her in our healing meditations. All the best, Val – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Radiation treatment I’m told is not available in Australia at all.
Galen Knight has obtained some interesting results from informal field tests of his synthetic vitalethine: http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/cancer/060801_cancer_can2.shtml — _o Kristofer Dale, _ <,_ ragged individualist, _____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large… p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org
> Meantime, a question: I had heard that chemo in cats did NOT make them > nauseous, etc., like humans. What have others heard/experienced?
One of my cats has intestinal lymphosarcoma and has been undergoing chemo since December. The results have been absolutely amazing, and I really mean *amazing*. As I type this, a cat who would have been dead by Christmas is "burying" the ice cream bowl he just finished licking. He’s happy, unbelievably energetic, and more affectionate than he ever has been. With that said, here’s a little summary of side effects and so forth- Alex’s cancer made him vomit several times a day and caused diarrhea, so I really couldn’t say if the initial chemo caused him nausea, because he was already nauseated. During the first couple of months of his chemo, I would notice a _bit_ of lethargy, usually the day after his treatments. His treatments are weekly, with daily supplements of prednisone. He has vincristine and cytoxan for three of the weekly treatments, then the fourth week is L-asparaginase. (I had originally thought he was on a five-week cycle, then I learned to count and realized that it was a four-week cycle. ) A couple of months into the treatment, Alex lost his appetite more than he’d already lost it due to the lymphoma, and geting him to eat was extremely difficult. It turned out that his appetite loss was due to his white cell count being low as a result of the aggressive chemotherapy regimen. His oncologist lowered the vincristine dose slightly and there has been not a single problem with nausea, lack of appetite or lethargy since then. In fact, it has been quite the opposite- Alex eats like a horse and tears around the house like somebody attached a rocket to him. So, in a nutshell, nausea/lethargy/appetite loss can usually be dealt with. There are, however, some side effects that are usually unavoidable. For one, the cat’s fur changes. Because chemo attacks fast-growing cells, the cat will stop producing guard hairs (undercoat) and whiskers. Eventually, the whiskers fall out and the coat will sporadically look almost "oily" or "dirty" as the effects manifest themselves. If the season changes (winter to summer or summer to winter), there is a noticeable difference in the cat as s/he sheds the old coat but doesn’t grow new guard hairs. Alex had been *very* slowly regrowing fur that had been shaved for various treatments/surgeries/injections/whatever, and it all disappeared when the cats started shedding and growing their summer coats. At this point, Alex has a very smooth, bald tummy (it had been shaved for exploratory surgery and biopsy in November but it had been slowly growing back), and he’s down to one whisker on the right side of his mouth. His "eyebrows" disappeared first, then his largest whiskers, then the rest of the whiskers (except for that one that just keeps hanging in there). Another side effect that people often don’t mention is issues with the cats veins. Cats have small veins, and as the cat undergoes repeated injections, the veins form scar tissue at the injection sites that makes it harder to get a clean "stick". It’s much like the scarring you’ll get if you’re a regular blood donor- it’s harder to get the needle in and it’s more painful, to boot. At this point, Alex’s veins are pretty much shot, meaning that he has a lot of scar tissue and the vets have to be more creative in finding spots to stick (which usually means shaving another inch of his leg and injecting higher up in the vein). The injections are made in his legs- neck veins are only used for drawing blood as a central line would have to be run in order to administer chemo there. The scarring of Alex’s veins has caused one problem. His weekly Vincristine treatments are at my local vets’ office, while his L- Aspar is 90 miles away at the oncologist’s. There is a newer vet at the local veterinarians’ office who apparently isn’t as skilled with needles as the other vets. One one occasion, he either missed Alex’s vein or pushed the needle out the other side of the vein. The result was "sloughing" due to perivascular injection (injection outside of the vein). Vincristine is very caustic to tissue, and if it is injected outside of the vein, the tissue and/or skin in the area where the drug "spilled" kind of dissolves, for lack of a better word. Alex ended up with a large patch of raw flesh on his right leg above the elbow. It was very uncomfortable for him, and I was furious. The same vet also had to postpone Alex’s chemo a couple of weeks later when he couldn’t get a good stick. I spoke with the vets and all of Alex’s injections are now being performed by the two veterinarians with whose skills I am more comfortable. So far, so good, but it was horrifying that this happened to him in the first place, and it’s crucial that the veterinarian doing the treatments have excellent needle skills. Okay, so this ended up being much longer than I intended. In a nutshell, cats generally experience *far* fewer unpleasant side effects than humans do, but there *are* side effects. It’s just that for the most part, they’re not uncomfortable to the cat (although they make the cat look a little strange ). Laura — One man’s mundane and boring existence is another man’s Technicolor. -Tick, Strange Days
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 16 Apr 2002, > The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a > cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has > been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its > location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of > doing anything at all about it, as far as I know. > Hi (I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find your name on your post) > My furbaby Lexy, a desexed female, developed SCC of the mouth in 1998. > She had only had two anaexthetics in her life – her desexing one and the > one where they discovered this lump. She was actually only in for a > teeth cleaning procedure. The Vet called me and said there was a lump > present on the underside of her tongue (they found it when they were > trying to intubate her). > The lump was sent away for tests, and just like your cat, she had SCC, > but of the tongue. They offered two kinds of treatment – surgery but > that would remove about 2/3 of her tongue and she might never be able to > eat properly again and would have to be tube fed for the rest of her > life. The Vet definitely discouraged me from this action because it > would affect her quality of life so greatly that it would be bordering on > cruelty. The second option was to go through chemotherapy. Without > surgery, the chemotherapy might double her life expectantcy – but when > you hear that her life expectancy *without* treatment was only three > months, that means she’d have six months at the most. And during that > whole time she would suffer from chemo sickness making her nauseaus, > possibly having her hair fall out and generally making her miserable. > So I had to choose three months of gentle decline or six months of > discomfort. > I chose the three months and no treatment. It was the hardest decision I > have ever had to make in my entire life, but thinking only of *her* and > not of my own feelings, I knew that the fairest thing to do was let her > go with dignity when the time was right.
I am sorry about your cat & her cancer; the fact that she was much more ill than at first thought, makes this a moot point in her case, but for other cats… … in general, cats (& dogs) tolerate chemo *much* better than humans. At one point I needed to contemplate chemo for one of my cats, depending upon her test results. After both talking w/ my vet & doing web searches, I’d decided to go ahead with it, if she had cancer. One of my sister’s dogs did have cancer & he tolerated his chemotherapy very well; he didn’t act/feel ill, & it did put his cancer into remission. If the chemo made the cats – & dogs – feel awful (& since it causes remission, not a cure), *then* I would say forget it – & most likely, so would vets. Cathy — "Staccato signals of constant information…" ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It turned out the cancer was much more advanced than first though. > Wihtin a week or so she started developing lumps down the side of her > body which the Vet said were probably secondary cancers and in the end > she developed bladder cancer as well. She lasted only six weeks from > that first diagnosis, but I made it the best six weeks of her life. At > the end, she became very lethargic, and one morning she just didn’t want > ot get up and eat or drink even. So I decided to help her across to the > Rainbow Bridge by having her put to sleep. I knew I had done all I could > do and I had made her last weeks as happy as possible. She was my first > cat and I loved her like my own child, but I also knew when to let go for > *her* sake. > I’m so sorry that my post doesn’t contain any kind of encouraging news > regarding this terrible, invasive cancer. But before you decide on any > treatment (or even whether you are going to treat at all) you need to get > your Vet to determine how far it has already spread. Once secondaries > develop there is very little chance that your furbaby can be helped, no > matter what they do. > I am sending you and you kitty all the vibes that I can muster that this > isn’t as bad as it was for my Lexy and that you are able to find a > treatment that works and gives you some more time with her. The only > thing I ask you to do is consider her life in your decisions. We, as cat > lovers, would always like more time with out babies, but if it means > making their life uncomfortable, is it really worth it. > I hope your furbaby does come through this and recover. Feel free to > write to me on private email if you have any other questions (to reply > take out the litter part of my email address). > — > Purrs > Vicki Whyte // // // // > http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= > Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie > Take out the litter to email me. > Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. > Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and > get used to the idea.
Well, maybe not necessarily. But keep reading to see why I suspect this. [I'd rather have replies posted to the newsgroup, but for email, throw away all of the n's from the above email address. ] (The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of doing anything at all about it, as far as I know. ) The female cat has had a number of eye operations to treat stubborn ulcers that wouldn’t heal properly. The ophthamologists insisted not to run any tests for what might be causing these ulcers (like tests for bacteria or viruses or dry eye[KCS] ) after they assessed her, because her eye didn’t appear to be infected in any way. They put it down to lack of healing from old age, so the only options were surgery and more surgery. I’ve noticed that her vocal chords have definitely grown weaker right since the start of these operations in September. She was far more croaky. Also, whereas her purrs were very quiet before, she quickly started to purr loudly when she was worried (for example, after waking her up to administer her eyedrops). About 2 weeks after her second-last eye operation, her purrs became even louder when she was stimulated, and they started to sound wrong – more like a pigeon noise. She also became a bit more lethargic and keeping to herself. She would make unusual noises when eating her food (gulping, exhaling air with short sounds, etc). Before her last eye operation, I told the ophthamologist about this, so that he could have a good look when he put the tube down her throat during anaesthesia. A mass was found next to her trachael opening. It is in the vicinity of where the tube goes: ‘….a proliferative mass dorso lateral to trachael opening. Left arytenoid and vocal fold abnormal – fleshy, pink mass extending caudally.’ As I said, I did ask him to have a good look, so that he found the mass. But he thinks that its size would have caused it to be noticed during her previous operations. They suspect therefore that the tumour is fast-growing. A biopsy was done, and the result was: ‘Epithelial cell tumour – "probable SCC" (squamous cell carcinoma). Laryngeal lymphosarcoma and granulomatous laryngeal disease can be ruled out.’ Well, the standard thing people with cancer is that it could be caused by anything. Although the tumour apparently wasn’t there or was still too small during her second-last operation, I still think from the fact that her vocal chords were affected since the start of the operations, that all of the tubes down her throat, or the anaesthesia itself, played a part in this. The cat is on prednisolone tablets (anti-inflammatory) and Clavulox antibiotics. These are just to make her more comfortable. Unless I get a suggestion from someone else, there is nothing much more that can be done. Any solutions are only short-term, as the cancer is likely to recur. Apparently, SCC responds very poorly to chemotherapy. The location of this particular tumour near the windpipe (it cannot be even monitored without anaesthesia, as it’s too far down to see otherwise) makes it very difficult if not impossible to do surgery on it, and it will likely recur. Tracheostomy to give her breathing relief when it becomes too difficult – cats don’t handle this operation very well. And the tumor I think still actually remain there(?) and continues to damage local tissue. Radiation treatment I’m told is not available in Australia at all. There is something promising called Photodynamic Therapy which has shown some good potential in destroying SCC cells, but it’s still fairly early stage in the US – I don’t think it’s anywhere in Australia, but if it is, do let me know! Anything else to suggest that may allow the cat to have a comfortable time as possible? Remember that this is not SCC on the ears or jaw where it can be accessed – it is next to the windpipe which is tough to access. [I'd rather have replies posted to the newsgroup, but for email, throw away all of the n's from the above email address. ]
Whilst licking their paws in aus.pets on 16 Apr 2002, > The main point of this post is to try to find out if anyone has had a > cat with SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) near its windpipe, who has > been able to live a decent sort of life with treatment. Note that its > location and the fact that its SCC, makes it a VERY poor chance of > doing anything at all about it, as far as I know.
Hi (I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find your name on your post) My furbaby Lexy, a desexed female, developed SCC of the mouth in 1998. She had only had two anaexthetics in her life – her desexing one and the one where they discovered this lump. She was actually only in for a teeth cleaning procedure. The Vet called me and said there was a lump present on the underside of her tongue (they found it when they were trying to intubate her). The lump was sent away for tests, and just like your cat, she had SCC, but of the tongue. They offered two kinds of treatment – surgery but that would remove about 2/3 of her tongue and she might never be able to eat properly again and would have to be tube fed for the rest of her life. The Vet definitely discouraged me from this action because it would affect her quality of life so greatly that it would be bordering on cruelty. The second option was to go through chemotherapy. Without surgery, the chemotherapy might double her life expectantcy – but when you hear that her life expectancy *without* treatment was only three months, that means she’d have six months at the most. And during that whole time she would suffer from chemo sickness making her nauseaus, possibly having her hair fall out and generally making her miserable. So I had to choose three months of gentle decline or six months of discomfort. I chose the three months and no treatment. It was the hardest decision I have ever had to make in my entire life, but thinking only of *her* and not of my own feelings, I knew that the fairest thing to do was let her go with dignity when the time was right. It turned out the cancer was much more advanced than first though. Wihtin a week or so she started developing lumps down the side of her body which the Vet said were probably secondary cancers and in the end she developed bladder cancer as well. She lasted only six weeks from that first diagnosis, but I made it the best six weeks of her life. At the end, she became very lethargic, and one morning she just didn’t want ot get up and eat or drink even. So I decided to help her across to the Rainbow Bridge by having her put to sleep. I knew I had done all I could do and I had made her last weeks as happy as possible. She was my first cat and I loved her like my own child, but I also knew when to let go for *her* sake. I’m so sorry that my post doesn’t contain any kind of encouraging news regarding this terrible, invasive cancer. But before you decide on any treatment (or even whether you are going to treat at all) you need to get your Vet to determine how far it has already spread. Once secondaries develop there is very little chance that your furbaby can be helped, no matter what they do. I am sending you and you kitty all the vibes that I can muster that this isn’t as bad as it was for my Lexy and that you are able to find a treatment that works and gives you some more time with her. The only thing I ask you to do is consider her life in your decisions. We, as cat lovers, would always like more time with out babies, but if it means making their life uncomfortable, is it really worth it. I hope your furbaby does come through this and recover. Feel free to write to me on private email if you have any other questions (to reply take out the litter part of my email address). — Purrs Vicki Whyte // // // // http://www.kittecat.com =^^= =^^= =^^= =^^= Lifetime member of Ailurophiles Anonymous Augie Siani Issy Lottie Take out the litter to email me. Dedicated to my Lexy, Toby, Chia, Meghie and Candi the Angel kitties.. Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
> The reactor was shutdown the week before because of problem, but brought back > online with only 1% load for the purpose of the ceremony. It was not deemed > safe enough to run at full load [according to other news stories]. > There is international funding to build new reactors at a different site. > Jan
Thanks for the insight Jan. Just shows that reliance on even a trusted newspaper source can still leave you with less than clear information. — Forth based HIDECS Consultancy …..<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/> Tel: +44 (0)1235-814586 …. see http://www.feabhas.com for details. Going Forth Safely ….. EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
> 1. How many people have been working on the cleanup. Apparently it is > something in excess of 70,000.
I’ve heard 600,000, in some capacity, but 200,000 received some "significant" radiation dose. > 2. Since there are greater than 70,000 people involved in the cleanup. What > percentage of them would have died in the course of 15 years, if Chernobyl > hadn’t happened.
Depends on their age and many other factors. You’ve identified the main issue, though, the dead quoted above died for reasons unrelated to the accident. > 3. What constituted "disabled by radiation." In the US you could be > considered disabled by radiation by receiving your lifetime dose. That is, > you were exposed to your Age * 1 Rem or greater (if you were 35, you > received 35 Rem of Exposure). You are now disabled from doing your job of > working on the cleanup. You can still do other work, but no longer can you > receive the high pay of a radiation worker (hazard pay that is).
That’s an interesting definition you pose! Isn’t it 5 rem per year, though, after age 18? > 4. How many people did the Chernobyl plant feed (energy). With the plant > gone, those people are now affected, because they have to get their power > from somewhere else.
I don’t know. Large US power plants supply about 600,000 people per unit. Chernobyl had four units at one point. > I am not saying the disaster wasn’t bad. I am just saying that the article > leaves out a bunch of information.
I’m with you. — fungee… Unsolicited commercial email (spam) is not desired. Senders of spam will help me beta test new virii, mailbombs, and/or DoS attacks. Sending spam to this address constitutes agreement to these terms.
>> 3. What constituted "disabled by radiation." In the US you could be > considered disabled by radiation by receiving your lifetime dose. That is, > you were exposed to your Age * 1 Rem or greater (if you were 35, you > received 35 Rem of Exposure). You are now disabled from doing your job of > working on the cleanup. You can still do other work, but no longer can you > receive the high pay of a radiation worker (hazard pay that is). > That’s an interesting definition you pose! > Isn’t it 5 rem per year, though, after age 18?
I am moderately paranoid when it comes to the media. When they leave information out that would make their statement stronger, I suspect that they are mislabeling their axes. My statement above reflects that paranoia. It used to be (age – 18) * 5 Rem / year. Several years ago, it was changed to Age * 1 Rem/year. It may have changed again. I don’t keep track of the CFR’s. TNT
From AP "More than 4,000 cleanup workers have died since (the accident) and 70,000 have been disabled by radiation in Ukraine alone. About 3.4 Million of Ukraine’s 50 Million people, including some 1.26 million children, are considered affected by Chernobyl." This was in a local newspaper but was an AP Wire. My questions. The only change I made in the paragraph was to add "the accident". I took this from the center of the article. 1. How many people have been working on the cleanup. Apparently it is something in excess of 70,000. 2. Since there are greater than 70,000 people involved in the cleanup. What percentage of them would have died in the course of 15 years, if Chernobyl hadn’t happened. 3. What constituted "disabled by radiation." In the US you could be considered disabled by radiation by receiving your lifetime dose. That is, you were exposed to your Age * 1 Rem or greater (if you were 35, you received 35 Rem of Exposure). You are now disabled from doing your job of working on the cleanup. You can still do other work, but no longer can you receive the high pay of a radiation worker (hazard pay that is). 4. How many people did the Chernobyl plant feed (energy). With the plant gone, those people are now affected, because they have to get their power from somewhere else. I am not saying the disaster wasn’t bad. I am just saying that the article leaves out a bunch of information. By leaving out descriptors, the reader will infer connections that may or may not be there. A journalist may have left those descriptors out in order to save space (always a concern) or they may have been left out because the effect would be diminished by explaining in detail. Have a nice day.
> From AP > "More than 4,000 cleanup workers have died since (the accident) and 70,000 > have been disabled by radiation in Ukraine alone. About 3.4 Million of > Ukraine’s 50 Million people, including some 1.26 million children, are > considered affected by Chernobyl." > This was in a local newspaper but was an AP Wire.
I saw an item on the TV news about this a couple of days ago where they had chiors and VIP speeches to mark the event with video display of the technician pressing the close-down button. However, over a week earlier I had seen a report in a newspaper I trust more than the UK tabloids about the fact that an emergency shutdown of the last reactor had occurred due to a steam leak and that they saw no prospect of getting to it to restart before the official close-down ceremony. So it had already been closed a week before the big show. I also understand that there are plans to clear the site and build a new series of reactors (with better technology) to provide power to the Ukraine populace. Seems like they will have to make a very considered choice. Naturally we commisserate, and will continue to do so, with the people who were drastically affected by the original disaster and the whole aftermath. Our prayers are for them. — Forth based HIDECS Consultancy …..<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/> Tel: +44 (0)1235-814586 …. see http://www.feabhas.com for details. Going Forth Safely ….. EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
The reactor was shutdown the week before because of problem, but brought back online with only 1% load for the purpose of the ceremony. It was not deemed safe enough to run at full load [according to other news stories]. There is international funding to build new reactors at a different site. Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> From AP > "More than 4,000 cleanup workers have died since (the accident) and 70,000 > have been disabled by radiation in Ukraine alone. About 3.4 Million of > Ukraine’s 50 Million people, including some 1.26 million children, are > considered affected by Chernobyl." > This was in a local newspaper but was an AP Wire. > I saw an item on the TV news about this a couple of days ago where > they had chiors and VIP speeches to mark the event with video > display of the technician pressing the close-down button. However, > over a week earlier I had seen a report in a newspaper I trust more > than the UK tabloids about the fact that an emergency shutdown of > the last reactor had occurred due to a steam leak and that they saw > no prospect of getting to it to restart before the official > close-down ceremony. So it had already been closed a week before the > big show. > I also understand that there are plans to clear the site and build > a new series of reactors (with better technology) to provide power > to the Ukraine populace. Seems like they will have to make a very > considered choice. > Naturally we commisserate, and will continue to do so, with the > people who were drastically affected by the original disaster and > the whole aftermath. Our prayers are for them. > — > Forth based HIDECS Consultancy …..<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/> > Tel: +44 (0)1235-814586 …. see http://www.feabhas.com for details. > Going Forth Safely ….. EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
> From AP > "More than 4,000 cleanup workers have died since (the accident) and 70,000 > have been disabled by radiation in Ukraine alone. About 3.4 Million of > Ukraine’s 50 Million people, including some 1.26 million children, are > considered affected by Chernobyl." > This was in a local newspaper but was an AP Wire. > My questions. > The only change I made in the paragraph was to add "the accident". I took > this from the center of the article.
That’s very perceptive of you. I don’t have answers to all of your questions, but the information below says 40 people have died as a result of the accident. From http://www.worldnuclear.org/backref/ba/00/00_ba032.htm Chernobyl: The Real Health Impact closure of the Chernobyl nuclear plant, world-wide reports continued to quote hugely varying estimates of the health impact of the 1986 accident. One news report today said "an estimated 15 000 to 30 000" people had already died as a result of the 1986 accident. Such reports are in line with frequent claims by Ukrainian officials and others that the accident has already caused the deaths of large numbers of people and may result in tens of thousands of further cancer-related deaths over the next few decades. However, they are in stark contrast to the findings of international health and radiation experts, who have carried out detailed studies of the health and environmental impact of the accident. A leading official at the World Health Organisation (WHO) told an international conference five years ago that claims by Ukrainian officials that more than 100 000 people had died as a result of the accident were "fiction". He said the proven death toll was about 40 ? some 30 due to direct exposure at the time, and a further 10 fatal cases of radiation-induced thyroid cancer (normally a treatable disease). More recently, a report published this year by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded that there is still no evidence that the vast majority of people exposed to radiation from Chernobyl in Ukraine or elsewhere are likely to suffer any serious long-term health effects. UNSCEAR assessed the latest evidence on the long-term health impact of the Chernobyl accident in the form of a detailed annex to its annual report to the UN General Assembly on radiation sources and health effects world-wide (see News of 8th June 2000). UNSCEAR said: "According to the committee’s scientific assessments, there have been about 1800 cases of thyroid cancer in children who were exposed at the time of the accident and, if the current trend continues, there may be more cases during the next decades. "Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. "The risk of leukaemia, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated, even among the recovery operation workers. Although those most highly-exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population are not likely to experience serious health consequences from radiation from the Chernobyl accident." More generally, the UNSCEAR report concluded that the lifetime risk of dying from cancer after an acute dose of 1000 millisieverts is about 9% for men and 13% for women. By comparison, the world-wide annual per capita dose is 2.4 millisieverts from natural radiation. UNSCEAR stressed that natural background radiation represents by far the greatest contribution to the world’s population dose. The second largest contribution comes from medical radiation procedures. Other human ‘activities’ ? primarily atmospheric nuclear testing, together with the after-effects of the Chernobyl accident and the side-effects of routine nuclear power production ? account for only a small fraction of the total. From http://www.worldnuclear.org/reference/Chernobyl/Chornobyl%20and%20Sov… actors.htm The Chernobyl Accident The "Chernobyl accident" was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety. The resulting steam explosion and fire released about five percent of the reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind. 31 people were killed, and there have since been up to ten deaths from thyroid cancer due to the accident. Other similar reactors continue to operate, at the Chernobyl site and also in Russia and Lithuania. The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine was the product of an extremely flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious mistakes made by the operators of the plant in the context of a system where training was minimal. It was a direct consequence of Cold War isolation and the resulting lack of any safety culture. The accident destroyed the Chernobyl unit 4 reactor and killed 31 people, including 28 from radiation exposure. A further 209 on site were treated for acute radiation poisoning and among these, 145 cases were confirmed (all of whom recovered). Nobody off-site suffered from acute radiation effects. Large areas of Belarus, Ukraine, Russia and beyond were contaminated in varying degrees, though the pattern of this bore little relationship to the 30km radius "exclusion zone" around Chernobyl. The Chernobyl disaster was a unique event and the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred. The accident On 25th April 1986, prior to a routine shut-down, the reactor crew at Chernobyl-4 began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply power following a loss of main electrical power supply. Similar tests had already been carried out at Chernobyl and other plants, despite that fact that these reactors were known to be very unstable at low power settings. A series of operator actions including the disabling of automatic shutdown mechanisms preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. As water flow diminished, power output increased. When the operator moved to shut down the reactor from its unstable condition arising from previous errors, a peculiarity of the design caused the power to surge dramatically. The fuel elements ruptured and the resultant explosive force of steam lifted off the reactor’s cover-plate, releasing fission products to the atmosphere. A second explosion threw out fragments of burning fuel and graphite from the core and allowed air to rush in, causing the graphite moderator to burst into flames. The graphite burned for nine days, causing the main release of radioactivity into the environment. A total of about 12 x 1018 Bq of radiation was released. <Chornobyl.gif> The Chernobyl accident control rods withdrawn/important safety systems switched off major power surge began fuel elements rupture causing steam explosion top of reactor blew off releasing radioactive products to the atmosphere graphite moderator burns Some 5000 tonnes of boron, dolomite, sand, clay and lead were dropped on to the burning core by helicopter in an effort to extinguish the blaze and limit the release of radioactive particles. Immediate impact It is estimated that all of the xenon gas, about half of the iodine and caesium, and about 3-5% of the remaining radioactive material in the Chernobyl-4 reactor core was released in the accident. Most of this was deposited as dust and debris close by, the lighter material was carried by wind over Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and to some extent over Scandinavia and Europe. The main casualties were among the firefighters, including those who attended the initial small fires on the roof of the turbine building, all of which were put out in a few hours. The next task was cleaning up the radioactivity at the site so that the remaining three reactors could be restarted, and the damaged reactor shielded more permanently. About 200 000 people ("liquidators") involved in the recovery and clean up over 1986-87 received high doses of radiation, around 100 millisieverts. Some 20,000 of them received about 250 mSv and a few received 500 mSv. Later, the number of liquidators swelled to over 600,000 but most of these received only low radiation doses. Many children in the surrounding areas were exposed to radiation doses sufficient to lead to thyroid cancers (which are usually not fatal if diagnosed and treated early). Early radiation exposure in contaminated areas was due to short-lived iodine-131, later caesium-137 was the main hazard (both are fission products dispersed from the reactor core). On May 2-3, some 45 000 residents were evacuated from a 10 km radius of the plant, notably the town of Pripyat. On 4 May, all those living within a 30 kilometre radius of the plant – a further 116,000 people, were evacuated and later relocated. About 1000 of these have since returned unofficially to live within the contaminated zone. Most of those evacuated received less than 50 mSv radiation dose, though a few received 100 mSv or more. In the years following the accident a further 210,000 people were resettled into less contaminated areas, and the initial 30 km radius exclusion zone was modified and extended to cover 4300 square kilometres. Environmental and health effects Several organisations have reported on the impacts of the Chernobyl accident, but all have found difficulties in assessing the significance of what they have observed because of the paucity of reliable information on public health matters prior to 1986. In 1989 the World Health Organisation (WHO) first raised concerns that … read more »
>coal energy is a subset of "non-nuclear energy"
Yes my mistake – ought to learn to read sometime. >that is not my real name, just my internet monniker
You are aware that this is UseNet not some teenage operated software pirating BBS? You have heard of netiquette?
>all non-nuclear energy
Shame on me – I never saw that "non" and thus assumed a typo substituting "nuclear" for "coal". My neighbour’s daughter is just learning to read – maybe I had better take a couple of training sessions with her.
>Chernobyl killed less people than non nuclear energy kills every day.
Every longtimer here knows this is a typo and you mean coal energy. I only point this out for Scooby (BTW, I know that in America you can name your child just about anything, but American lawyeras will also sue for anything, so "Scooby", have you sued your parents yet?) who is new to this group.
>Chernobyl killed less people than non nuclear energy kills every day. > Every longtimer here knows this is a typo and you mean coal energy.
Fossil fuels & biomass primarily, but I meant all non-nuclear energy types combined.
>Chernobyl killed less people than non nuclear energy kills every day. > Every longtimer here knows this is a typo and you mean coal energy.
well, coal energy is a subset of "non-nuclear energy" so if your statement is correct then, logically speaking, his is too. Of course, I guess you can say that (technically speaking) your statement is slightly more specific > I only point this out for Scooby (BTW, I know that in America you can > name your child just about anything, but American lawyeras will also > sue for anything, so "Scooby", have you sued your parents yet?) who is > new to this group.
well, that is not my real name, just my internet monniker… so I doubt that complaint could hold up in a court of law :-)
I am certain that it will be revised downward yet again… How many lives did Chernobyl save? Since it did provide electricity that would probably have been made by coal. And highly sulfurous coal at that…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Organization: UUNET Canada News Reader Service > Newsgroups: sci.energy > thank you very much for the information. That is kind of what I was > expecting. I am not trying to minimize the loss of 31 souls who were simply > doing their jobs, but I recently got into an argument with someone who was > contending that "thousands" of people died. If memory serves, they did have > to relocate thousands of people (is that accurate?) … > It is true that they ~did~ relocate, IIRC, 130,000 people. > Whether they ~had~ to, permanently, is another question. > It has made rather a nice, otherwise-inconceivable Nature preserve, > though. > On the mornig of Thursday, October 21, 1993, > the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s radio news broadcast said > that the Chernobyl nuclear accident had "resulted in the deaths of" > 8,000 people. > The CBC morning radio news broadcast of Friday, December 12, 2000, > said it killed 4,000 people. > MASS RESURRECTION ! > — Graham Cowan > http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html — > let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room!
could someone here please help settle a bet…? How many people died in the Chernobyl disaster of April, 1986..?
> could someone here please help settle a bet…? How many people died in the > Chernobyl disaster of April, 1986..?
An exact number isn’t likely possible. 31 died soon after the accident. 29 from acute radiation doses (out of less than 200 people suffered from acute radiation sickness), and two from steam burns. There’s been around 1,800 detected cases thyroid tumors, somewhat over 90% of which are cancerous. This accounts for those which were expected without the accident, the additional ones attributable to increased screening and those likely due to radioiodine exposure. The last number I heard was 5 deaths from thyroid tumors. (I understand the life time death rate from thyroid cancer is around 5%). There have been no detected increases in incidence of other radiogenic cancers. It’s possible that there have been some which didn’t increase the numbers sufficiently to be discovered statistically. As a general comparison, Chernobyl killed less people than non nuclear energy kills every day. Possibly every hour. Ernest Sternglass claimed that numerous people died in North America due to Chernobyl. The small amount of fall out on North America (compared to background radiation) makes his claims very very unlikely. The fact that Mr. Sternglass used death certificates from before the Chernobyl accident makes his claims ludicrous. Karl Johanson
thank you very much for the information. That is kind of what I was expecting. I am not trying to minimize the loss of 31 souls who were simply doing their jobs, but I recently got into an argument with someone who was contending that "thousands" of people died. If memory serves, they did have to relocate thousands of people (is that accurate?), but I argued that immediate casualities ("immediate" being defined as the same day) was a number considerably lower than 100. My guess was in the fifties. As for people in North America being killed by the fallout… I think the liklihood of such a thing is so statistically minimal that the possibility is non-existent. Any correlating data that supports that notion is, IMHO, a non-related "cause and effect" someone is trying to assert to advance their political agenda.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> could someone here please help settle a bet…? How many people died in > the > Chernobyl disaster of April, 1986..? > An exact number isn’t likely possible. > 31 died soon after the accident. 29 from acute radiation doses (out of less > than 200 people suffered from acute radiation sickness), and two from steam > burns. There’s been around 1,800 detected cases thyroid tumors, somewhat > over 90% of which are cancerous. This accounts for those which were expected > without the accident, the additional ones attributable to increased > screening and those likely due to radioiodine exposure. The last number I > heard was 5 deaths from thyroid tumors. (I understand the life time death > rate from thyroid cancer is around 5%). There have been no detected > increases in incidence of other radiogenic cancers. It’s possible that there > have been some which didn’t increase the numbers sufficiently to be > discovered statistically. > As a general comparison, Chernobyl killed less people than non nuclear > energy kills every day. Possibly every hour. > Ernest Sternglass claimed that numerous people died in North America due to > Chernobyl. The small amount of fall out on North America (compared to > background radiation) makes his claims very very unlikely. The fact that Mr. > Sternglass used death certificates from before the Chernobyl accident makes > his claims ludicrous. > Karl Johanson
> thank you very much for the information. That is kind of what I was > expecting. I am not trying to minimize the loss of 31 souls who were simply > doing their jobs, but I recently got into an argument with someone who was > contending that "thousands" of people died. If memory serves, they did have > to relocate thousands of people (is that accurate?) …
It is true that they ~did~ relocate, IIRC, 130,000 people. Whether they ~had~ to, permanently, is another question. It has made rather a nice, otherwise-inconceivable Nature preserve, though. On the mornig of Thursday, October 21, 1993, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s radio news broadcast said that the Chernobyl nuclear accident had "resulted in the deaths of" 8,000 people. The CBC morning radio news broadcast of Friday, December 12, 2000, said it killed 4,000 people. MASS RESURRECTION ! — Graham Cowan http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html — let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room!
Wishing all of you a nice weekend……each of you will be missed……sounds as if things will be a little quiet around here…..and for all of you who are in a flare, my thoughts are with you…. Cheryl A smile is a curved line that sets things straight…….
Mary D…of course you have my prayers Holly
Mary- Enjoy your visit. I will keep you in my thoughts regarding your appt with the surgeon…. Be well- Tracy CD class of ‘98 my homepage: http://home.talkcity.com/ParadiseDr/goodboie/index.html : ) smile – it makes people wonder what you’re up to!
Hi Pat, I’m hoping you’re intending to have a pleasant weekend yourself. You deserve it and I hope you enjoy it. Take care. Hugs, Linda
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Have fun with the visit this weekend. Prayers headed your way and please do > let us know what happens. I’m leaving tomorrow for the weekend too. Won’t > be back till Monday. > Good luck Mary! > ~~~~Pat > CD Class of 98 > "
(((((((((((((((Mary))))))))))))))))) Good Luck and I am sending my prayers and also doing a Happy Dance for you !! Love & Peace Maryjo
Mary: Prayers — happy dances — more prayers— more happy dances — lots more prayers — more happy dances when you fill us in! God bless. Love & Peace, Connie
Mary, you’re in my thoughts and prayers. I hope all goes well for you. — Love & Peace, Sherry
I’m going to visit with children & grandchildren this weekend. On Monday, I’m going to MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, to see another surgeon about my thyroid cancer. Of course, I’d appreciate all your prayers, "happy dances also welcome" ! return from Houston. Love & Peace & Friends MaryD
Have fun with the visit this weekend. Prayers headed your way and please do let us know what happens. I’m leaving tomorrow for the weekend too. Won’t be back till Monday. Good luck Mary! ~~~~Pat CD Class of 98 "
Mike, You have a good time also. I hope Wednesday is a sunny day 
) Be safe. Hugs, Linda – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I will be in Houston on Monday too. My step daughter is getting > married on Wed. so I will be offline for a whole week. > Mike >I’m going to visit with children & grandchildren this weekend. On >Monday, I’m going to MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, to see >another surgeon about my thyroid cancer. Of course, I’d appreciate all >your prayers, "happy dances also welcome" ! >return from Houston. >Love & Peace & Friends >MaryD > All opinions expressed are mine unless otherwise noted. > Copyright
Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main points are 1. Some companies buy up nuclear power plants and operate them. A few years ago, they got plants for a few percent of their value. Now they are bidding a billion dollars, still short of what the plants cost. 2. Nuclear power plants operate at 80 percent of their rated capacity over the year. Another story said 90 percent. 3. The NRC received a preliminary proposal to build a new plant, the first in many years. The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti-nuke organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate. Recently John Holdren, who had been anti-nuke, mentioned the possibility of new plants rather neutrally. He’s one of the big enviros in the academic establishment (Harvard). — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Yes, the winds they are a changin’… I can’t believe how salutary the effects of the energy crisis has been. — Doug – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > 1. Some companies buy up nuclear power plants and operate them. A few > years ago, they got plants for a few percent of their value. Now they > are bidding a billion dollars, still short of what the plants cost. > 2. Nuclear power plants operate at 80 percent of their rated capacity > over the year. Another story said 90 percent. > 3. The NRC received a preliminary proposal to build a new plant, the > first in many years. > The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of > natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti-nuke > organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate. > Recently John Holdren, who had been anti-nuke, mentioned the > possibility of new plants rather neutrally. He’s one of the big > enviros in the academic establishment (Harvard). > — > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > 1. Some companies buy up nuclear power plants and operate them. A few > years ago, they got plants for a few percent of their value. Now they > are bidding a billion dollars, still short of what the plants cost. > 2. Nuclear power plants operate at 80 percent of their rated capacity > over the year. Another story said 90 percent. > 3. The NRC received a preliminary proposal to build a new plant, the > first in many years. > The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of > natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti-nuke > organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate. > Recently John Holdren, who had been anti-nuke, mentioned the > possibility of new plants rather neutrally. He’s one of the big > enviros in the academic establishment (Harvard). > — > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Holy cow! The NRC has a preliminary proposal? Can’t be but days ’till the groundbreaking! Wayne
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > 1. Some companies buy up nuclear power plants and operate them. A few > years ago, they got plants for a few percent of their value. Now they > are bidding a billion dollars, still short of what the plants cost. > 2. Nuclear power plants operate at 80 percent of their rated capacity > over the year. Another story said 90 percent. > 3. The NRC received a preliminary proposal to build a new plant, the > first in many years. > The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of > natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti-nuke > organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate.
It’s getting harder for the people running anti-nuclear groups to soak their supporters for big wages. It must have been great in the 70s. Just say, "plutonium is dangerous, give me money" and you had a livelyhood. Something happens in some groups sometimes. The radicals get tired of the moderates & break away and form a more radical group. The moderate group doesn’t make the news with stuff like, "we feel that nuclear energy may have some health concerns," as the radicals catch the headlines with stuff like "Cassini will kill everyone! And then some!!" > Recently John Holdren, who had been anti-nuke, mentioned the > possibility of new plants rather neutrally. He’s one of the big > enviros in the academic establishment (Harvard). > — > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
Karl Johanson
Look at www.nirs.org Their last big promotion/flop was the Y2K scare. And now the German environment minister Juergen Trittin supports vitrified high level waste shipments between Germany and France, wow what a change. John Hughes – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > 1. Some companies buy up nuclear power plants and operate them. A > few > years ago, they got plants for a few percent of their value. Now > they > are bidding a billion dollars, still short of what the plants cost. > 2. Nuclear power plants operate at 80 percent of their rated capacity > over the year. Another story said 90 percent. > 3. The NRC received a preliminary proposal to build a new plant, the > first in many years. > The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of > natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti- nuke > organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate. > It’s getting harder for the people running anti-nuclear groups to soak > their supporters for big wages. It must have been great in the 70s. > Just say, "plutonium is dangerous, give me money" and you had a > livelyhood. > Something happens in some groups sometimes. The radicals get tired of > the moderates & break away and form a more radical group. The moderate > group doesn’t make the news with stuff like, "we feel that nuclear > energy may have some health concerns," as the radicals catch the > headlines with stuff like "Cassini will kill everyone! And then some!!" > Recently John Holdren, who had been anti-nuke, mentioned the > possibility of new plants rather neutrally. He’s one of the big > enviros in the academic establishment (Harvard). > — > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 > Karl Johanson
– Shutdown a nuke, kill a tree
> The greenhouse effect and the expectation that the high price of > natural gas will continue are the motivations. I think the anti-nuke > organizations have gotten old or tired or more moderate.
The Greenhouse effect is caused mainly by the CO2 emanating from the mouth of politicians hungry for new sources of taxation!!
> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are
Nuclear power generation is limited by a shortage of fuel: "Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth’s crust, at about 4 parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant expansion of nuclear power — even the five-fold expansion widely canvassed before the incidents at Three Mile Island and (much more disturbing) at Chernobyl — would out-run readily accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known high concentration pockets that could be opened up quite quickly. Therefore, the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on course the development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion technology." [ p. 90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD; World Energy Council, 1993 ] The USA, UK, and France have all dropped their "fast-breeders" because they are "too costly and of doubtful value"! http://dieoff.com/page155.htm Do you still work for the Hudson Institute John? Jay
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > Nuclear power generation is limited by a shortage of fuel: > "Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth’s crust, at about 4 > parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant expansion of nuclear > power — even the five-fold expansion widely canvassed before the incidents > at Three Mile Island and (much more disturbing) at Chernobyl — would > out-run readily accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits > previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known > high concentration pockets that could be opened up quite quickly. Therefore, > the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on > course the development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion > technology." [ p. 90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD; World Energy Council, > 1993 ] > The USA, UK, and France have all dropped their "fast-breeders" because they > are "too costly and of doubtful value"! http://dieoff.com/page155.htm > Do you still work for the Hudson Institute John?
I have never worked at the Hudson Institute but would not be ashamed if I had. The Japanese are still developing their fast breeder, although there is no urgency, because uranium supplies are adequate for the ordinary kind. The development problems will be solved and the somewhat higher costs accepted when the need arises. These costs are much less than the current spot prices of electicity in Califoria. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> Therefore, > the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on > course the development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion > technology." [ p. 90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD; World Energy Council, > 1993 ]
And as we’ve pointed out before, Jay, this isn’t necessarily true. Among the nuclear alternatives would be thermal near-breeders based on thorium, and moderate advances in the economics of extracting uranium from sea water. Paul
Breeders aren’t needed yet because disposal of cold-war surplus HEU by mixing it with unenriched uranium has created a glut of reactor grade fuel. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are >Nuclear power generation is limited by a shortage of fuel: >"Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth’s crust, at about 4 >parts per million on average. Therefore, a significant expansion of nuclear >power — even the five-fold expansion widely canvassed before the incidents >at Three Mile Island and (much more disturbing) at Chernobyl — would >out-run readily accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits >previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known >high concentration pockets that could be opened up quite quickly. Therefore, >the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on >course the development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion >technology." [ p. 90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD; World Energy Council, >1993 ] >The USA, UK, and France have all dropped their "fast-breeders" because they >are "too costly and of doubtful value"! http://dieoff.com/page155.htm >Do you still work for the Hudson Institute John? >Jay
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > Do you still work for the Hudson Institute John? > I have never worked at the Hudson Institute but would not be ashamed > if I had.
Sorry, I later remembered it was the "Hoover Institute" that you used to do some work for. Are you still on their payroll? Jay http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/homepage/about.html About the Hoover Institution The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, is a world-renowned library and archives, and a unique center of scholarship and public policy research, committed to generating ideas that define a free society. The defining principles of individual, economic and political freedom, private enterprise, and representative government were fundamental in the vision of the Institution’s founder, Herbert Hoover. By advancing these principles through the collection of knowledge and generation of ideas, Herbert Hoover steadfastly described the Institution’s mission as contributing to the pursuits of securing and safeguarding peace, improving the human condition, and limiting government intrusion into the lives of individuals. (For Mission Statement.)
> And as we’ve pointed out before, Jay, this isn’t necessarily true. > Among the nuclear alternatives would be thermal near-breeders > based on thorium, and moderate advances in the economics of > extracting uranium from sea water.
There "would be". I leave Disneyland scenarios to Disney. When you have one up an running long enough to measure the net energy of the system, give me a call. Failing that, you are just having a wet dream. Jay [ pp. 132-135 MANKIND AT THE TURNING POINT: The Second Club of Rome Report, by Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel; E.P. Dutton, 1974 ] Assume, as the technology optimists want us to, that in one hundred years all primary energy will be nuclear. Following historical patterns, and assuming a not unlikely quadrupling of population, we will need, to satisfy world energy requirements, 3000 "nuclear parks" each consisting of, say, eight fast-breeder reactors. The eight reactors, working at 40 percent efficiency, will produce 40 million kilowatts of electricity collectively. Therefore, each of the 3000 nuclear parks will be converting primary nuclear power equivalent to 100 million kilowatts thermal. The largest nuclear reactors presently in operation convert about 1 million kilowatts (electric), but we will give progress the benefit of doubt and assume that our 24,000 worldwide reactors are capable of converting 5 million kilowatts each. In order to produce the world’s energy in one hundred years, then, we will merely have to build, in each and every year between now and then, four reactors per week! And that figure does not take into account the lifespan of nuclear reactors. If our future nuclear reactors last an average of thirty years, we shall eventually have to build about two reactors per day simply to replace those that have worn out. The implications of such a development in the Developed World will be even more pronounced, as it is shown in the case of the United States in Fig. 10.1. [ By 2025, sole reliance on nuclear power would require more than 50 major nuclear installations, on the average, in every state in the union. ] For the sake of this discussion, let us disregard whether this rate of construction is technically and organizationally feasible in view of the fact that, at present, the lead time for the construction of much smaller and simpler plants is seven to ten years. Let us also disregard the cost of about $2000 billion per year — or 60 percent of the total world output of $3400 billion — just to replace the worn-out reactors and the availability of the investment capital. We may as well also assume that we could find safe storage facilities for the discarded reactors and their irradiated accessory equipment, and also for the nuclear waste. Let us assume that technology has taken care of all these big problems, leaving us only a few trifles to deal with. In order to operate 24,000 breeder reactors, we would need to process and transport, every year, 15 million kilograms of plutonium-239, the core material of the Hiroshima atom bomb. (Only ten pounds of the element are needed to construct a bomb.*) As long as it is not inhaled or otherwise introduced into the bloodstream of human beings, plutonium-239 can be safely handled without any significant radiological hazards. But if it is inhaled, ten micrograms * of plutonium-239 is likely to cause fatal lung cancer. A ball of plutonium the size of a grapefruit contains enough poison to kill nearly all the people living today. Moreover, plutonium-239 has a radioactive life of more than 24,000 years. Obviously, with so much plutonium on hand, there will be a tremendous problem of safeguarding the nuclear parks — not one or two, but 3000 of them. And what about their location, national sovereignty, and jurisdiction? Can one country allow inadequate protection in a neighboring country, when the slightest mishap could poison adjacent lands and populations for thousands and thousands of years? And who is to decide what constitutes adequate protection, especially in the case of social turmoil, civil war, war between nations, or even only when a national leader comes down with a case of bad nerves. The lives of millions could easily be beholden to a single reckless and daring individual. [ Needless to say, we missed the "turning point". ] Jay — www.dieoff.org
> Breeders aren’t needed yet because disposal of cold-war surplus HEU by > mixing it with unenriched uranium has created a glut of reactor grade > fuel.
No one except the Russians have even debugged one! I haven’t seen any calculations to show the so-called "glut" is enough to make much difference. Have you? Jay
> There "would be". I leave Disneyland scenarios to Disney.
This kind of mental error is why you’re mostly ignored, Jay. Paul
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ > > Do you still work for the Hudson Institute John? > I have never worked at the Hudson Institute but would not be ashamed > if I had. > Sorry, I later remembered it was the "Hoover Institute" that you used to do > some work for. Are you still on their payroll? > Jay > http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/homepage/about.html > About the Hoover Institution > The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, is > a world-renowned library and archives, and a unique center of scholarship > and public policy research, committed to generating ideas that define a free > society. The defining principles of individual, economic and political > freedom, private enterprise, and representative government were fundamental > in the vision of the Institution’s founder, Herbert Hoover. By advancing > these principles through the collection of knowledge and generation of > ideas, Herbert Hoover steadfastly described the Institution’s mission as > contributing to the pursuits of securing and safeguarding peace, improving > the human condition, and limiting government intrusion into the lives of > individuals. (For Mission Statement.)
I agree with the above mission statement of the Hoover Institution. However, I have never been on the payroll of the Hoover Institution either. I am a Senior Fellow by Courtesy, but this involves neither pay nor office space. I am also Professor of Electrical Engineering by Courtesy, and this doesn’t pay either. What paid my salary was being Professor of Computer Science. My main web site is http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/, and it contains my work on artificial intelligence. My web site on sustainability of material progress http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ is maintained as a public service. Fortunately, academic freedom in the United States allows faculty to express their opinions on any subject without control by the college or university. I note that Jay Hanson is obsessed with the possibility that I am paid for my work on sustainability. I got enough pay as a professor of computer science. Were this not the case, I might have applied to the Manhattan Institute for a job or asked the Hoover Institution to make me an ordinary Senior Fellow, which is a paid position. Hanson should say why his delusion that I was paid for my work on sustainability excused him from answering its arguments. But there is compensation. Now that he knows I am not paid for this work, I am confident that he now believes what I said about there being enough energy for the next billion years obtainable from breeder reactors. Now that he believes me, I trust he will abandon this dieoff nonsense. By the way, I officially retired January 1 from being professor of computer science, but I continue research in computer science. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> > Breeders aren’t needed yet because disposal of cold-war surplus HEU by > mixing it with unenriched uranium has created a glut of reactor grade > fuel. > No one except the Russians have even debugged one! I haven’t seen any > calculations to show the so-called "glut" is enough to make much difference. > Have you? > Jay
If a calculation were offered, I doubt Jay Hanson would look. I offer Jay an exercise, since he likes drawing graphs. Look up the figures and post on sci.environment a graph of the price of yellowcake, the basic uranium fuel for nuclear reactors. The last 40 years would be most informative. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Jay Hanson includes [ pp. 132-135 MANKIND AT THE TURNING POINT: The Second Club of Rome Report, by Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel; E.P. Dutton, 1974 ] Assume, as the technology optimists want us to, that in one hundred years all primary energy will be nuclear. Following historical patterns, and assuming a not unlikely quadrupling of population, we will need, to satisfy world energy requirements, 3000 "nuclear parks" each consisting of, say, eight fast-breeder reactors. The eight reactors, working at 40 percent efficiency, will produce 40 million kilowatts of electricity collectively. Therefore, each of the 3000 nuclear parks will be converting primary nuclear power equivalent to 100 million kilowatts thermal. The largest nuclear reactors presently in operation convert about 1 million kilowatts (electric), but we will give progress the benefit of doubt and assume that our 24,000 worldwide reactors are capable of converting 5 million kilowatts each. In order to produce the world’s energy in one hundred years, then, we will merely have to build, in each and every year between now and then, four reactors per week! And that figure does not take into account the lifespan of nuclear reactors. If our future nuclear reactors last an average of thirty years, we shall eventually have to build about two reactors per day simply to replace those that have worn out. The implications of such a development in the Developed World will be even more pronounced, as it is shown in the case of the United States in Fig. 10.1. [ By 2025, sole reliance on nuclear power would require more than 50 major nuclear installations, on the average, in every state in the union. ] For the sake of this discussion, let us disregard whether this rate of construction is technically and organizationally feasible in view of the fact that, at present, the lead time for the construction of much smaller and simpler plants is seven to ten years. Let us also disregard the cost of about $2000 billion per year — or 60 percent of the total world output of $3400 billion — just to replace the worn-out reactors and the availability of the investment capital. We may as well also assume that we could find safe storage facilities for the discarded reactors and their irradiated accessory equipment, and also for the nuclear waste. Let us assume that technology has taken care of all these big problems, leaving us only a few trifles to deal with. In order to operate 24,000 breeder reactors, we would need to process and transport, every year, 15 million kilograms of plutonium-239, the core material of the Hiroshima atom bomb. (Only ten pounds of the element are needed to construct a bomb.*) As long as it is not inhaled or otherwise introduced into the bloodstream of human beings, plutonium-239 can be safely handled without any significant radiological hazards. But if it is inhaled, ten micrograms * of plutonium-239 is likely to cause fatal lung cancer. A ball of plutonium the size of a grapefruit contains enough poison to kill nearly all the people living today. Moreover, plutonium-239 has a radioactive life of more than 24,000 years. Obviously, with so much plutonium on hand, there will be a tremendous problem of safeguarding the nuclear parks — not one or two, but 3000 of them. And what about their location, national sovereignty, and jurisdiction? Can one country allow inadequate protection in a neighboring country, when the slightest mishap could poison adjacent lands and populations for thousands and thousands of years? And who is to decide what constitutes adequate protection, especially in the case of social turmoil, civil war, war between nations, or even only when a national leader comes down with a case of bad nerves. The lives of millions could easily be beholden to a single reckless and daring individual. That was what the Club of Rome said in 1974. The last time I looked it had turned pro-nuclear. Its web site even had a link to my http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html. [ Needless to say, we missed the "turning point". ] Jay — www.dieoff.org No. And we have disappointed Jay by not starting to die off either. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> > Today’s Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) in its technology section > has a story about the revival of nuclear energy in the US. The main > points are > Nuclear power generation is limited by a shortage of fuel:
No, it isn’t. > "Overall, uranium is relatively scarce in the earth’s crust, at about 4 > parts per million on average.
No, 4 ppm in granite, 1.4 ppm in earth’s crust. "Uranium is ubiquitous on the earth. "It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea. Some typical concentrations are: (ppm = parts per million) . High-grade orebody 2% U, 20,000 ppm U Low-grade orebody 0.1% U, 1,000 ppm U Granite 4 ppm U Sedimentary rock 2 ppm U Average in earth’s continental crust 1.4 ppm U Seawater 0.003 ppm U "An orebody is, by definition, an occurrence of mineralisation from which the metal is economically recoverable. It is therefore relative to both costs of extraction and market prices. "Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up. A doubling of price from present contract levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources. http://www.uic.com.au/ne3.htm#3.3 > Therefore, a significant expansion of nuclear > power — even the five-fold expansion widely canvassed before the incidents > at Three Mile Island and (much more disturbing) at Chernobyl — would > out-run readily accessible supplies. These supplies include both deposits > previously exploited but mothballed due to lack of current demand, and known > high concentration pockets that could be opened up quite quickly.
Among others. "Neutron efficient reactors, such as CANDU, are capable of operating on a thorium fuel cycle, once they are started using a fissile material such as U-235 or Pu-239. Then the thorium (Th-232) captures a neutron in the reactor to become fissile uranium (U-233), which continues the reaction. Thorium is about three times as abundant in the earth’s crust as uranium. http://www.uic.com.au/ne3.htm#3.3 > Therefore, > the expansion of nuclear would highlight the need to bring rapidly back on > course the development of fast-breeder reactors and pursue fusion > technology." [ p. 90, ENERGY FOR TOMORROW'S WORLD; World Energy Council, > 1993 ] > The USA, UK, and France have all dropped their "fast-breeders" because they > are "too costly and of doubtful value"! http://dieoff.com/page155.htm
Too costly at current uranium prices. Too costly at double current uranium prices? Doubtful. The failure to achieve a five-fold expansion of nuclear power world-wide would be too costly and of doubtful value: environmental impact, immiseration of the poor, dieoff, and all that, you know. Aloha, -dl — * Replace "never.spam" with "dlibby" to reply by e-mail *
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And as we’ve pointed out before, Jay, this isn’t necessarily true. > Among the nuclear alternatives would be thermal near-breeders > based on thorium, and moderate advances in the economics of > extracting uranium from sea water. > There "would be". I leave Disneyland scenarios to Disney. When you have > one up an running long enough to measure the net energy of the system, give > me a call. Failing that, you are just having a wet dream. > Jay > [ pp. 132-135 MANKIND AT THE TURNING POINT: The Second Club of Rome Report, > by Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel; E.P. Dutton, 1974 ] > Assume, as the technology optimists want us to, that in one hundred > years all primary energy will be nuclear. Following historical patterns, and > assuming a not unlikely quadrupling of population, we will need, to satisfy > world energy requirements, 3000 "nuclear parks" each consisting of, say, > eight fast-breeder reactors. The eight reactors, working at 40 percent > efficiency, will produce 40 million kilowatts of electricity collectively. > Therefore, each of the 3000 nuclear parks will be converting primary nuclear > power equivalent to 100 million kilowatts thermal. The largest nuclear > reactors presently in operation convert about 1 million kilowatts > (electric), but we will give progress the benefit of doubt and assume that > our 24,000 worldwide reactors are capable of converting 5 million kilowatts > each. In order to produce the world’s energy in one hundred years, then, we > will merely have to build, in each and every year between now and then, four > reactors per week! And that figure does not take into account the lifespan > of nuclear reactors. If our future nuclear reactors last an average of > thirty years, we shall eventually have to build about two reactors per day > simply to replace those that have worn out. The implications of such a > development in the Developed World will be even more pronounced, as it is > shown in the case of the United States in Fig. 10.1. [ By 2025, sole > reliance on nuclear power would require more than 50 major nuclear > installations, on the average, in every state in the union. ] > For the sake of this discussion, let us disregard whether this rate of > construction is technically and organizationally feasible in view of the > fact that, at present, the lead time for the construction of much smaller > and simpler plants is seven to ten years. Let us also disregard the cost of > about $2000 billion per year — or 60 percent of the total world output of > $3400 billion — just to replace the worn-out reactors and the availability > of the investment capital. We may as well also assume that we could find > safe storage facilities for the discarded reactors and their irradiated > accessory equipment, and also for the nuclear waste. Let us assume that > technology has taken care of all these big problems, leaving us only a few > trifles to deal with. > In order to operate 24,000 breeder reactors, we would need to process > and transport, every year, 15 million kilograms of plutonium-239, the core > material of the Hiroshima atom bomb. (Only ten pounds of the element are > needed to construct a bomb.*) As long as it is not inhaled or otherwise > introduced into the bloodstream of human beings, plutonium-239 can be safely > handled without any significant radiological hazards. But if it is inhaled, > ten micrograms * of plutonium-239 is likely to cause fatal lung cancer. A > ball of plutonium the size of a grapefruit contains enough poison to kill > nearly all the people living today. Moreover, plutonium-239 has a > radioactive life of more than 24,000 years. Obviously, with so much > plutonium on hand, there will be a tremendous problem of safeguarding the > nuclear parks — not one or two, but 3000 of them. And what about their > location, national sovereignty, and jurisdiction? Can one country allow > inadequate protection in a neighboring country, when the slightest mishap > could poison adjacent lands and populations for thousands and thousands of > years? And who is to decide what constitutes adequate protection, especially > in the case of social turmoil, civil war, war between nations, or even only > when a national leader comes down with a case of bad nerves. The lives of > millions could easily be beholden to a single reckless and daring > individual. > [ Needless to say, we missed the "turning point". ] > Jay — www.dieoff.org
Thankyou Jay for a lucid expos
Because of what I saw tonight on Law and Order (the TV show), I’d like to throw something out here for your consideration. It has to do with the subject of bio ethics and the burgeoning field of animal rights law. Due to the many animal lovers this newsgroup attracts, I’m especially interested in hearing your opinions. Here’s the strictly hypothetical situation: Approximately 150 monkeys are, in the name of AIDS research, "infected" with the virus that is said to cause AIDS, i.e., HIV. These monkeys are still alive and doing well, doing at least as well as most other captive monkeys do, even after 14-15 years of participating in this research (primarily vaccine research). The researchers eventually decide that nothing further can be learned from these monkeys, and they are then scheduled to be disposed of, humanely, of course. Another group of researchers intervenes and asks that the monkeys be turned over to them instead. They want to test the effects of certain so-called antiretroviral drugs on these monkeys; yes, the very drugs that are currently being given to humans with AIDS. Drugs that have only been tested on *humans* up to this point. A group of animal rights supporters then goes to court to prevent these monkeys from being used for any further scientific experiments or drug trials. *You* are on the jury that hears this case. Should these monkeys be turned over to the group of scientists that wants to perform drug trials on them? Drug trials that, according to what the scientists are predicting, will eventually cause AIDS in the monkeys, and ultimately their deaths — horrible deaths, at that. Or should they be turned over to a sanctuary somewhere and allowed to live out their lives in peace. If these scientists are correct, of course, and the monkeys soon die from AIDS, and their deaths are subsequently proven to be the result of taking these drugs, the very drugs that are currently being given to thousands upon thousands of *humans,* including pregnant mothers, babies, etc., perhaps *millions* of human beings will have their lives saved in the process. Yes, thanks to these monkeys. So…what’s your verdict? Who gets the monkeys? The scientists…or the animal rights people? And why? — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
<<Because of what I saw tonight on Law and Order (the TV show), I’d like to throw something out here for your consideration. It has to do with the subject of bio ethics and the burgeoning field of animal rights law. Due to the many animal lovers this newsgroup attracts, I’m especially interested in hearing your opinions. Well…..my own personal opinion is that I believe that MOST animal experimentation can and should be halted. With all the computer technology we have today……a lot of the same results can be achieved without the use of animals. Not only that but a lot of the animal experimentation is just repetitious. The info and results should be fed into some kind of main computer bank for all scientists to draw from. I DO acknowledge that, UNFORTUNATELY…..a small amount of animal experimentation will always probably be needed. However…..it should only be done for LEGITIMATE MEDICAL RESEARCH. And then only when absolutely necessary. I do not believe in testing other products on animals…….junk like new floor wax, new lipstick or any other type of cosmetics, toilet bowl cleaners etc. I mean….we have rows and rows of countless different types of floor waxes, cosmetics, cleaners and stuff already. If you can’t choose one from the hundreds of items already available on the market…..then you’ve got a problem. To me…….that sort of animal experimentation is absolutely unnecessary. The world does not need yet another floor wax. I also think that the government should stop shelling out our tax dollars for animal testing that is not "legitimate". The money should only go to companies who try to eliminate as much animal testing as possible. Too many companies go to the government every year with their hands out for free cash……regardless of what type of "results" their testing gives them. They claim that they are "making progress"….and of course, they need more tax money to continue. So, in my opinion, the free cash should only go to companies who are trying to eliminate most of the animal testing. Just my .02 Sorry for the rant. But animal testing is a rather sore spot for me. De76
Sorry to follow up my own post…….I forgot to answer the question you posted. Personally……I would give the monkeys to the animal people and let them be put some place where they could live out the rest of their lives in peace. De76
><<Because of what I saw tonight on Law and Order (the TV show), I’d like >to throw something out here for your consideration. It has to do with >the subject of bio ethics and the burgeoning field of animal rights >law. Due to the many animal lovers this newsgroup attracts, I’m >especially interested in hearing your opinions. >Well…..my own personal opinion is that I believe that MOST animal >experimentation can and should be halted. With all the computer technology we >have today……a lot of the same results can be achieved without the use of >animals.
There is *no* way at present to test for the long term effects of taking certain drugs without: 1. testing them on *humans* long term 2. testing them, long term, on animals that are genetically similar to humans If you have any credible scientific information to the contrary, I’d be happy to review it. >I DO acknowledge that, UNFORTUNATELY…..a small amount of animal >experimentation will always probably be needed. However…..it should only be >done for LEGITIMATE MEDICAL RESEARCH. And then only when absolutely necessary.
Then you don’t feel that the great potential for saving millions upon millions of *human* lives is sufficient to warrant the animal testing that I described in my very specifically defined hypothetical example? Yes? No? > The world does not need yet another floor wax.
In all due respect, DeForest, the very explicit example I offered here didn’t pertain to developing another brand of floor wax, did it? >I also think that the government should stop shelling out our tax dollars for >animal testing that is not "legitimate".
Who, besides the scientific community specifically, should determine what consititutes "legitimate" testing? What is to be the measure of "legitimacy"? Does not the potential and desire to save the lives of perhaps millions upon millions of our fellow *human* beings constitute "legitimacy"? If not, what does? >Just my .02
I sincerely appreciate your opinion and consider it to be worth considerably more than two cents. It’s invaluable, in fact. >Sorry for the rant. But animal testing is a rather sore spot for me.
It can be for me, too. Especially if it’s done in conjunction with developing a new brand of floor wax, for example. But I didn’t ask you to give me your opinion of animal testing per se. I asked for your opinion regarding *one* extremely narrowly defined example of animal testing. One where perhaps millions upon millions of *human* lives could be saved by performing such testing. And if I don’t hear further from you (yes, I saw your follow up post where you later replied that you would give the monkeys to the animal rights folks over the scientists), I will be forced to assume: That you hold the lives of 150 monkeys in higher regard than you do the lives of millions upon millions of your fellow *human* beings. But if that is not what you meant to convey, please feel free to further clarify your sentiments. Thanks for responding! — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
>So…what’s your verdict? >Who gets the monkeys? >The scientists…or the animal rights people? >And why?
What kinds of monkeys? Depending on the species, and in AIDs research it tends to be Rhesus monkeys, then it depends on the Herpes B status of the monkeys. Beth
>>So…what’s your verdict? >Who gets the monkeys? >The scientists…or the animal rights people? >And why? >What kinds of monkeys?
Beth, for the sake of this argument, we can make them all scientifically suitable Rhesus monkeys or macaques. Or even from the ape family, if you like, i.e., make them chimps. Same questions. Thanks for taking the time to respond! — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
> Well…..my own personal opinion is that I believe that MOST animal > experimentation can and should be halted. With all the computer technology we > have today……a lot of the same results can be achieved without the use of > animals.
Based on your statements, I would assume that you are not actively involved in research. We certainly do have a lot of computer technology today, but I have no idea how you think "a lot of the same results (from animal experimentation) can be achieved without the use of animals". That technology simply does not exist and that is the reason that animal experimentation occurs. In fact bioinformatics is THE field to be in today. Very few people have the skills to combine computers and biology. There is so, so much that we have yet to discover and that is why animals are used. > Not only that but a lot of the animal experimentation is just > repetitious.
Do you have anything to back up your statement or is that based on your own assumptions? > The info and results should be fed into some kind of main > computer bank for all scientists to draw from.
Actually scientific information and results are available to anyone who is interested and has internet or library access. They are called scientific journals. Any research scientist in academia (not necessarily private pharmaceutical companies) works hard to get as many papers published as possible. That is how they gain prestige. Any good researcher should be well acquainted with what is going in other labs involved in their area of interest. For the most part, there is not a lot of secrecy and little redundancy in experimentation. After all, what’s the point in wasting five years researching a particular subject, only to have a competing lab scoop you and publish a month before you? This does happen, but not all that often. Before you jump on me, let me explain that I support only medical and or truly scientific research that is actively working to understand or cure diseases, drugs, etc. I think it is silly to waste animals on crap like testing cosmetics, but I know that animal research is unbelievably beneficial. > I DO acknowledge that, UNFORTUNATELY…..a small amount of animal > experimentation will always probably be needed. However…..it should only be > done for LEGITIMATE MEDICAL RESEARCH. And then only when absolutely necessary.
How do you decide what is legitimate? > I do not believe in testing other products on animals…….junk like new floor > wax, new lipstick or any other type of cosmetics, toilet bowl cleaners etc. I > mean….we have rows and rows of countless different types of floor waxes, > cosmetics, cleaners and stuff already. If you can’t choose one from the > hundreds of items already available on the market…..then you’ve got a > problem. To me…….that sort of animal experimentation is absolutely > unnecessary. The world does not need yet another floor wax.
Absolutely in agreement with you here. > I also think that the government should stop shelling out our tax dollars for > animal testing that is not "legitimate".
How would you qualify legitimate animal testing? > The money should only go to companies > who try to eliminate as much animal testing as possible.
Ok, what about the research that is completely dependent on animal research and they cannot decrease the amount? I do work in a research lab and I can assure you that no animals are wasted and they (or their products) are treated with respect. In fact, most of the research talks I have been to which involve results gained from animals have acknowledgments at the end and the animals are almost given credit for their part. Yes, I realize the animals probably don’t care much, but I just think that shows that most scientists do appreciate the sacrifice the animals have made. > Too many companies go > to the government every year with their hands out for free cash……regardless > of what type of "results" their testing gives them. They claim that they are > "making progress"….and of course, they need more tax money to continue. So, > in my opinion, the free cash should only go to companies who are trying to > eliminate most of the animal testing. > Just my .02 > Sorry for the rant. But animal testing is a rather sore spot for me.
Just my .02 Don’t be sorry, I always appreciate a good discussion. > De76
Jillian & Chiggers Magoo CGC Oh yes, and in answer to the original question, if there is a potential benefit to be gained from the monkeys being used in further research, then I think they should be.
[...] >I always appreciate a good discussion.
[...] Me too. >Oh yes, and in answer to the original question, if there is a potential benefit to >be gained from the monkeys being used in further research, then I think they should >be.
Thanks for your reply, Jillian. And for your explanation, too. Hopefully, others will participate, too. — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
> >>So…what’s your verdict? >>Who gets the monkeys? >>The scientists…or the animal rights people? >>And why?
I am very biased in this type of discussion, so maybe I don’t have a place in answering this. I work in a Children’s hospital and everyday see kids respond to treatments that, in the research stage, were first used on animals. I can’t seem to argue animal rights in medical research when I see a kid go into remission from leukemia or beat some other nightmare illness. The car wax and cosmentic industries can go stuff it – my face and my car won’t look any better for testing these kinds of things on animals. But for the medical stuff, well just ask someone who’s learned that their kid will live. Don’t mean to up the ante by pulling on the heart strings, but that > http://www.i1.net/~dogman > "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire > sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!"
Nancy Holmes
>Approximately 150 monkeys are, in the name of AIDS research, >"infected" with the virus that is said to cause AIDS, i.e., HIV. These [...] >they are then scheduled to be disposed of, humanely, of course. >Another group of researchers intervenes and asks that the monkeys be >turned over to them instead. They want to test the effects of certain >so-called antiretroviral drugs on these monkeys; yes, the very drugs >that are currently being given to humans with AIDS. Drugs that have >only been tested on *humans* up to this point.
[...] >So…what’s your verdict? >Who gets the monkeys? >The scientists…or the animal rights people?
The scientists, assuming that they’re responsible and their proposals are appropriately rigorous. >And why?
Nothing’s to be gained by turning them over to the AR activists. While the alternate course might seem weird or unnecessary to some people, I don’t think anyone can credibly argue that there’s no possibility that something might come of it. — Mark Shaw (and Maggie) anti-spam: change ‘bang’ to ‘not’ "Ever consider what they must think of us? I mean, here we come back from a grocery store with the most amazing haul — chicken, pork, half a cow. They must think we’re the greatest hunters on earth!" -Anne Tyler
>I have a hard time with using chimps in any sort of research because I >think it is absolutely impossible to keep them humanely in a laboratory >situation (this goes for other sorts of captive animals as well, >especially cetaceans). The logic behind the use or keeping of chimps in >captivity is very deficient to me as it relies on a less than 1% genetic >difference between chimps and humans.
And an extremely important similarity, it is. >Chimpanzees are by most measures >considered sentient beings (have a sense of self) who are capable of >learning sign language and achieving scores on cognitive tests similar to >those of five-year-old human children. They suffer in a humanlike manner >in laboratory conditions. The argument could be made that "humanness" is >not necessarily a valid criteria for deciding which animals are "usable" >and which are not, either. But it is obviously not OK to do medical >experiments on five-year-old children.
But in the example I gave you to work with, which is a very real one, Melanie, that’s exactly what you’re recommending we do. Perform medical experiments on 5 year old children. >I don’t think it’s OK to do >experiments on beings who are mentally comparable to five-year-old >children either.
[...] Again, that’s precisely what you would be doing in my hypothetical example. Performing medical experiments on five-year-old children. And one ten-year-olds, twenty-year-olds, thirty-year-olds, etc. If that’s not the impression you intended to convey, please feel free to clarify your sentiments. — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
>> >>So…what’s your verdict? > >>Who gets the monkeys? > >>The scientists…or the animal rights people? > >>And why? >I am very biased in this type of discussion, so maybe I don’t have a place >in answering this.
We all have our biases, Kathy. >I work in a Children’s hospital and everyday see kids >respond to treatments that, in the research stage, were first used on >animals. I can’t seem to argue animal rights in medical research when I see >a kid go into remission from leukemia or beat some other nightmare illness.
It appears then, that you hold the lives of human children, at least, in higher regard than you hold the lives of monkeys. But do you also hold the lives of *adult* humans in higher regard than you hold the lives of monkeys or chimps? Or not? >The car wax and cosmentic industries can go stuff it – my face and my car >won’t look any better for testing these kinds of things on animals. But for >the medical stuff, well just ask someone who’s learned that their kid will >live. Don’t mean to up the ante by pulling on the heart strings, but that
Thanks very much for your reply, Kathy. And for your explanation, too! — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
[...] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Approximately 150 monkeys are, in the name of AIDS research, >"infected" with the virus that is said to cause AIDS, i.e., HIV. These >[...] >they are then scheduled to be disposed of, humanely, of course. >Another group of researchers intervenes and asks that the monkeys be >turned over to them instead. They want to test the effects of certain >so-called antiretroviral drugs on these monkeys; yes, the very drugs >that are currently being given to humans with AIDS. Drugs that have >only been tested on *humans* up to this point. >[...] >So…what’s your verdict? >Who gets the monkeys? >The scientists…or the animal rights people? >The scientists, assuming that they’re responsible and their proposals >are appropriately rigorous.
Yes, that is the correct assumption. >And why? >Nothing’s to be gained by turning them over to the AR activists.
The monkeys (and AR activists) might argue with you about that, eh? >While the alternate course might seem weird or unnecessary to some >people,
Would you please elaborate a bit? *Why* do you think some people might see the alternate course as being "weird" or "unnecessary?" >I don’t think anyone can credibly argue that there’s no >possibility that something might come of it.
The hypothetical implication here is that many researchers are convinced that something might come of it, indeed. E.g., the knowledge that these drugs are, in effect, AIDS by prescription. Thanks again for your reply, and for your explanation, too! — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
I have to agree with Mark on this. Since these monkeys are SIV positive they wouldn’t be used in a breeding colony. Perhaps there would be some good from them continueing to be used in research. Also, I’ve noticed that the AR people that I’ve met are actually pretty clueless on how to properly take care of pets, the thought of them taking on the responsibility of monkeys is scary. Beth
Jane Goodall, who may be the world’s greatest authority on chimps, writes this about the use of our closest relative in research: http://www.janegoodall.org/jane/jane_thought_non.html Emily (not ~Emily)
>I have to agree with Mark on this. Since these monkeys are SIV positive they >wouldn’t be used in a breeding colony.
I didn’t say they were *S*IV positive. I said they had been "infected" with *H*IV and had been used in AIDS vaccine research. For the sake of this hypothetical example, breeding considerations should be ignored. >Perhaps there would be some good from >them continueing to be used in research.
Is that still your decision? >Also, I’ve noticed that the AR people that I’ve met are actually pretty >clueless on how to properly take care of pets, the thought of them taking on >the responsibility of monkeys is scary.
Scientists could probably learn a thing or two about that, too. — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
>Jane Goodall, who may be the world’s greatest authority on chimps, >writes this about the use of our closest relative in research: >http://www.janegoodall.org/jane/jane_thought_non.html
I have a lot of respect for Jane Goodall. And unless I read that article incorrectly, she would give the monkeys to the scientists, albeit reluctantly. Please feel free to correct me if you think I’m wrong about that. She also said the following, regarding animal research: "The day will eventually come when it will no longer be necessary to use animals at all. It must." I don’t agree with her about that. I think it will be with us for at least the foreseeable future. I hope I’m wrong, of course. Emily, how ’bout giving me your own decision? Who gets the monkeys? The scientists? Or the animal rights folks? — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
> But do you also hold the lives of *adult* humans in higher regard than > you hold the lives of monkeys or chimps?
Yup, worked with the big folks too. Before they came out with plastic heart valves, they used pigs’ heart valves to replace the failing human ones. Saved a lot of lives back in the 70s that way. Took major heat from the AR people too. Might have been a bit of impetus to research the mechanical ones and perfect them. Your scenario is also interesting from that standpoint of the debate as to what actually causes AIDS and is exposure to HIV really what causes it. Hot > Dogman > http://www.i1.net/~dogman > "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire > sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!"
Nancy Holmes
[...] >Your scenario is also interesting from that standpoint of the debate as to >what actually causes AIDS and is exposure to HIV really what causes it. Hot >topic in the medical world.
It is, among those scientists who still have open minds. At one time in my life I didn’t think there were any other kind. Today, I know better. :>( — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
>>>Who gets the monkeys? >>The scientists…or the animal rights people? >The scientists, assuming that they’re responsible and their proposals >are appropriately rigorous.
[...] >While the alternate course might seem weird or unnecessary to some >people, >Would you please elaborate a bit? >*Why* do you think some people might see the alternate course as being >"weird" or "unnecessary?"
Because the idea that AZT and other such drugs have a role in actually *causing* AIDS is seen as junk science by most folks. Me, I have no opinion on this matter. Nobody I know has AIDS, except the hemophiliac kid across the alley, and since neither I nor anyone else I know are particularly at risk for contracting HIV I don’t tend to worry about it all that much. What I *do* pay attention to is research into the causes of and treatments for Multiple Sclerosis. But as long as the intended research is sufficiently rigorous, I’d certainly go ahead with it. Even if no conclusions about the basic question are drawn one way or the other, peripheral results are always possible. — Mark Shaw (and Maggie) anti-spam: change ‘bang’ to ‘not’ "A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself." -Josh Billings
[...] >>While the alternate course might seem weird or unnecessary to some >>people, >Would you please elaborate a bit? >*Why* do you think some people might see the alternate course as being >"weird" or "unnecessary?" >Because the idea that AZT and other such drugs have a role in >actually *causing* AIDS is seen as junk science by most folks.
"Most folks" once were *wrong* about the causes of pellagra, scurvy, beriberi, swine flu, SMON (Subacute Myelo-Optico-Neuropathy), and about hundreds of other diseases, too. In fact, if you go back and look at the histories of most diseases, who’ll see that "most folks" were at one time or another wrong about them. Why? Because of junk science. AIDS = junk science. AZT = AIDS by prescription. It’s my guess that you’ve probably never heard of SMON before. And there’s a very good reason for that, too. Here’s the story: <http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/besmon.htm> Most folks, after learning about SMON, usually ask themselves why they’ve never heard of it before. I trust that you’ll figure that one out for yourself. Would you like to try an experiment with me? If so, please read these articles (yes, all of them) and then let me know if you still think this would be "junk science": <http://www.polder.net/aids/index/azt.htm> Keep in your mind the fact that this drug was developed in the early 60s to fight leukemia, a cancer of "white blood" cells, and that it was shelved at the time because it was much too toxic, i.e., it killed too many "good" cells before it killed enough of the "bad" ones. Try to find any difference between the known side effects of a drug like AZT and the symptoms of AIDS. >Me, I have no opinion on this matter.
But you do. And it’s already been formed by the things you’ve read and heard from the mainstream media. It’s virtually impossible to not have an opinion, one way or the other, on AIDS. >Nobody I know has AIDS, >except the hemophiliac kid across the alley,
That’s because AIDS currently accounts for roughly the same number of deaths per year as, say, thyroid cancer. Do you know anyone who died from thyroid cancer? >and since neither I >nor anyone else I know are particularly at risk for contracting >HIV I don’t tend to worry about it all that much.
Then you haven’t been paying attention to the mainstream media, either, because they insist that *everyone* is at risk, which is total and absolute hogwash. Maybe it was just your own good *common sense* that told you that *you* weren’t at risk? >What I *do* >pay attention to is research into the causes of and treatments >for Multiple Sclerosis.
Are you aware that some scientists have been trying to blame even MS on yet another virus? <http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/current/ffull/jmn0117-1.html> These virus hunters of ours never sleep. No virus ever goes to waste. >But as long as the intended research is sufficiently rigorous, >I’d certainly go ahead with it. Even if no conclusions about >the basic question are drawn one way or the other, peripheral >results are always possible.
Do you not at least consider it a bit strange that these long-term animal tests have never, ever been done? This is a drug that we’re giving to pregnant mothers, babies, etc., among hundreds of thousands of other fellow human beings. And this is a drug that they now want to give to millions upon millions of our fellow human beings. Anyway, thanks for replying! I guess it can be said that you come down in favor of the scientists getting the monkeys. But I do hope you’ll take that experiment of mine and then give me your opinion of AZT, either publicly or privately. — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
>I didn’t say they were *S*IV positive. >I said they had been "infected" with *H*IV and had been used in AIDS
Ok, My mistake on that one. >Perhaps there would be some good from >them continueing to be used in research. >Is that still your decision?
Yes >Scientists could probably learn a thing or two about that, too.
That is why there is a commitee, initials are IUACAC, I think, that has at least one lay person and one veterinarian on it to make sure that the research protocols and animal management and care is within guidelines. Beth
[...] >Scientists could probably learn a thing or two about that, too. >That is why there is a commitee, initials are IUACAC, I think,
Beth, I think you’re referring to the IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee). Yes, if anyone’s interested, they can find much more about it here: <http://www.iacuc.org/> It’s one of the best, if not the best, online resource available pertaining to this topic, including an absolutely wonderful and searchable database. — Dogman http://www.i1.net/~dogman "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!" Nancy Holmes
> <http://www.polder.net/aids/index/azt.htm> > Keep in your mind the fact that this drug was developed in the early > 60s to fight leukemia, a cancer of "white blood" cells, and that it > was shelved at the time because it was much too toxic, i.e., it killed > too many "good" cells before it killed enough of the "bad" ones.
AZT, or an earlier percursor of the chemical, was in the experimental stage in the late 50s. It was only used in humans in cases where it was considered a last ditch effort to try to put leukemia into remission. There were only 2 centers in the US that would offer this treatment. My sister was one of the patients who recieved it in when my parents flew her to a well known children’s hospital hoping for a miracle. They didn’t get one and I guess the side effects were pretty horrid and the experience a nightmare. When they came out with AZT to treat AIDS, I remember my mother saying that the FDA was going to kill more people with AZT than would die of AIDS itself. Ma and formal education parted ways after grade 8 but I guess common sense and the ability to see through a scam doesn’t always rely on the > "I really dislike – thats (sic) too harsh but the best I can state it – the entire > sporting group and cannot imagine being forced to live with one – not my types at all!"
Nancy Holmes
>>>*Why* do you think some people might see the alternate course as being >>"weird" or "unnecessary?" >Because the idea that AZT and other such drugs have a role in >actually *causing* AIDS is seen as junk science by most folks. >"Most folks" once were *wrong* about the causes of pellagra, scurvy, >beriberi, swine flu, SMON (Subacute Myelo-Optico-Neuropathy), and >about hundreds of other diseases, too. In fact, if you go back and >look at the histories of most diseases, who’ll see that "most folks" >were at one time or another wrong about them.
I think you may have misunderstood me here. I’m merely acknowledging the fact that the HIV != AIDS position is controversial — I’m not signing on to an opinion on it one way or the other, and I’m certainly not saying that that position is "junk science." (Creationism, human-caused global warming, and the hysteria against bio-engineering and food irradiation are examples of what I consider to be junk science. But that’s another thread in another newsgroup.) Like I said, I don’t *care* about AIDS. Nobody I care about has it or is likely to get it, and I’ve never believed in the "epidemic- breakout" scare stories promulgated by the major media. So if it’s caused by HIV, fine. If it’s caused by AZT, that’s fine too. If it’s caused by Secret North Korean Hoodoo Rays, that’s fine with me as well. I’ll bookmark your SMON link for future reference — and if I ever stop working six and a half days a week long enough to catch up with this kind of stuff, I’ll check it out. >Are you aware that some scientists have been trying to blame even MS >on yet another virus?
Yes — the currently accepted theory is that it’s viral in origin. Beyond that, they don’t really know what causes it. But there are some pretty good new treatments for it, involving interferons. ><http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/current/ffull/jmn0117-1.html>
Thanks — I *will* check that link out. — Mark Shaw (and Maggie) anti-spam: change ‘bang’ to ‘not’ "You enter into a certain amount of madness when you marry a person with pets." -Nora Ephron
The media is now tripping on an alleged energy shortage across the USA. Even though my power hasn’t been affected, they are trying to claim that rolling blackouts will soon begin in California. I saw that idiot, Bill Richardson, on CNN and he actually compared our energy grid to that of a third-world country! First he lets the Chinese steal all our nuclear secrets, now he dares to compare us to places like Rwanda! If there really is a potential energy shortage looming, why don’t we simply use the age-old system of supply and demand? If there is a shortage of electricity, simply raise the price slightly. I use far more electricity than I really need just like water. If I had to pay 10% more for them I would be more careful with my use. If it got too expensive I could buy a generator or build a windmill, and so could all these big businesses that depend on electricity for industrial production. Another option is nuclear power. Everyone talks about hating it so much, but they wouldn’t mind paying half as much for electricity! Are there any plans for a new generation of safer nuclear power plants in the works? Get out a geiger counter and you will see that we haven’t been contaminated by the current nuclear plants, regardless of what the zealous anti-nuke activists try to claim. Until fusion is perfected, we have few alternatives except to continue burning the fossil-fuels that allegedly are causing the greenhouse effect. This is a very complicated and political subject that our politicians refuse to talk about. We need to make serious choices right now about how to continue our economic/technological growth without destroying the planet. Diablo (Is Bill Richardson’s hair a toupee?)
Well just build some nuke plants, they work and are safer then Wind farms The New geneartion of nuke plants (ABWR, System 80+ and AP600) will be even safer then the current ones, there are already ABWRs in Japan and they have performed better then expected. Well maybe the anti-nukers can buy power from a company that only builds coal plants (greenpeace hate the environment) while those that only care about low cost power can buy from companies that use nukes. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > The media is now tripping on an alleged energy shortage across the USA. > Even though my power hasn’t been affected, they are trying to claim that > rolling blackouts will soon begin in California. > I saw that idiot, Bill Richardson, on CNN and he actually compared our > energy grid to that of a third-world country! First he lets the Chinese > steal all our nuclear secrets, now he dares to compare us to places > like Rwanda! > If there really is a potential energy shortage looming, why don’t we > simply use the age-old system of supply and demand? If there is a shortage > of electricity, simply raise the price slightly. I use far more electricity > than I really need just like water. If I had to pay 10% more for them I > would be more careful with my use. If it got too expensive I could buy a > generator or build a windmill, and so could all these big businesses that > depend on electricity for industrial production. > Another option is nuclear power. Everyone talks about hating it so much, > but they wouldn’t mind paying half as much for electricity! Are there any > plans for a new generation of safer nuclear power plants in the works? > Get out a geiger counter and you will see that we haven’t been contaminated > by the current nuclear plants, regardless of what the zealous anti-nuke > activists try to claim. > Until fusion is perfected, we have few alternatives except to continue > burning the fossil-fuels that allegedly are causing the greenhouse effect. > This is a very complicated and political subject that our politicians refuse > to talk about. We need to make serious choices right now about how to > continue our economic/technological growth without destroying the planet. > Diablo > (Is Bill Richardson’s hair a toupee?)
>The media is now tripping on an alleged energy shortage across the USA. >Even though my power hasn’t been affected, they are trying to claim that >rolling blackouts will soon begin in California. >I saw that idiot, Bill Richardson, on CNN and he actually compared our >energy grid to that of a third-world country! First he lets the Chinese >steal all our nuclear secrets, now he dares to compare us to places >like Rwanda!
The problem with that argument is that Richardson is right, regardless of what you think of him. Just because we’re Americans doesn’t mean we have a modern power grid. We don’t, and the fact is rolling blackouts like the one’s we’re seeing are a fact of life in many of the third-world nations that actually *have* a power grid (such as India and China). Why are they occuring here? One part of the reason is that our grid is older than dirt — often the equipment is upgraded only when the old equipment dies. Changes are made in a remedial, rather than preventative, manner. Even though the grid’s load has increased over the years, its capacity has not necessarily. This was part of the problem in Chicago last summer, Detroit earlier this summer, and if southern California has any trouble this year it likely will contribute there as well. Another big part of the problem is that few power generation plants of ANY kind have been built over the past 20 years. In 1980 most areas of the country had plenty of excess capacity that could kick in during the hot summer months. Demand for electricity in the US has risen fairly slowly over the past twenty years, but it has been enough to outpace the addition of new generation capacity. Why so few new power plants? Partly because of the capital costs. Partly because of the years of red tape a company must go through just to start construction. Partly because of regulatory issues and uncertainties (particularly for nuclear plants). And partly because the rate of electricity consumption in the US is growing slowly — nobody wants to spend a lot of money on a big new plant, then hardly use it. It doesn’t make economic sense, not to the ratepayers and not to the stockholders. That’s why many power companies will send an inspector to your home for free to help you improve energy efficiency; it’s cheaper for them to give you some free advice, caulk, and insulation than it is to build a new power plant that will be used only at low capacity. Some companies have added gas turbines to their systems because they’re cheap and they’re small (they can even be placed near the load to reduce stress on the grid), but with the recent upturn in natural gas prices I wonder how long that will last. >If there really is a potential energy shortage looming, why don’t we >simply use the age-old system of supply and demand? If there is a shortage >of electricity, simply raise the price slightly.
It’s already happening. Has been for years. Businesses pay different rates for their electricity depending upon how loaded the transmission system is. In my neck of the woods peak prices recently hit $0.52/kWh (compared to about $0.09/kWh for residential service), though I understand that in some parts of the country they have passed the $1.00/kWh mark this year. Residences pay the same rate 24 hours a day because peak residential usage does not usually coincide with overall peak usage. The peaks come during the day, when everybody is at work. Raising residential rates would probably do little to prevent the grid from failing (and in most states electricity producers are still regulated, so they can’t just raise the rates whenever they feel like it). >I use far more electricity >than I really need just like water. If I had to pay 10% more for them I >would be more careful with my use. If it got too expensive I could buy a >generator or build a windmill, and so could all these big businesses that >depend on electricity for industrial production.
Some of them are — when peak electricity rates are as high as they have been this year, alternatives like wind and solar for peak-shaving purposes can actually make economic sense.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The media is now tripping on an alleged energy shortage across the USA. >Even though my power hasn’t been affected, they are trying to claim that >rolling blackouts will soon begin in California. >I saw that idiot, Bill Richardson, on CNN and he actually compared our >energy grid to that of a third-world country! First he lets the Chinese >steal all our nuclear secrets, now he dares to compare us to places >like Rwanda! >The problem with that argument is that Richardson is right, regardless >of what you think of him. Just because we’re Americans doesn’t mean we >have a modern power grid. We don’t, and the fact is rolling blackouts >like the one’s we’re seeing are a fact of life in many of the >third-world nations that actually *have* a power grid (such as India >and China).
From Lycos news, Scorching California Threatened with Rotating Blackouts "SACRAMENTO, California, August 4, 2000 (ENS) – California power system officials issued a Stage One electrical emergency between the hours of 2 and 8 pm today, due to the mechanical failure of two Southern California generating units. An intense and lengthy heat wave hitting the entire western United States is shrinking power reserves at the time when electricity is in great demand. " >Some of them are — when peak electricity rates are as high as they >have been this year, alternatives like wind and solar for peak-shaving >purposes can actually make economic sense.
A recent report by the DOE, "Making Connections: Case studies of Barriers to Interconnection of Distributed Power", Deals with the hassles involved with trying to grid connect alternatives. From Windpower Monthly, July 2000, " The DOE examined 65 disgen projects, of which 15 are wind or wind hybrids. Only seven reported that they did not come up against major utility related barriers." "Richardson has frequently warned about power outages. The $230 billion power sectors need to be repaired, and only deregulation legislation will attract the investments for a new generation of power plants, he says." " ‘ If congress fails to act and act soon on restructuring legislation, it will strangle the development of competitive electricity markets.’ " Windpower, over 14,300 Mw sold. Assuming a 20% Capacity factor, that’s over 30,670 1980 F-100 equivalents !! Regards , Tim O’Flaherty
It’s just another reason why we need significant changes at the very top in Washington (including Energy Secretary).
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The media is now tripping on an alleged energy shortage across the USA. >Even though my power hasn’t been affected, they are trying to claim that >rolling blackouts will soon begin in California. >I saw that idiot, Bill Richardson, on CNN and he actually compared our >energy grid to that of a third-world country! First he lets the Chinese >steal all our nuclear secrets, now he dares to compare us to places >like Rwanda! > The problem with that argument is that Richardson is right, regardless > of what you think of him. Just because we’re Americans doesn’t mean we > have a modern power grid. We don’t, and the fact is rolling blackouts > like the one’s we’re seeing are a fact of life in many of the > third-world nations that actually *have* a power grid (such as India > and China). > Why are they occuring here? One part of the reason is that our grid is > older than dirt — often the equipment is upgraded only when the old > equipment dies. Changes are made in a remedial, rather than > preventative, manner. Even though the grid’s load has increased over > the years, its capacity has not necessarily. This was part of the > problem in Chicago last summer, Detroit earlier this summer, and if > southern California has any trouble this year it likely will > contribute there as well. > Another big part of the problem is that few power generation plants of > ANY kind have been built over the past 20 years. In 1980 most areas of > the country had plenty of excess capacity that could kick in during > the hot summer months. Demand for electricity in the US has risen > fairly slowly over the past twenty years, but it has been enough to > outpace the addition of new generation capacity. > Why so few new power plants? Partly because of the capital costs. > Partly because of the years of red tape a company must go through just > to start construction. Partly because of regulatory issues and > uncertainties (particularly for nuclear plants). And partly because > the rate of electricity consumption in the US is growing slowly — > nobody wants to spend a lot of money on a big new plant, then hardly > use it. It doesn’t make economic sense, not to the ratepayers and not > to the stockholders. > That’s why many power companies will send an inspector to your home > for free to help you improve energy efficiency; it’s cheaper for them > to give you some free advice, caulk, and insulation than it is to > build a new power plant that will be used only at low capacity. > Some companies have added gas turbines to their systems because > they’re cheap and they’re small (they can even be placed near the load > to reduce stress on the grid), but with the recent upturn in natural > gas prices I wonder how long that will last. >If there really is a potential energy shortage looming, why don’t we >simply use the age-old system of supply and demand? If there is a shortage >of electricity, simply raise the price slightly. > It’s already happening. Has been for years. Businesses pay different > rates for their electricity depending upon how loaded the transmission > system is. In my neck of the woods peak prices recently hit $0.52/kWh > (compared to about $0.09/kWh for residential service), though I > understand that in some parts of the country they have passed the > $1.00/kWh mark this year. > Residences pay the same rate 24 hours a day because peak residential > usage does not usually coincide with overall peak usage. The peaks > come during the day, when everybody is at work. Raising residential > rates would probably do little to prevent the grid from failing (and > in most states electricity producers are still regulated, so they > can’t just raise the rates whenever they feel like it). >I use far more electricity >than I really need just like water. If I had to pay 10% more for them I >would be more careful with my use. If it got too expensive I could buy a >generator or build a windmill, and so could all these big businesses that >depend on electricity for industrial production. > Some of them are — when peak electricity rates are as high as they > have been this year, alternatives like wind and solar for peak-shaving > purposes can actually make economic sense.
> "Richardson has frequently warned about power outages. The $230 billion > power sectors need to be repaired, and only deregulation legislation will > attract the investments for a new generation of power plants, he says." " > ‘ If congress fails to act and act soon on restructuring legislation, it > will strangle the development of competitive electricity markets.’ "
Uh… didn’t California’s utilities build very little new generating capacity in the last 10-15 years largely _because_ they were waiting for deregulation, which has now arrived? Oops. — Dan Birchall – Palolo Valley, Honolulu HI – http://dan.scream.org Post your reviews; get paid: http://epinions.scream.org/join.html My address expires – take out the hex stamp if your reply bounces
>Well just build some nuke plants, they work and are safer then Wind farms
"This is obviously a new meaning of safe that I am unfamiliar with" First said as our hero was assured of being perfectly safe prior to being ejected into the heinous frigid vacuum of inter stellar space –georges
> "This is obviously a new meaning of safe that I am unfamiliar with" > First said as our hero was assured of being perfectly safe prior > to being ejected into the heinous frigid vacuum of inter stellar space > –georges
You make an interesting point, but Ryan made a valid point. I suspect that if adopted on a large scale, wind farms will kill many many people from industrial accidents. I don’t know the accident rate from data now, but it only stands to reason, as "working aloft" is by its nature a "dangerous" occupation. Kind of like "coal mining". You hear on the telly or see in the paper that "31 people died in a coal mine". What do you think? Most likely, you think, "well of course, they worked in a dangerous occupation". 31 emergency responders died from the work responding to Chernobyl. There is elevated thyroid cancers, something like 1800 cases since 1986, but not observable increase in other types of cancer (from the United Nations Report, UNSCEAR). Chernobyl is the "banner" that the anti crowd waves against nuclear. Count the dead bodies, then decide what energy source you dewey
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "This is obviously a new meaning of safe that I am unfamiliar with" > First said as our hero was assured of being perfectly safe prior > to being ejected into the heinous frigid vacuum of inter stellar space > –georges >You make an interesting point, but Ryan made a valid point. I suspect that >if adopted on a large scale, wind farms will kill many many people from >industrial accidents. I don’t know the accident rate from data now, but it >only stands to reason, as "working aloft" is by its nature a "dangerous" >occupation. Kind of like "coal mining". You hear on the telly or see in >the paper that "31 people died in a coal mine". What do you think? Most >likely, you think, "well of course, they worked in a dangerous occupation". >31 emergency responders died from the work responding to Chernobyl. There >is elevated thyroid cancers, something like 1800 cases since 1986, but not >observable increase in other types of cancer (from the United Nations >Report, UNSCEAR). >Chernobyl is the "banner" that the anti crowd waves against nuclear. >Count the dead bodies, then decide what energy source you
If you fall from an 80 meter height you die today. Thw World Health Organization estimates 50 thousand from the worst affected areas will contract thyroid cancer as a result of Chernobyl, not today or tomorrow but eventually. If you could make a tiny picture of that you could put it in a dictionary at the word "insidious". Windpower, over 14,300 Mw sold. Assuming a 20% Capacity factor, that’s over 30,670 1980 F-100 equivalents !! Regards , Tim O’Flaherty
> If you fall from an 80 meter height you die today. Thw World Health > Organization estimates 50 thousand from the worst affected areas will > contract thyroid cancer as a result of Chernobyl, not today or tomorrow but > eventually. If you could make a tiny picture of that you could put it in a > dictionary at the word "insidious".
Who to believe. WHO to believe. I don’t. dewey
I don’t want to get caught-up in the pro-nuke/anti-nuke debate; it tends to devolve into statements of religious belief. However, the environmental and public-health implications of different energy sources is interesting. I wonder, for example: On a per-kWh power-plant basis, how do the occupational accident rates of uranium, coal, oil and gas mining compare? On a per-kWh basis, how much concrete is consumed by each technology (including wind, etc.)? (Even if wind produces no direct CO2, concrete kilns are fired by fossil fuels). I have heard of at least one life-cycle study that identifies natural gas as having the lowest total environmental impact. Nuclear also faired well, but the renewables (including wind) came off more poorly that I would have expected. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I don’t want to get caught-up in the pro-nuke/anti-nuke debate; it tends to >devolve into statements of religious belief. However, the environmental and >public-health implications of different energy sources is interesting. I >wonder, for example: >On a per-kWh power-plant basis, how do the occupational accident rates of >uranium, coal, oil and gas mining compare? >On a per-kWh basis, how much concrete is consumed by each technology >(including wind, etc.)? (Even if wind produces no direct CO2, concrete >kilns are fired by fossil fuels). >I have heard of at least one life-cycle study that identifies natural gas as >having the lowest total environmental impact. Nuclear also faired well, but >the renewables (including wind) came off more poorly that I would have >expected.
Who did the study? The pot is always calling the kettle black. References?
that figure of 50 000 is complete bullshit, the highest guesstimate that is based on a real science is only a few thousand, and that is with LNT which is most likely bullshit, there is probably a threshold level below which radiation wont do any harm. Do you know how damn low the background radiation in those areas is compared with some *natural* areas on earth or the radiation level in an aircraft? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> "This is obviously a new meaning of safe that I am unfamiliar with" >> First said as our hero was assured of being perfectly safe prior >> to being ejected into the heinous frigid vacuum of inter stellar space >> –georges >You make an interesting point, but Ryan made a valid point. I suspect that >if adopted on a large scale, wind farms will kill many many people from >industrial accidents. I don’t know the accident rate from data now, but it >only stands to reason, as "working aloft" is by its nature a "dangerous" >occupation. Kind of like "coal mining". You hear on the telly or see in >the paper that "31 people died in a coal mine". What do you think? Most >likely, you think, "well of course, they worked in a dangerous occupation". >31 emergency responders died from the work responding to Chernobyl. There >is elevated thyroid cancers, something like 1800 cases since 1986, but not >observable increase in other types of cancer (from the United Nations >Report, UNSCEAR). >Chernobyl is the "banner" that the anti crowd waves against nuclear. >Count the dead bodies, then decide what energy source you > If you fall from an 80 meter height you die today. Thw World Health > Organization estimates 50 thousand from the worst affected areas will > contract thyroid cancer as a result of Chernobyl, not today or tomorrow but > eventually. If you could make a tiny picture of that you could put it in a > dictionary at the word "insidious". > Windpower, over 14,300 Mw sold. > Assuming a 20% Capacity factor, > that’s over 30,670 1980 F-100 equivalents !! > Regards , Tim O’Flaherty
Natural gas fairing well is not likely as it produces a full two thirds of the CO2 that coal does, although it is cleaner then Coal and Oil, and possibly (likely) even cleaner then solar and wind. The renewables (except nuclear) would likely come off almost as bad as coal considering the wind patterns being changed by wind farms (just think, its like 1000 fans blowing across the land) and the albedo of the earth going up by solar (painting half the earth black can’t cool it down).
>that figure of 50 000 is complete bullshit, the highest guesstimate that is >based on a real science is only a few thousand
Thanks Doctor Healey That puts my mind at rest. I need to schedule an appoinmenty for my checkup. ;^)
>The renewables (except nuclear) would likely come off almost as bad as coal >considering the wind patterns being changed by wind farms (just think, its like >1000 fans blowing across the land) and the albedo of the earth going up by solar >(painting half the earth black can’t cool it down).
So do we blame roads and roofing tiles for global warming? What if the solar panels are put on a dark rooftop? And where do you get the "half the earth" figure? At current PV panel efficiencies, solar would have to provide 100+ times the amount of the entire earth’s current electricity consumption to cover that much of the planet. As for your statement about wind farms, I’ve never seen any credible evidence that they have a significant effect on wind patterns, global or local. "…its like 1000 fans blowing across the land" — so what? There are millions of ship’s propellers in the ocean, and as far as I know they haven’t been blamed for warming, cooling, changing ecosystems, or diverting currents in any of the oceans. That’s not conclusive evidence of the effects of wind farms, to be sure, but it’s lot more convincing than saying "just think…" and using our imaginations.
>I have heard of at least one life-cycle study that identifies natural gas as >having the lowest total environmental impact. Nuclear also faired well, but >the renewables (including wind) came off more poorly that I would have >expected.
Those studies are tricky and have to be read carefully. It’s easy to construct a scenario in which the technologies you like fare well and those you dislike do poorly. For example, I suspect the study you read used a central station PV power plant when it came to solar and assumed it would use lots of concrete and aluminum. It might also have assumed that the silicon for the solar cells was made the same way as for the IC industry. However, if you consider a distributed generation system incorporating dual use property as much as possible (e.g., rooftop or poletop mounted systems) you eliminate nearly all of the concrete usage and much of the aluminum usage (and their attendant effects). The side effects of silicon production, on the whole, are also less for real solar cells than for the IC industry. The next generation of solar cells will put even fewer resources into silicon production. I’m not saying that solar will rise to the top of the list of you consider the second scenario. I’m just providing an example to show how difficult a good LCA really is. I suggest you read several before trying to draw any conclusions.
> Thanks Doctor Healey That puts my mind at rest. I need to schedule an > appoinmenty for my checkup. ;^)
I repeat. The UNSCEAR Report identified elevated thyroid cancers, approximately 1800 cases. No other observable increases. Since it’s been about fourteen years since Chernoybl, just maybe the "stigma" will begin to decline. How many people have died in the coal industry since 1986. How many people have died due to industrial accidents at the utilities supplying power since 1986? Your sarcasm is not warranted, and it shows that you have a predisposed opinion. In other words "Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up". regards dewey
>> Thanks Doctor Healey That puts my mind at rest. I need to schedule an > appoinmenty for my checkup. ;^) >I repeat. The UNSCEAR Report identified elevated thyroid cancers, >approximately 1800 cases. No other observable increases. Since it’s been >about fourteen years since Chernoybl, just maybe the "stigma" will begin to >decline. >How many people have died in the coal industry since 1986. How many people >have died due to industrial accidents at the utilities supplying power since >1986? >Your sarcasm is not warranted, and it shows that you have a predisposed >opinion. In other words "Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up".
If I am going to take the opinion ofeither the World Health Organization OR Ryan Healey on thyroid cancer and Chernobyl, I’ll go with the WHO. Speaking of minds made up, "I suspect that if adopted on a large scale, wind farms will kill many many people from industrial accidents." But that’s OK, we won’t bother you with facts, stay in your nuke dream world. Windpower, over 14,300 Mw sold. Assuming a 20% Capacity factor, that’s over 30,670 1980 F-100 equivalents !! Regards , Tim O’Flaherty
The WHO resulsts are a maximum of about 4000, which compared with the deaths from Coal or Natural Gas is quite small. I’ve even heard people say that 17 Million (yes million) people would die from chernobyl, I get the feeling that even you would consider that figure bullshit. UNSCEAR’s 1800 cases were almost all non lethal, in fact the cancer rate around Chernobyl is rising at the same rate after the accident as it was before the accident. As for the headaches and other aliments that have been reported in the area, those in contaminated areas have about the same incidence as those in uncontaminated areas. On average in the US you are over ten times safer if you work in a nuclear plant then if you worked in an average factory.
Distribution: : So do we blame roads and roofing tiles for global warming? What if the : solar panels are put on a dark rooftop? Dark roofs are at least responsible for local warming. Hot cities can be cooled effectively by shading with trees, light colored roofs and using concrete for roads.
I agree with the road material , here in Louisana we have discovered that blacktop has a LIQUID state. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Distribution: > : So do we blame roads and roofing tiles for global warming? What if the > : solar panels are put on a dark rooftop? > Dark roofs are at least responsible for local warming. Hot cities can be > cooled effectively by shading with trees, light colored roofs and using > concrete for roads.
>Distribution: >: So do we blame roads and roofing tiles for global warming? What if the >: solar panels are put on a dark rooftop? >Dark roofs are at least responsible for local warming. Hot cities can be >cooled effectively by shading with trees, light colored roofs and using >concrete for roads.
Sure, urban heat islands have been known for a long time. Dark roofs are not solely responsible for them, though — not by a longshot — and the original poster’s argument hardly supports his conclusion that PV must be "almost as bad as coal."
> If I am going to take the opinion ofeither the World Health Organization OR > Ryan Healey on thyroid cancer and Chernobyl, I’ll go with the WHO. > Speaking of minds made up, > "I suspect that > if adopted on a large scale, wind farms will kill many many people from > industrial accidents." > But that’s OK, we won’t bother you with facts, stay in your nuke dream > world.
I’m in no dream world. There are approximately 100 nuclear plants operating in the US, producing approximately 14% or so of the US base load. There are several hundred nuclear plants around the world, Japan produces slightly over 1/3 of it’s baseload with nuclear, France is somewhat over 2/3. For the US program (and other "industrialized nations"), no human being has been killed from the commercial use of Nuclear Energy to make power. Wind energy can not make this same claim right now, and the amount of energy produced by wind is trival and it’s costs are prohibitively expensive. Nuclear is a proven, viable energy source that makes a lot of sense, and it is much more environmentally benign than other forms of energy production. Wind power is in it’s second infancy. I say that because where I grew up in western Nebraska, we had a windmill to produce 32 volt power. My grandfather put it in circa 1935. It was still in use in the early 1960s, but was finally removed when the "Rural Electrification Program" caught up. Wind didn’t catch on back then due to it was 1) expensive, 2) unreliable, 3) complex, 4) dangerous. Just who is "living in a dreamworld" here "Mr." O’Flaherty? dewey
OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency Published a report a couple of years ago, regarding the Chernobyl Health Effects. Here is the section on thyroid cancers. People can judge for themselves. Thyroid cancer Early in the development of the Chernobyl accident, it became obvious that the radioiodines were contributing significant thyroid doses (Il90), especially to children, and the then Soviet authorities made every effort not only to minimise doses, but also to record the thyroid doses as accurately as possible. The results of these measurements and dose reconstruction assessments indicated that some groups in the population received high doses to their thyroids, and that an increase in thyroid abnormalities, including cancer, was a very real possibility in the future. This was particularly true for children in the contaminated regions in Belarus, northern Ukraine and the Bryansk and Kaluga regions of the Russian Federation. These were not inconsequential thyroid doses and, as early as 1986, it was predicted by experts from the Soviet Union that the thyroid would be the target organ most likely to show evidence of radiation effects, especially an increased incidence of benign and malignant tumours. It was known from previous studies of largely external irradiation of the thyroid that an increase in thyroid tumours tended to appear six to eight years following irradiation, and continue for more than twenty years after exposure, particularly in children. What was not expected was that thyroid abnormalities would already become detectable about four years after the accident. At the same time, the current conventional wisdom was that internal radioiodine exposure was less carcinogenic than external irradiation of the thyroid. It was estimated that the incidence of thyroid cancers in children, defined as those diagnosed between the ages of 0 and 14, might increase by about 5 per cent, and in adults by about 0.9 per cent over the next 30 years. As will be seen, a substantial increase has already been detected in the more contaminated regions. A determined effort was made to estimate doses, record the data, initiate medical examinations and follow the cohorts already identified as being most at risk. In Ukraine, more than 150,000 examinations were conducted by special dosimetric teams, and a realistic estimate of the collective thyroid dose of 64,000 person-Sv has been made, leading to a projection of 300 additional thyroid cancers (Li93a). In the contaminated regions of Russia, namely Bryansk, Tula and Orel, it was predicted that an excess thyroid cancer total of 349 would appear in a population of 4.3 million (Zv93). This represents an increase of 3 to 6 per cent above the spontaneous rate. A programme to monitor the thyroid status of exposed children in Belarus was set up in Minsk in May/June 1986. The highest doses were received by the evacuated inhabitants of the Hoiniki rayon (district) in the Gomel oblast. In the course of this study, it was noted that the numbers of thyroid cancers in children were increasing in some areas. For Belarus as a whole (WH90, Ka92, Wi94), there has been a significantly increasing trend in childhood thyroid cancer incidence since 1990 (Pa94). It was also noted that this increase is confined to regions in the Gomel and Brest oblasts, and no significant increase has been noted in the Mogilev, Minsk or Vitebsk areas where the radioactive iodine contamination is assessed to have been lower. Over 50 per cent of all the cases are from the Gomel oblast. For the eight years prior to 1986, only five cases of childhood thyroid cancer were seen in Minsk, which is the main Belarussian centre for thyroid cancer diagnosis and treatment on children (De94). From 1986 to 1989, 2 to 6 cases of thyroid cancer in children were seen annually in Minsk. In 1990, the number jumped to 29, to 55 in 1991, then to 67 in 1992. By the end of 1994 the total had reached over 300 in Belarus. Nearly 50 per cent of the early (1992) thyroid cancers appeared in children who were aged between one and four years at the time of the accident. The histology of the cancers has shown that nearly all were papillary carcinomata (Ni94) and that they were particularly aggressive, often with prominent local invasion and distant metastases, usually to the lungs. This has made the treatment of these children less successful than expected, whether undertaken in Minsk or in specialised centres in Europe. In all, about 150,000 children in Belarus had thyroid uptake measurements following the accident. Other data from Ukraine and Russia show a similar, but not as pronounced, increase in the incidence of childhood thyroid cancer since 1987. The increase in Belarus was confirmed by the final report of an EC Expert Panel (EC93) convened in 1992 to investigate the reported increase. In 1992 the incidence of childhood thyroid cancer in Belarus as a whole was estimated to be 2.77 per 100,000, whereas in the Gomel and Brest oblasts it was 8.8 and 4.76 respectively. This increased incidence was not confined to children, as a larger number of adult cases was registered in Belarus and in Ukraine (WH94). There is some difficulty in comparing the numbers quoted by the health authorities of the former Soviet Union with previous incidence statistics, as previous data collection was not sufficiently rigorous. However, in Belarus all cases of childhood thyroid cancer have been confirmed since 1986 by international review of the histology, and, because of more rigid criteria for data collection, reliance can be placed on accuracy and completeness. An attempt to review incidence estimates was made in the above-mentioned EC Report (EC93). These experts confirmed that the incidence of childhood thyroid cancer (0-14 y) prior to the accident in Belarus (between 0 and 0.14/100,000/y) was similar to that reported by other cancer registries. This indicates that the data collection in Belarus was adequate. They noted that it jumped to 2.25/100,000/y in 1991, about a twenty-fold increase. When this increase was first reported, it was very quickly pointed out (Be92) that any medical surveillance programme introduced would apparently increase the incidence by revealing occult disease and rectifying misdiagnoses. While this may account for some of the increase (Ro92), it cannot possibly be the sole cause, as the increase is so large and many of the children presented not with occult disease, but with clinical evidence of thyroid and/or metastatic disease. In fact, only 12 per cent of the childhood thyroid cancers were discovered by ultrasound screening alone in Belarus (WH95). In addition, subsequent examination by serial section of the thyroids of persons coming to autopsy in Belarus have confirmed that the number of occult thyroid cancers is similar to that found in other studies (Fu93) and showed none of the aggressive characteristics found in the childhood cancers presenting in life (Fu92). The most recent published rates of childhood thyroid cancer (St95) show unequivocal increases as seen in Table 7. At the time of writing three children have died of their disease. Table 7. Number of cases and cases per million of childhood thyroid cancer (St95) 1981 – 85 1986 – 90 1991- 94 Area No. Rate (per million) No. Rate (per million) No. Rate (per million) Belarus Gomel Ukraine Five North Regions Russia Bryansk & Kaluga Regions 3 1 25 1 0 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.1 0 47 21 60 21 3 4 10.5 1.1 2 1.2 286 143 149 97 20 30.6 96.4 3.4 11.5 10 It can be concluded that there is a real, and large, increase in the incidence of childhood thyroid cancer in Belarus and Ukraine which is likely to be related to the Chernobyl accident. This is suggested by features of the disease, which differ somewhat from the so-called natural occurrence, as well as by its temporal and geographic distribution. As far as other thyroid disorders are concerned, no difference in Russia was detected by ultrasound examination, in the percentage incidence of cysts, nodules or autoimmune thyroiditis in the contaminated versus the uncontaminated areas (Ts94). Following the accident, children in the Ukrainian contaminated regions exhibited a transient dose-dependent increase in serum thyroxine level, without overt clinical thyrotoxicosis, which returned to normal within 12 to 18 months (Ni94). This was most marked in the youngest children. This finding cannot be regarded as an adverse health effect, as no abnormality was permanent. However, it may be a pointer to future thyroid disease, especially when it may be associated with mild regional dietary iodine deficiency, and indicates the need for continued monitoring. The majority of the estimates indicate that the overall health impact from these thyroid disorders will be extremely small and not detectable when averaged over the population potentially at risk. This viewpoint is widely held by the competent risk assessors who have examined the potential effects of the accident. —— ***** And, here are the conclusions from the Health effects section of the report: In summary, it can be stated that: a.. Thirty-one people died in the course of the accident or soon after and another 137 were treated for the acute radiation syndrome. b.. Extensive psychological effects are apparent in the affected regions of the former Soviet Union, manifested as anxiety and stress. Severe forms induce a feeling of apathy and despair often leading to withdrawal. In the rest of the world these individual effects were minimal. c.. In the last decade, there has been a real and significant increase in childhood and, to a certain extent, adult … read more »