http://infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_us_israeli_attack_could_contaminate_middle_east.htm U.S. OR ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN COULD CONTAMINATE MIDDLE EAST Infowars.com | January 5, 2006 Sherwood Ross If the U.S. or Israel attack Iranian nuclear power facilities "huge amounts of radioactive material will be lofted into the air to contaminate the people of Iran and surrounding countries," an eminent international authority on nuclear weapons warns. "This fallout will induce cancers, leukemia, and genetic disease in these populations for years to come, both a medical catastrophe and a war crime of immense proportions," Dr. Helen Caldicott writes in her new book, "Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer," published by The New Press. Dr. Caldicott said the Pentagon has met with its Israeli counterparts "to discuss the participation of Israel in plans to attack Iran" even though President Bush said "this notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous." Citing the accidental meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine in April, 1986, as an example of what can happen when radioactivity is released, she termed it a "medical catastrophe (that) will continue to plague much of Russia, Belarus, the Ukraine, and Europe for the rest of time." Between 5,000 and 10,000 people have died prematurely to date, she said. Between 1986 and 2001, Belarus suffered 8,358 cases of thyroid cancer as a result of the Chernobyl meltdown, and most of the afflicted have had their thyroids surgically removed, leaving them dependent on thyroid medications for the rest of their lives, said Dr. Caldicott, a physician and anti-nuclear activist. She writes the areas of Europe, and its populations, afflicted by the Chernobyl accident will suffer from its impact "for thousands of years." Dr. Caldicott noted Israel, along with Pakistan and India, are "rogue nations, outlaws who choose not to abide by international law" for their refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT). "Understandably, the Arab states resent the IAEA's intrusions on Iran, as the United States accuses it of a covert but un-proven nuclear weapons program, whereas Israel, also a covert nuclear state but a close U.S. ally, receives no such scrutiny." "It is unwise and dangerous for Israel to possess a nuclear arsenal," she pointed out, as "such weapons are highly provocative for Israel's Arab neighbors" and their presence "actively encourages Arab states to build their own." One or two nuclear bombs landing on the tiny Israeli nation would obliterate it," Dr. Caldicott said. "Or, conversely, if a large conventional weapon landed on Dimona (the Negev Nuclear Research Center), the ensuing meltdown would kill millions of people." Dr. Caldicott said "the Bush administration has adopted some very provocative and dangerous policies --- all of them in direct violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty---which inevitably have led and will continue to lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries." She charged Bush has drafted a revised plan allowing military commanders to request presidential approval to use nuclear weapons to preempt an attack by a nation or terrorist group deemed to be planning to use WMD. "The 'revised plan' reflects a preemptive nuclear strategy first enunciated by the White House in 2002. Had this strategy been in place before the invasion of Iraq, a nuclear attack could have been justified to 'take out' Iraq's imaginary WMD," Dr. Caldicott wrote. Under the NPT, Dr. Caldicott said, Iran is "perfectly entitled to pursue a uranium enrichment program for peaceful purposes" and she noted in the past "Iran was actively encouraged by the United States to develop its own nuclear power program." She quoted Tony Benn, a former British M.P., stating that when he was secretary of state for energy "enormous pressure was put on me...to agree to sell nuclear power stations" to the Shah of Iran, "who had been put on the throne by the U.S." Benn said the pressure came from the Atomic Energy Authority and U.S. manufacturer Westinghouse, "who were anxious to promote their own design of reactor." Dr. Caldicott said, "Having initially encouraged Iran to develop nuclear capabilities, the United States now has plans to bomb Iran with nuclear weapons for doing so." Dr. Caldicott not only opposes development, stockpiling, and deployment of nuclear weapons but the use of nuclear plants for supplying energy as well on grounds they are inherently dangerous -- as meltdowns at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in the U.S. on March 28, 1979, demonstrated. Additionally, she contends the extraction of the world's dwindling supply of uranium ore for reactors is very costly and contributes greatly to the greenhouse effect, just the opposite of the nuclear power industry's contention nuclear plants are environmentally friendly.
I'm proud that my country, though we fully have the capability and resources, refuse to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons.
its funny to me that they outlaw a plant like marijuana, yet dabble in radioactive material? hmm safe? whats this world coming too? i dont agree with nuclear anything either.
At the same time, Canada has no problem building dozens of nuclear reactors... yet we don't have any kind of long-term plan for disposal of nuclear waste...... Well.. I guess thats what you get when the Conservatives deal with the environment.
I'm Israeli, and we need nukes since there are only 6 million of us and 500 million Arabs. I have nothing against Arabs by the way thought, but there leadership is really fucked up and they need to overthrow their governments. But I don't know, because the Palestinians held elections and elected Hamas soooo...yeaaa. But Iran needs to be taken out, someone who denies the holocaust and calls for the destruction of another nation shouldn't be allowed to control such dangerous and deadly devices. I don't believe that article for a second. And even if it were true, what do you suggest Israel and the U.S. do? Tyrants don't respond to anything but force. If it's kill or be killed, then I choose to kill. I pray for peace with our neighbors and wish them to have their own states, and establish great political and economic bonds with them-- but they do not wish the same. When we destroyed Iraq's nuclear capability, nothing of the sort happened. When we destroy Iran's nuclear capability, nothing will happen (especially since 98% of their sites are underground under about 25feet on concrete.) I'll save the rest of my shit for later.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity, you can't say you pray for peace, but at the same time think that only way to deal with a tyrant is by force. To take out Iran by force, would probably be the worst decision I can think to make.
Ummm...yes I can. I pray for peace in the fashion that I pray for my neighbors not to be ruled by tyrants. I wish that peace would prevail over war, but I'm not going to stand by and let my countrymen be slaughtered. I pray that Ahmadinejad wouldn't rule Iran, and that rather they would be ruled by a peaceful moderate. Sometimes you do need to make war for peace, history has taught us that. Do you think that taking out Iran by force is a worse decision then letting him get a nuclear bomb? You think preventing a man who blatantly calls for the destruction of another nation from getting a weapon which could achieve a genocide in a matter of minutes is a worse decision? I'm sorry, but we learned from the holocaust. We will not go like sheep to the slaughter.
It will be nothing like the Holocaust, you'll all be blown to pieces if he gets a nuclear bomb, firstly... Second of all, let's talk about history. WW1 the war to end ALL wars, here we are 2007, and what's going on wars all over the place. Bush sent our troops, my neighbors and friends to go fight for peace in the Middle East. We went in to help remove a tyrant, and they are no better off now then when we went in. People from both sides are still dying every single day. So I guess taking out those countries by force wasn't such a great idea. War will never bring peace, it brings far too much destruction and pain to anyone and everyone involved.
Your mixing and matching definitions. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected leader, not some tyrannical dictator, unlike Pahlavi (Pahlavi whom was put into power by the CIA and after the 1953 coup)
i pray to god that the US doesnt go to war with IRAN, biggest mistake the US will ever make in history, trust me US is very strong(strongest) and they got plenty of allies, but IRAN has plenty of allies, the US will win if the war ever happend but allot of people would die, keep peace, and legalize marijuana fuckers not WAR!!!
The ingredients for a World War. Meanwhile China continues to grow, to strength and bide their time until the moment is ripe.
Yeah, when China takes over our natural resources legally, all bought and paid for, how are Americans going to react?
It will be similar to the holocaust in that 6million of my people would die! Honestly, this is rediculous. Wars will continue until mankind is gone. It's a cycle. What would you propose, that's what I want to know? Do you propose we sit here and LET him get the bomb? That's suicide. You would be killed before killing? And I know he is democratically elected, but you don't think elections are corrupt? Look at the polls now, the Iranians hate him. And regarding your comment on Iraq. Yes people are dying everyday, but if he had gotten WMDs (which he would have eventually) then it could have caused the deaths of many more people in the future. If we didn't fight Nazi germany what do you think would've happened? I apologize, but I don't see your logic. I don't mean to be rude or anything of the sort, but to let the new Hitler get an atomic bomb is suicide. __________________
Source? And no offense, but I don't think you really fully understand the implications of warfare with Iran. Especially if they DO have access to nuclear material.
Attacking, nuking Israel is like attacking US Mainland, we will go 100% nuclear if so. Im not sure about Isreal secretly to detroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with nuclear weapons is true but im sure they have plans of such attacks on Iran plants though.
dont under estimate iran, iran has a huge army and they got allot of allies in the middle east, i think if isreal or the us ever attacked iran isreal would be wiped off the map.
The thought of nuclear war intrigues me. Not at the death and destruction no, but at the sheer will of man to erradicate one another. All over stupid bullshit too. Oil, God, Faith. In the end guess what none of that amount to 2 shits. I just hope that when the inevitable extinction of man comes down upon us, I have a front row seat for the fireworks. I mean can you imagine.......your dying anyway so why not go out with a bang, Take a SHIT TON of acid, smoke some green, and watch the end of the world. Imagine what the blast would like through the eyes of a man/woman with a head full of acid. Intriguing.