Question: Colonel Joe, can you site specific data from the 3 documents you identified as being used to support the position that smoking causes cancer, and that supports your finding that it does not; and that the data teaches that radiation (EMFs) is the cause?

Colonel Joe: Yes and, it will be necessary to relate to other research data in order to clearly understand why my position is different from the original evaluation made of the test data. Before beginning I’d like to point out that very few, if any, true scientists would give testimony that what happens in mice would happen in humans. I would also point out, as you understand the data you are going to read, consider all other tests that used radiation for the purpose of “weakening “ the immune system of mice used in tests, so that results could be obtained in a shortened period of time, say 20 months instead of 20 years. Should all tests accomplished for any purpose that included radiation be re-evaluated?

The test data in the first document that clearly teaches what caused lung cancer in mice when cigarette tar concentrate was used can be found in Volume 14, 1961, CANCER, A Journal of the American Cancer Society. The test, COMBINED ACTION OF CIGARETTE TAR AND BETA RADIATION ON MICE by F.V. Cowdry, PH.D., et al, pages 344-352 has the data referred to in the Question.

Three hundred ninety seven female Swiss mice, 2 months of age were divided into six groups. Five of the groups each received different treatments, and 1 the control Group received only acetone?

Of the 5 groups, Groups A & B were painted weekly with cigarette tar concentrate and received radiation on different schedules and amounts. Group C was painted with tar only. Groups D& E received radiation only.

As would be expected Group F the control group had the lowest number of tumors, however, it should be noted that 30 of 47 mice developed lung tumors.

Group C was next with about the same number of lung tumors but 7 times the number of skin tumors, 21 vs. 3 in Group F.

Groups A & B had by far the highest number of skin cancers, 46 & 41, but did not have the highest number of lung tumors.

In Groups D & E, Group D had the highest number of lung tumors and Group E, had as many lung tumors as Groups A & B.

In looking at total numbers, Groups A & B, with 148 mice, 85 mice had lung tumors, while Groups D & E with135 mice, 98 mice had lung tumors.

Remember Groups D & E received radiation only. No tar or acetone

And just in case some would ask. The total number of tumors for the 148 mice in Groups A & B was 267 (the mice that received tar and radiation), and the total number of tumors for the 135 mice in Groups D & E was 257(the mice that received radiation only) And to make this finding more explosive; Groups D & E mice had more leukemia and mammary gland carcinomas than mice of the other groups.

It is very clear that if the mice in all groups had received only radiation, they all would have developed tumors in the lungs.

The second document is Volume 22, 1959, a Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The test, CARCINOGENIC ACTIVITY OF CIGARETTE SMOKE CONDENSATE. I. EFFECT OF TRAUMA AND REMOTE X IRRADIATION. By Bock, Fred G. & Moore George E.

I will not site specific numbers of mice or groups. The tests were generally the same procedure, with groups of irradiated and non-irradiated mice, painted with cigarette tar and painted with acetone, with the necessary control groups.

There are numerous observations concerning carcinogenic effects of irradiation such as; “One might suppose that with a weak carcinogen, a slight exposure of ionizing radiation or a chemical carcinogen could have a large effect upon the observed biological response”.

And; “irradiation of C57BL mice with the head shielded acted as a carcinogenic stimulus in the development of pituitary adenomas”.

And “While Gorbman believed that irradiation could have acted as a generalized stressor, its action could have equally been a more specific cocarcinogenic one”.

And; the following quote is from the discussion, Significance of These Experiments in Evaluation of Hazards to Human Beings “It has been pointed out many times that animal experimentation cannot be used as a direct measure of the hazard to human beings associated with an environmental agent. The irradiation employed in these studies was not comparable to that of human environment in regard to quality or quantity”.

And the 3rd Document, MORTALITY OF URANIUM MINERS IN RELATION TO RADIATION EXPOSURE, HARD-ROCK MINING AND CIGARETTE SMOKING---1950

THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1967. In my opinion this is a epidemiological study and there are too many environmental factors that could have effected the health of the miners to accept this study as being conclusive that smoking causes cancer. The following quote in the Summary and Conclusions speaks directly to my position. “While smoking alone could not explain the marked excess of lung cancer in uranium miners, and smoking differences among them could not account for the progressively increasing cancer risks as radiation exposure increase, the great excess of lung cancer deaths among miners who are cigarette smokers suggests that uranium miners, in particular should not smoke”.

It is a fact that all tests are flawed. There is no evidence that other environmental, dietary or nutritional conditions were considered. It is self evident that radiation is the major cause of tumors in all tests. Radiation does have an effect on all warm blooded mammals including human beings. It is described in the Specifications submitted in support of my Claims which have been allowed by the U.S. Patent Office for Issuing a Letter Patent for Compositions and Methods For Treatment of Cancer and Other Diseases.

Return to Questions and Answers, Click Here.

Back to Index, Click Here.

Colonel Joe, ,
Phone (479)451-8517
Please send all comments to coljoe@centurytel.net