Ed Ward, MD
"Hard Evidence" - Professor Steven Jones responds to Tritium
Sat Mar 31, 2007 13:53

"Hard Evidence" - Professor Steven Jones responds to Tritium levels in TU rather than nCi/L


Actual measurements of tritium levels in pre-1950 (pre-H-bomb testing) rain and wines shows that ordinary tritium background levels vary over a broad range, but with values up to about 10 or 11 Tritium Units. (Jones paper in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, http://journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

But the tritium found at Ground Zero, after 9/11, was BELOW 10 tritium units! That is, the tritium found at GZ is totally consistent with measured prosaic background levels.

Absence of tritium above background levels implies absence of mini-hydrogen bombs at the WTC.

More from the Jones letter:

“Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.1640.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.530.17 and 2.830.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure…” http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf

3.53, 3.83, 0.164 TU at GZ -- all tritium amounts are well within expectations for prosaic background levels of tritium (less than 10 TU).
Ed Ward, MD responds:

The standard range for environmental Tritium is 0.1 to 0.2 nCi/Liter.

Testing in areas other than the WTC revealed levels (less than) < 0.13 nCi/Liter.

The actual words from the report "Tritium occurs in the environment primarily as tritiated water, and much less as organically bound tritium. typical current concentrations of HTO in water in the US are 0.1-0.2 nCi/L (16)."

"1 2 9/17 water Manh., 55 Broadway, 32 fl., roof tank <0.13c
1 3 9/18 water Manh., 111 Broadway, 22 fl., roof tank <0.13c
1 4 9/18 water Manh., 45 Wall St., 30 fl., roof tank <0.13c
1 5 9/18 water Manh., 7 Hanover Sq., 29 fl., roof tank <0.13c
2 8-22 9/11,12 water Kensico and Croton Reservoirsd <0.11-<0.19
2 23-35 9/15 water South Manhattan water distribution <0.12-<0.15c
3 36 10/25 grass Albany <0.12e,f
3 37 10/27 grass Brooklyn, Brooklyn Heights <0.21e,f
3 38 10/27 water Brooklyn, Govanus Canal <0.11
3 39 10/27 grass Brooklyn, Govanus Park <0.091e
3 40 10/27 water Brooklyn, English Kills <0.11
3 41 10/27 water Brooklyn, Prospect Park <0.090
3 42 10/27 grass same <0.093e
3 43 10/27 water Brooklyn, Marine Park <0.11
3 44 10/27 grass same <0.090e
3 45 10/27 water Brooklyn, Paerdegat Basin <0.090
3 46 10/27 water Brooklyn, Coney Island <0.11
3 47 10/27 grass same <0.092e
3 48 10/27 water Queens, Forest Park <0.090
3 49 10/28 water Poughkeepsie <0.11
3 50 10/28 grass same, with weeds <0.17e,f
3 51 11/4 leaves Manhattan, Battery Park <0.12e,f

http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf - FROM THE ACTUAL REPORT ON TRITIUM and my report on the ACTUAL REPORTING OF TRITIUM - http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm.

The environmental amounts of Tritium in water is CLEARLY STATED in 0.1 - 0.2 nCi/L. The testing of samples show this to be a fact - NO SAMPLES WERE SHOWN TO BE ABOVE 0.2 nCi/L, 16 samples were less than 0.13 nCi/L, with at least 6 samples LESS THAN 0.09 nCi/L. (I could and should have used the 0.09 nCi/L as the least contaminated value, but instead did the calculations for environmental levels at 0.13 nCi/L. the values for 0.09 nCi/L would be considerably higher than 35 times or 25% higher than normal.)


"It was determined that 3 million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts between 9/11 and 9/21 (the day of the tritium measurement; samples 6 and 7 in Table I) (42). In addition, there were two episodes of rain during the same 10-day period: on 9/14 and 9/20,21 totaling 0.9 million gallons of water in the Bathtub area. Considering the neighboring areas, we take 1 million gallons from the rain. Therefore, a total of 4 million gallons of water percolated through the debris in the first 10 days and collected at the bottom of the Bathtub."

http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf - FROM THE ACTUAL REPORT ON TRITIUM and my report on the ACTUAL REPORTING OF TRITIUM - http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm.

"Based on the pumping records, a total of 30 million gallons of water passed through the Bathtub between 9/11 and 9/21 (4,46)."

http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/241096.pdf - FROM THE ACTUAL REPORT ON TRITIUM and my report on the ACTUAL REPORTING OF TRITIUM - http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm.

Tritium units - http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/tritium.html .
And thanks to a very well timed question from Mr. Barkley it is also shown that there were no Tritium signs in the WTC.
We were. informed by PANYNJ authorities that there were no tritium signs at WTC, ...
www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/240430.pdf -

Ed Ward, MD
Micro-Nukes at the WTC
Update: Micro-Nukes at the WTC
For this an many other informative articles about governmental Constitutional tyranny see my articles: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/arc_ward.htm

Professor Steven Jones:
I welcome letters from anyone which extends the discussion on mini-nukes in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, as long as that paper is presented in a peer-reviewed, established, scientific venue. I welcome scientific discussion wholeheartedly!

As stated in the Journalof911Studies.com (see top of Letters section), such a response-letter should address points already raised and published in the Journal or other technical journals, and must avoid ad hominem attacks.

I should note that one response letter on the mini-nukes issue is currently in the peer-review process (not by any one I've seen on this forum BTW).

I recommend that the same approach apply here on the Forum -- avoiding ad hominems in particular. Since I am involved in more than one forum as well as research and writing and speaking, my time on this forum is necessarily limited. And I prefer written and published papers to fora in any case, since then all can see what is written in a permanent record. Questions directed directly to me should be sent by email, as I generally do not answer "baiting" type questions on fora.

The Journal editors have stated that the purpose of the Letters section is to encourage and provide a peer-reviewed forum for EVIDENCE-BASED discussion of various hypotheses. SJ
Ed Ward, MD:
Professor Jones,

Thank you for your response on my article which has been peer reviewed and published by NAMED reviewers Dr. Ron Larsen, Dr. Bill Deagle and others.

I would have prefered your response deal with the Tritium levels found, the amount of Tritium that would come from a 0.01 kt (instead of levels for 75 kt and 45 Megaton levels 7500 and 4.5 million times the size of the weapons which would have been used in the WTC), the notation that at least a portion of 120 million liters of water diluted any Tritium not washed away, proof that the radiation found in Great Kills is actually Radium (not just taking government offhand statements as fact), any evidence of proven carcinogens (of which there are only 3 found in the debris - asbestos (will only produce mesotheliomas, benzene (found in gasoline and very common in our environment) and radionuclides (and how these substances manage to find their way to virtually every organ and cell in the human body to cause cancers in every area - in particular soft tissue and testes, but all must have routes of concentrating/access in the area of the cancer), how much conventional explosives are required to pulverize the amount of concrete pulverized, how much thermate would be required to turn more than 5 acres of land into more than 1500 degrees as well as cut the beams, how smaller than 10 micron particles (which have a tendency to stay suspended) would be found in massive (2 billion pounds) settled debris vs the majority being blown away in the air, etc, et al.

For those who may not know, I could not be here if Dr. Jones had not given me this venue and deserves credit for that.

I also write on many groups, on many more subjects than 911. I would suspect that none of us has time to waste.

I thank you for your efforts that have brought us to this point of time and exposure.

Ed Ward, MD

Main Page - Saturday, 04/07/07

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)