All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 19, 2023 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
01:09:58
Chris Busby exposes secret neutron bomb weapons programs...
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's interview on Brighteon.com.
I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Brighteon, and today we're joined by Chris Busby from greenaudit.org.
And Mr.
Busby is an expert in radioisotopes and radiation science, and he reviews a lot of scientific papers with a sense of discernment, knowledge, and skepticism about sort of the mainstream views on radiation.
And his findings Lead to the conclusion that ionizing radiation may be far more dangerous than what we're being told, and that many weapons currently being used, such as depleted uranium, may in fact expose innocent civilians to far more harm, even orders of magnitude more harm than what we are being told.
So yes, this involves the United States war in Iraq in previous years, but also modern day Israel's war on Gaza and so much more.
So welcome to the program, Mr.
Busby.
It's an honor to have you on today.
Thank you for interviewing me.
Thank you.
Well, thank you for taking the time.
I think your voice is very important for what's happening in our world right now.
And since this is the first time that you and I have spoken, could you give our audience just a little brief background of your work and what led you to today?
Well, I started to look at the effects of ionizing radiation on health long ago, around about 1990.
And since then, I've written a couple of books about my findings, and I've been founded by a number of charities.
And then I moved on to working as an expert witness in various court cases in America and all over the world.
I concluded quite early on that the health effects of ionizing radiation have been dishonestly mishandled by the organizations that are set up to protect the public from the effects of radiation.
And these organizations, which are almost uniformly, they follow an organization called the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the ICRP.
And they were more or less set in stone in terms of their approach to the problem of ionizing radiation and health.
In the period of the nuclear weapons test, when there was a lot of fallout that came all over the place, landed, ended up in the food chain and so on.
And of course, at that time, it was very important to continue to make nuclear weapons because of the Cold War.
And also at the same time to develop nuclear power.
And so in order for that to happen, they had to have a system that supposedly protected the public.
And they based this system on examining the health effects from the Hiroshima bomb.
So they set up a big study called the Lifespan Study, In which they took about 80,000 people who had been at Hiroshima at the time of the nuclear bomb in 1945 and from Nagasaki also.
And they followed them to see what the cancer yield would be in these people and to compare them with a control group.
I've studied the health effects of ionizing radiation.
I was trained as a chemical physicist And I worked for a long time with Burroughs Wellcome, with the Wellcome Research Foundation, looking at drugs at the cellular level.
But in the 90s, I got into being interested in ionizing radiation and health.
This was just after Chernobyl, I started to look at it, because people were saying, oh, well, the health effects of Chernobyl are basically nothing at all, nobody's going to die, everything's fine, and all this stuff, you know.
So I applied myself to the theories that were behind these statements, and very rapidly I figured out that they were just nonsensical and dishonest.
And they'd been developed in order to justify the continuation of developing nuclear weapons and having...
Is this similar to the way in which the telecom industry always manages to fund studies that say all 5G is perfectly safe, all telecom is perfectly safe, no matter what?
Well, I've done a lot of work on that as well.
I mean, I'm a pretty broad-spectrum person when it comes to science.
I mean, I was a scientific speaker, if you like, the Minister of Science and Technology for the Green Party of England and Wales for about 10 years.
Yes.
And so, of course, I had to look into all of these things, you know, mobile phones.
And I've looked at the effects of the, you know, the COVID vaccination and all of this stuff.
Basically, what I do is I take a sort of forensic lens to scientific reports that support the existence or the development of things which clearly everybody thinks are dangerous and usually are dangerous.
But they don't, but they're no scientific people, they're no scientists there to sort of look at the epidemiology and to look at the numbers and to look at the statistics and so on.
Because, by and large, the people in the Green Movement are sort of not very good when it comes to mathematics and science.
And anybody who is any good at mathematics and science usually gets a job working for the people who are causing the problem.
So I'm pretty unique in that area.
Okay.
All right.
So then let's talk about depleted uranium.
And eventually we're going to talk about neutron bombs as well.
But we've heard, I mean, you know, the official narrative about depleted uranium is that...
Oh, there's no risk to the civilians in the countries where our tanks are firing depleted uranium shells, even though I believe that some experts and perhaps some nations around the world say that depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction.
So what's your take on DU? Yes, well, uranium, depleted uranium is not like uranium.
It's uranium particles that are produced as a result of the high temperatures that occur when the weapons hit their target.
And so what you're talking about here is not the same thing as uranium that you dig out of the ground as pitch blend or some ore or something, you know, because...
That is not very radioactive.
And of course, uranium itself is not very radioactive.
But when you concentrate it into a pure form and turn it into a particle which is respirable, which you can inhale and gets inside you, gets into the lymphatic system and can more or less go anywhere in the body, then it has completely different properties from the uranium that you just dig out of the ground.
These properties are associated with two things.
First of all, it's an alpha emitter, and the particle is very small, and alpha particles have a very short range.
So all of the energy gets packed into a cluster of cells within the range of the particle, which is about four cells.
So an alpha particle range is about four cells.
So it's a bit like eating a hot coal, if you like to think of it like that, on a sort of molecular level, on a cell level.
But the other important thing which emerged, in fact, which I used a lot, I was probably one of the first people to talk about when I was...
I was asked to give evidence to the Royal Society, who were asked by the government to consider this point about whether depleted uranium is dangerous or not.
And what I figured out was that uranium itself, when it gets inside the body...
It binds to DNA. And DNA is, of course, the target for all radiation effects.
I mean, the way in which radiation kills you is it causes genetic damage, it destroys the DNA, and then the cell can't replicate, so it dies.
Or if it does replicate, it has a high chance of introducing a mutation which then goes down the cell line and causes cancer.
Or else in the case of children or babies or, you know, genetic damage, it can cause increases in congenital malformation and birth defects and all of those things.
So it's generally a genetic weapon on that basis.
And the other thing, though, which I looked into and have published a lot about, is a very, very interesting thing, which is that uranium, because it has a very high atomic number and has an awful lot of electrons, it stops gamma radiation.
I mean, you know, people who are radiologists, they wear a lead apron so as not to get irradiated, because lead stops gamma radiation, it stops x-rays, because it has a high atomic number.
And the stopping power of an element in the periodic table is proportional to the fourth power of the atomic number.
So, of course, with an atomic number of 92, lead is 82, I think.
92 has more stopping power for gamma rays.
So somebody walking around in the environment who has this uranium on their DNA, just bound to the DNA because of its high chemical affinity, it sucks in the gamma radiation energy from the environment, what you call natural background radiation, and And then it re-emits it into the DNA as photoelectrons.
This is the photoelectric effect, which was written about by Einstein.
He got the Nobel Prize for describing the photoelectric effect.
Photoelectric effect is like the cesium photocell that measures light for your camera, and it tells you how much light there is.
Well, it's the same with the gamma radiation.
So what happens is when the gamma radiation hits the uranium, you get a photoelectron that shoots out, And that photoelectron, it damages the DNA in the same way as beta particles and any other internal radionuclide.
So there are lots of reasons why uranium is very, very dangerous.
Well, hold a second.
I mean, that's fascinating.
So you're saying that uranium particles in the body act like transducers, in effect.
Taking in background gamma radiation.
I'm just trying to summarize what you just said, because this is fascinating.
And then converting it into, well, photons that can also damage cells.
But, you know, you mentioned previously, you also looked at vaccines.
And It seems to me that it's really important that our audience understands that the chromosomal damage that you're referring to, often they're called double-strand breaks or DSBs of the chromosomes, that there is a natural biological mechanism to repair those.
That's called, I believe, an HEJ, but that that repair mechanism, non-homologous end-joining, is impaired by the presence of the spike protein so that In other words, if a person could normally repair the mutagenic damage at the chromosome level, if they've been exposed to other toxins, then their repair mechanism could be suppressed, thereby making the exposure to the radioisotopes far more dangerous.
Does that make sense?
No, that's true.
I mean, there have been a number of papers.
I've followed this business of the COVID quite closely, and there have been a number of papers that show that there is...
Damage to the repair systems which result from getting COVID or even from the injections too.
In fact, there's a lot of epidemiology that's beginning to show that there are increases in cancer associated with people who were injected compared to control groups that weren't.
Of course, it's hard to find a control group that isn't, but you can do so.
And when you do that, you find that...
So there's theoretical reasons why you would expect to get increases in cancer.
There's also epidemiology that shows that you do get increases in cancer.
In fact, what I've seen is that...
That what happens is that if you have cancer, or if you have a sort of, you know, if you start, if you get diagnosed with cancer, the cancer in people who've been injected travels, moves, is much more aggressive.
So it's much harder to stop, and it kills you much more quickly than if you haven't had that.
So yes, all of this is true.
All of this is together.
It's all part of the same thing.
But my point about the...
Also, I'm sort of well known for a theory called the second event theory, which is an interesting example of how the...
How the repair mechanism can be actually attacked by the radiation, because there's some radionuclides, internal radionuclides.
One good example is strontium-90, which binds to DNA, just like DNA, just like uranium, rather.
So it binds to DNA chemically, because strontium is like calcium, and calcium is the backbone of the DNA. It has a calcium phosphate backbone DNA. So what happens is strontium replaces calcium in the backbone, And then it shoots off a beta particle.
But then it turns into another element, another radioactive element called yttrium.
So dontium-90 turns into yttrium-90 and that shoots off another bullet.
So what you've got here is you've got a situation where the first bullet goes off and then the cell thinks, wow, I've got to repair the damage.
So it starts repairing the damage, and the second bullet goes off and hits it while it's repairing the damage.
You have a problem on the motorway, you take your car into the garage, the guy fixes your brakes, and then somebody shoots him and destroys the brakes.
And so you go off thinking it's okay, but it isn't okay.
There's a lot of subtlety here which is just excluded completely from the risk model of the ICRP that I was talking about before.
The risk model of the ICRP is unbelievably stupid but extremely powerful.
It's something that says...
It says your dose and the effect that it has on you biologically is proportional to the energy per unit mass of tissue.
That's it.
So on that basis, that's called the dose.
That's called your absorbed dose.
So on the basis of that, you can sit in front of a fire and warm yourself and your whole body will get a nice bit of energy and you can feel really good.
Or you can reach into the fire and take out a red hot coal and eat it.
The amount of energy that's transferred to your body is the same.
And under the ICRP risk model, they would say that that's the same effect.
Of course, it's not the same effect.
There's plenty of epidemiology.
What I've been talking about is theoretical stuff.
But if you go to look at people who've been exposed to uranium, you find these effects.
And I've done that.
Can I ask you kind of a basic question about uranium?
What are the naturally occurring isotopic ratios?
Or, you know, what percentage of naturally occurring uranium atoms in the environment are naturally radioisotopes?
You mean, we're talking about uranium.
Uranium has three...
It has three isotopes.
It has uranium-238.
These are natural ones now, because they can make all sorts of funny stuff in reactors, but we'll forget about that.
So what you have is uranium-238.
That's most of it.
That's 99% roughly.
I do this in terms of atom...
Atom ratios, but most of it is U238. Then you've got a small amount of U235, which is the fissile one.
Now, U235 is the one that produces lots of neutrons, and if you get enough of it in one place, it will explode.
It will give you a neutron shower, and everything will go up bang.
And then there's another one, U234, which is the decay product of U238. So what happens is U238 turns into U234 with two intermediate nuclides called thorium-234 and protoactinium-234M. These are beta emitters.
So what happens is U238 is an alpha emitter, it shoots off an alpha, then it goes to protoactinium and thorium-234 one after the other very quick.
One's 24 days, the other one's a few minutes.
And then they go into U234. So that's one series.
But also you have this other series, which is the exploding series, which is U235. So what happened with the Manhattan Project?
Once they figured out that they could make an atom bomb with U235 because of the particular nature of the atom...
They had to extract the U-235 from the uranium, and the U-235 came out together with the U-234, and that's called enriched uranium.
And if you get really highly enriched uranium, you can make a bomb, because if you get to a critical mass, which is about 9 kilograms, it will go bang.
So if you take two halves of this, get 4.5 kilograms at one side of the table, 4.5 kilograms at the other side of the table, and you whack them together.
They form a critical mass and then you get Hiroshima.
So that's how they make the atomic bomb.
But the stuff left behind when they've extracted it all, using all these centrifuges or diffusion processes or whatever, is mostly U238.
Not entirely.
They can't get it all out.
So it's got a bit of U-235.
And that one is called depleted uranium.
And it's less radioactive than the natural one because the U-235 is more radioactive than the U-238.
But it's not a lot less radioactive.
It's just a little bit less.
And people don't sort of...
When the military talk about this stuff, they make out that it's completely harmless and it's got no radioactivity because it's only an alpha emitter and the alpha particles aren't strong enough to get through the skin and blah, blah.
But actually, it contains the two daughter isotopes, the thorium-234 and the protoactinium-234.
And they are gamma.
They are beta-gamma emitters.
So they give radiation off.
And I've been to Iraq with the Geiger counter and Yes.
Warthog aircraft which they used to shoot the Iraqi tanks those things they're jolly radioactive you get a Geiger counter or a scintillation counter near them and it screams yes ok wow So, in the process of both firing these rounds, which, by the way, removes some amount of the outer diameter of the bullet as it's rifling through the barrel.
They've got a plastic sabot thing, which is about, I don't know, an inch across, I suppose.
And that's the actual round, so it's about an inch across.
But the bullet itself is more like the thickness of a pencil.
So maybe, you know, what, half an inch, but less.
Oh, you're talking about the core, the uranium core of it.
So that's what actually disperses into particulate matter when it strikes the target.
Yes, it knocks a hole through the tank.
In fact, I've seen that stuff go through one side of the tank turret and out the other side as well and hit another tank.
Oh, my.
I want to give background to the audience here.
The reason the military uses this is because it has such high density that it penetrates tank armor.
It's not because of the density.
It is the density, but primarily it's because it burns.
When it hits something, it gets extremely hot.
I think the reason is that it's got so many electrons in the uranium atoms, the 92 electrons.
So when that gets compressed, it starts to burn.
And it burns at very high temperature, thousands of degrees.
So when it goes into the tank, it's burning.
And when it gets inside the tank, it's burning as well.
And that generally blows the top of the tank off because of the increased air pressure, because of the heat.
And anybody inside the tank gets completely roasted.
I mean, my friend Doug Rocky, who used to clean these tanks up, And dying of cancer, or has died of cancer, so I'm not quite sure.
But anyway, so he said that they used to call the people inside the tanks when they found them crispy critters, because they were just like bits of charcoal.
Oh my.
Oh, that's horrifying.
Okay, so this is...
Well, hold on a second.
So depleted uranium is chosen for a variety of reasons, but...
Is it also, you know, it seems like the US empire, in my opinion, Rules by coercion and force and devastation and ethnic cleansing and all these horrible things, like the U.S. did in the Middle East.
It seems like there is an intention to inflict genetic damage to the population that is in the area that's being bombed.
Even though, of course, publicly they say, oh no, it's surgical strikes.
We're only hitting the water supply, the bridges, the communications, the refineries, everything that will make people die of famine.
But they claim they're not hitting civilians.
But in your opinion, I guess you can't read the minds of military decision makers, but in your opinion, is this a weapon against civilians also?
I think in the case of Israel and Palestine, I think almost certainly.
I think in the case of the earlier usage in places like Kosovo and in the Balkans and fighting Saddam Hussein and so on, there's a sort of element of gleeful horror associated with it.
I don't think that they sit back and think, well, let's destroy all the black people because they're black people.
I don't see this as a sort of fascist thing originally, but it has the same effect.
And I think in the case of Fallujah, which is a place which I have studied, and this was the US attacks in 2003, I don't think there's any doubt in my mind that they were angry.
They were angry with these people and they wanted to destroy them.
They wanted to destroy their genetic makeup and they wanted to do horrible things to them.
And I have to say that I think the Americans...
I mean, I need to say this, really, that I think that they have an element of, it's not really a country, it's a psychosis.
It's a sort of way of seeing the world, you know.
And of course, ordinary Americans, I don't think so.
I've been to America lots of times with court cases and so on.
But the people who run the show there are something else.
Oh, yeah, clearly.
I mean, we agree with you.
Those of us in America, we see the same thing, and we wonder why these psychopaths are in charge.
Well, actually, what we know is they rig the elections and so on, and they are psychopaths.
For example, Victoria Nuland, she hates ethnic Russians.
She just wants to destroy all Russian people.
And it's the most insane, intolerant racism that we've ever witnessed.
It's almost like there are two races of human beings.
I mean, a model that works is a good model, it seems to me.
And the model that works for me is that there are two types of people.
There are good guys and bad guys.
And the bad guys can be truly horrible, truly monstrous.
And the people on the show in America are truly monstrous, I'm afraid.
So, let's get back to DU and its post-battle As it settles, because those particles are eventually going to settle on the ground.
They go very far.
When you think particles, you know, people think of sand.
But these are not particles in that sense.
This is an aerosol.
These things are so small and they get electrically charged that basically they can go all over the world.
In fact, they do.
So after the 2003 Gulf War, we found them in England.
That's 2,000 miles away, okay?
They were picked up by the air filters at Aldermaston at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, and we got the data from now under Freedom of Information Act, and there they were.
So they came all the way from Iraq.
So they're poisoning all of humanity.
Yes.
To different degrees.
But you would also expect that there would be a higher concentration closer to the battle.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yes, of course.
And that there, then uranium, once it settles into the soil...
Wouldn't uranium be taken up by many plants and become part of the plant cells and then to be consumed?
Yes, it would be.
But that uranium is not so important.
The important uranium is the particles when they're particles, and they land on the ground.
And by and large, they remain there.
They don't dissolve.
These things are ceramic.
So when they come back together, they form a sort of like a little glass bead, but, you know, nanometers in size.
And so when the sun shines, they get resuspended, they go up in the air, they come down, they go up and they come down.
I've measured them in puddles in Jakova, in Kosovo.
They end up in the puddles.
Now, that means that they're in the snow.
And when the snow falls, it forms in puddles.
And then that's where they concentrate.
So they don't go away.
And they didn't go away in Hiroshima either, because the same thing happened there.
And that's one of the things that I discovered.
And I've written a paper about in the last five years, a few papers, saying that the Hiroshima model, the Hiroshima-based ICRP model is wrong, because it's not the gamma radiation and the neutrons from the bomb that gave people cancer.
it was the particles of uranium from the bomb casing.
Really?
So only 5% of the bomb turned into fission, and so 95% of it was a uranium tamper that surrounded the outside of the bomb to reflect the neutrons back and make it go bang even more so.
Yes.
And those things ended up in Hiroshima, which is a sort of basin...
And of course, you know, there was a lot of work there because everything was smashed down and they had to rebuild things and move things and so on.
And the dust remained there for a long time.
So people were inhaling the dust.
And that's why they got cancer, not because of the initial gamma rays.
And indeed, the Japanese government now admit that.
So there was a big court case in 2021.
About the people who were exposed to what's called the black rain.
The black rain with all these particles coming down.
They formed nucleating centers for the rain and down they came.
And people exposed to the black rain got cancer even though they were five, six kilometers away from the bomb.
And so they didn't get any gamma radiation at all.
Wow!
So, I mean, the implications of this are, of course, enormous.
If you think about Israel bombing Gaza, it's clear that Israel wants to completely eliminate Gaza, get all the people out.
Yes, that's right.
That's my point about the neutron bombs.
I mean, that's something else.
That's the next level.
That's like the fourth generation.
I mean, if you're talking about depleted uranium, and incidentally, it's not just the bullets.
They put depleted uranium in the nose cones of the Javelin missiles and And they put them into the bunker-busting bombs and all, you know, it's just basically because it's free.
And because it's very useful at smashing its way through concrete and all the rest of it.
Wow.
But then isn't Israel creating a toxic Gaza?
And if Israel hopes to expand and have Israelis live there and rebuild buildings, which seems to be their plan for greater Israel, then isn't Israel building on top of a radioactive, you know...
Dump site, in a sense.
Really, you know, I don't think they care.
I think they're sort of like off the leash, you know.
From what I can see what's going on there, they really don't care.
To them, you know, their position is that God has ordained that they have the whole of the country and that these Amalekites should be smitten hip and thigh and whatever it says in the Bible.
And they don't really give a damn.
They're just going to kill them all and ha-ha.
That's it.
And of course, they're not going to tell their own people that the place is radioactive.
And in fact, maybe they think it doesn't matter.
Maybe they're like these people in America who think uranium is okay.
But it's not okay.
Okay.
All right.
So, can we talk about neutron bombs and Gaza and what you believe Israel is engaged in there?
This goes back to 2006.
In 2006, I was contacted by a professor from the Lebanese Academy of Sciences called Ali Kobaysi.
He's dead now.
And he said that the Israelis were bombing Lebanon.
There was a war then between Israel and Lebanon.
And he said that he went out to one of the bomb craters with a Geiger counter, and he found that the levels of radiation by the crater were 20 times higher than background.
And at that point, I had already been associated with a lot of work involving talking about Depleted uranium weapons.
I'd given evidence to the United States Congressional Committee on depleted uranium and various other things.
So I said, we need to get some samples.
So I asked a friend of mine.
In fact, it was a friend of mine that was originally contacted by this guy.
And I said, well, why don't you go out there and get me some samples and we can have a look.
So to cut a long story short, he did.
And he came back with some samples.
The other thing, I asked him to bring me an air filter from a vehicle.
Because I'd been using vehicle air filters to look at the concentration of materials in the air, because of course vehicles, they breathe air like people do.
The filters are not so fantastically good, but they certainly pick up quite a lot of what's there.
So we got these samples and we looked at them, and I was expecting to find depleted uranium, of course, but I didn't.
I found enriched uranium, which was very, very, very weird.
Huh.
And so, at the time, I thought, well, obviously the Israelis are using some new bomb in which enriched uranium is involved in some way, and goodness knows what.
So, there was lots of speculation.
I'd already come across enriched uranium.
No, walk back again.
Yes, I have to come back to that.
There was enriched uranium used in 2003 in Fallujah, but I didn't know that at the time.
Anyway, so then go forward now from 2006.
We go forward to 2009.
And I had been asked by some Egyptians to look into the possibility that the Israelis were bombing Gaza, this was 2008, when they were bombing Gaza, using a similar bomb to the one that I had reported them using in Lebanon.
Right.
So I said, all right, I better come out there and get some samples.
So they said, okay, we'll smuggle out some samples through the tunnel.
But in the end, the British government wouldn't allow me to go.
They said, oh, it's too dangerous and we're not going to allow you to have a visa and blah, blah, blah.
But then what happened is that these Egyptian doctors, they managed to get the samples to me by smuggling them through Ireland.
Right.
And they came to me, and I have to tell you, this is really funny.
So I said, well, they said, how will we get them to you?
I said, well, I'll meet whoever it is at Birmingham New Street Station.
I was living in Wales then.
And I shall be carrying a copy of the Times.
And so what happened is I went to the station there and stood outside the chemist shop there, and this woman, head to foot in black, you know, with a slit there, like...
It came with a bag, a carrier bag with the samples.
Anyway, so we measured the samples and we found enriched uranium there as well.
So now we've got enriched uranium in Gaza and we had enriched uranium in Lebanon.
And I talked to quite a famous reporter called Robert Fiske and he put the story...
Into the Independent, which is a newspaper in England.
It got a big story there saying the secret of Israel's uranium bomb.
Israel's secret uranium bomb went out as a story.
So then I did a study later on, about a year after that, I did a retrospective study of Fallujah.
Because people in Fallujah were reporting high levels of cancer and they were reporting congenital malformations in babies and one of these Arab women came and said, look, can we look into this?
So we did an epidemiological study in Fallujah In 2009, in which we found very high levels of cancer.
I mean, truly enormously high levels of cancer, like 30 times the expected number.
And we also found congenital malformation.
We had a huge increase in babies that were born with deformities, birth defects.
And we found a sex ratio perturbation.
So normally the sex ratio is 1,055 boys to 1,000 girls, and that's standard human population number.
But in Peluja, we found 800 boys to 1,000 girls, which was just an extraordinary birth alteration in the birth sex ratio.
So this flagged up a big level of genetic damage.
But then, in order to see what was causing it, we took the hair from the mothers of the children, of the deformed children.
We had a lot of these mothers, and we took hair samples from them, and we measured them using ICP-MS, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, looking for, well, everything, really, 52 elements, to see if we could find out what it was that was caught.
I mean, of course, we suspected uranium.
But we weren't certain.
So we had a look and we found it was uranium.
But what we also found was that it was enriched uranium and not depleted uranium.
So this is the third instance of finding that.
Okay, well, I mean, then nothing much happened.
I left it at that.
We reported it.
We wrote a couple of papers reporting it.
But then 2021, a couple of years ago...
There was a study done of Gaza in which these people published it in quite a posh journal, quite a respectable journal called Nature Scientific Reports.
And they found, they looked at 66 samples of building materials and soil and sand and plaster and, you know, all sorts of stuff from Gaza.
And they found that 55 of these samples had enriched uranium.
And it was much more enriched than the enrichment that we found.
So the enrichment that I found using two separate techniques.
We used ICP-MS and we used alpha spectrometry.
And they both gave the same answer.
Now, the normal atomic ratio of uranium in the environment is 137.88.
So you can say it 138.
So that's 138 atoms of uranium-238 to one atom of uranium-235.
And that's everywhere in the environment.
If you go anywhere and you dig up some soil and you measure the uranium using ICP-MS or whatever, that's what you'll find.
But what we found in Lebanon and in Gaza was around about 108 to 116.
So that's enriched.
The smaller the number, the more enriched it is, of course.
But what these people were finding were 80.
So now you're getting pretty close to the sort of stuff that you would put into a nuclear reactor.
So the question is, how could it be there?
That's the question.
How is it possible that enriched uranium suddenly exists in Gaza?
Because after all, enriched uranium cannot exist in the environment unless it comes from someone who created it or extracted it or produced it or whatever.
It's impossible.
Yes.
Now, again, wait, let me ask, just for clarification, what's the half-life of the degradation of the radioisotopes of enriched uranium?
It's 80,000 years.
Oh, okay, okay.
You know, you're not talking about something short half-life.
These have got enormous half-lives.
All right, so the persistence is way beyond...
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Got it.
All right, so I just want to clarify that because I haven't memorized all the physics of uranium like that.
No, of course not.
I mean, it wouldn't be expected to.
I mean, this is kind of fairly exotic knowledge.
But once you've got it, and I've studied this for a long time in relation to depleted uranium, we've spent an awful lot of money and time looking for depleted uranium in Iraq and in the Balkans.
And I've been there, I went there, and I took samples and so on.
So I've been exhaustively involved In the health effects of uranium.
Well, can I mention that perhaps we could help your search?
I mean, in our lab, we have two ICP-MS instruments that we use daily.
We don't look for 52 elements.
I think we're looking for 32.
But, you know, we can do a semi-quant, full-spectrum scan.
Do you have gamma-spec?
You have gamma spectrometry.
You don't.
No, we don't.
So you're ICP-MS. All right.
Okay.
Right.
But we run hair samples.
We run food samples, soil, water, and so on.
And we are ISO accredited.
So, you know, we're 17.025 ISO and we pass, you know, all the testing requirements to maintain that accreditation, you know, where they send you blind samples and you have to determine the concentrations and so on.
So we do that, but we haven't been testing for uranium-235, although I've seen 238 all the time.
It's not easy.
I see it everywhere.
It's not easy to do U235.
And the reason is because there's not much of it.
So you're scratching at the limits of your machine, so you need a multi-collectible or something quite fancy to do it with any degree of precision.
Unless you pre-concentrate the sample.
I mean, there are iron exchange resin now that will pick up uranium.
So you can put your sample, you can dissolve your sample, put it through an iron exchange rebel and then push it out again.
You can play all sorts of tricks like that.
I just want to add this.
We have sub-PPB sensitivity for most elements, probably in the range of 0.1 parts per billion, so 100 parts per trillion, something like that.
What's the name of your machine?
It's an Agilent 9300.
Yeah, okay, I know.
Yeah, that's the newer one that we have, and then we have an older one that's just the previous version of that.
I'm just saying, if we could be of assistance, this is something that maybe we could collaborate on.
Well, that would be good.
I mean, our problem has got no money.
I mean, I've got no money at all.
I mean, I sort of do this on a shoestring.
Right.
Well, we could donate the lab analysis.
But we'd have to figure out the external standard.
Like, where do we get a standard for U-235, for example?
But I'm sure we can find that.
You can get U-235 samples from various places.
Yeah.
Yeah, we just have to do that.
Maybe Inorganic Ventures or a company like that probably has these standards and we can get those.
But anyway, we do it for free.
If you can get us some samples.
I'm looking for somebody to do this because I'm interested in Gaza.
To go forward with my story about all of this stuff, because we've got to the point now where these three guys have published these results in Nature, And the results show that there are nearly all samples, but not one set of samples from Sinai Desert.
And this is the important thing.
So if you'd like to take the two blocks of samples, there's 66 samples, of which 55 are from Gaza, and 11 are from the Sinai Desert.
Now, the Sinai Desert samples are not enriched.
Right?
So to anybody who's going to say, oh, well, there's enriched uranium all over the place and, you know, blah, blah, blah, it's not true.
So we have a control.
We have a control.
The Sinai samples are very slightly enriched, and I suppose on the basis of the plus or minusness, you know, the standard deviation, you could more or less say, well...
You know, they might be normal, they might be slightly enriched, whatever.
But if you compare the two sets, if you compare all of the Garda samples with all of the Sinai samples, and you put a T-test over it, it's not possible that that's not real.
All right.
But we've got to this point now where we know that there is some weapon which either uses enriched uranium or it produces enriched uranium.
And this was my...
This was my, I don't know what you call it, sort of like...
Eureka moment.
You know, rather than thinking about how it could be that they're using it, because why would anyone use it?
It's very expensive stuff.
It's like trying to kill your enemy by dropping diamonds on their head.
It's $250,000 per kilogram.
Oh, my.
Talking lots of money here.
Okay, so why would you use it?
All right, but the obvious thing is it's the wrong question, is where does it come from is the right question, okay?
Now, the point is that U238 No, to walk back now to the original Lebanon paper, which I published as a Green Audit paper, it's all up on the internet.
I was contacted by a very famous Italian physicist called Emilio del Guidici.
And he said, look, I want to talk to you, but I can't talk on the phone about this.
We need to talk personally, and can you get over to London?
So I said, all right, I'll come to London.
So I met him in Paddington Station, and he told me the most amazing story.
He said, look, the reason that this has got enriched uranium is because it's a neutron bomb.
It's because they have discovered a way in which they can cause...
Fusion.
Now, most bombs are fission bombs.
So what happens is you get a lot of neutrons and the atom splits.
And so you get all these fissile, these fission products like strontium-90 and caesium-137 and a whole witch's brew, a whole Pandora's box full of these nasty things.
And they remain radioactive for a very long time.
And they contaminate the battlefield or wherever you've blown it up.
But actually, if you have fusion, if you put hydrogen with hydrogen or tritium and deuterium and so on, and you turn it into helium, you get much more energy.
I mean, that's what they're trying to do at the moment with all these tokamaks and these sort of systems for light.
And they're always saying, oh, they're almost going to get to the point where they can do it.
They just need more money.
They just need another $100 billion, yeah.
That's right.
Okay.
And they have these very exciting looking things made of stainless steel with lots of, you know, pipes coming out and so forth, you know.
It's a sort of industry called making money out of people's gullibility.
But anyway, there we are.
But the thing is, they're trying to make it so that it is a continuing process, you know, so it goes on and on and on and you can extract energy.
But if you want to make a bomb, you don't have to contain anything because it just goes bang and everything flies apart, you see.
So what this guy says to me, Del Gudici, he said that if you take hydrogen, if you dissolve hydrogen in uranium and then you smack it into the wall, the hydrogen gets caught up in the interstices between the atoms of uranium, which are very, very large.
So if you imagine a pile of logs or ball bearings or something, there's spaces between, you know, between the atoms.
And because hydrogen is so tiny, it can fit in there.
And so what happens is that if you then squash it, what happens is that the hydrogen atoms in the little interstices get squashed together at tremendous, tremendous pressures.
And the uranium, of course, has a lot of electrons on the outside of it because it's got 92 electrons.
And so what's happening is the electrons are pushing the hydrogen together and you get what's called cold fusion.
And in fact, some guy called, well, a guy I know, a bloke called, what's he called, Martin Fleischmann.
Fleischmann and Pons, right.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, I knew Fleischmann.
I worked with Fleischmann.
Did you, really?
Well, yeah, I knew him personally.
Well, I didn't know, not well, like we didn't go down the pub together, but I worked with him.
Wow.
I was a Raman spectroscopist looking at the surface-enhanced Raman effect.
Wow, you're kidding me.
Well, Fleischmann is legendary, I mean, for what he demonstrated at the University of Salt Lake City, I believe.
Yeah, no, that was Pons.
He went there and demonstrated it, did he?
Well, Fleischmann always maintained that the cold fusion with the palladium electrodes, that it worked.
He said he could.
Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't work.
But then it did work sometimes and they hadn't quite figured out.
And that was at the time that I was around.
You know, this was in the 80s.
And so then what happened is that it went off to Harwell.
So the British government had this atomic energy research establishment at Harwell.
And they went and tested the Fleischmann experiment.
And they said, oh, well, it doesn't work.
But then, of course, remember who these people are.
This is the atomic energy research establishment.
Absolutely.
The hot fusion establishment.
Right.
Yeah, I know.
They're the sort of rubbish, the cold fusion establishment.
That's who they are, okay?
That's right.
But that's, by the way, so, I mean, as far as the story is concerned, Del Guidochi told me that you get cold fusion if you dissolve hydrogen in uranium and then you fire it at something.
Yeah.
But afterwards, I thought about this, and I looked up the chemistry, and in fact, hydrogen doesn't dissolve in uranium.
Well, at least it does, but only to a very small amount.
But what you can do is, if you heat uranium up to 300 degrees in an atmosphere of hydrogen, it forms uranium hydride, uranium trihydride, UH3, okay?
Now, the point about hydrogen is it acts as a neutron.
Neutrons get stopped by hydrogen, so it acts as a moderator, right?
Somebody's invented, I don't know if they've actually built one, they invented a uranium hydride reactor, because what it does is the hydrogen in the uranium hydride acts as a moderator, and then it all heats up, and then when it gets to 700 degrees, the hydrogen comes off, and so it stops itself, see, in some way.
Okay.
Okay.
So back to this De La Guida sheet.
There was a bomb invented by Edward Teller in 1952 called the uranium hydride bomb.
And it used uranium deuteride.
So rather than reacting it with hydrogen, they reacted it with deuterium and maybe tritium.
And it worked.
It didn't produce an enormous lot of kilotons.
It didn't have a very high yield, but it worked.
So it did fusion, and it worked, and it produced all the neutrons, and it blew apart, but it was a bit of a damp squib, apparently.
And you can find all this stuff on the internet, and so forth.
So what I saw is probably that either Della Guidici got it wrong, or his English wasn't good, and he was a physicist, not a chemist.
So maybe he meant that you reacted it with hydrogen, and that you just didn't dissolve it.
But anyway, so that, I think, is what the bomb is.
It's a fusion bomb made out of uranium deuteride, probably, or uranium triteide or whatever, and they can tune it any way they want.
Now, the original neutron bomb was an idea...
An early idea in which what you did was you killed people and you didn't blow things up.
So it has a very low yield in terms of explosion, but a high yield in terms of neutrons.
So whereas a normal bomb has a casing around it of uranium to reflect the neutrons back into the core...
And make a much bigger bang.
This thing didn't have a casing.
It had a very thin casing made of aluminium or something like that.
So when it went bang, it just released all the neutrons into the environment.
And neutrons have a fantastically high degree of genetic damage.
They're much more genetically damaging than gamma rays.
They have what's called the relative biological effectiveness of about between 20 and 100 times.
Alpha particles are 20, so neutrons are much worse than even alpha particles.
So what I think we've got here is we've got a version of this DelGridici bomb, or whatever we want to call it.
And the thing is that when you produce neutrons like that, what you do is you knock, you add the neutron to the atom and change its atomic number by a factor of plus one or two.
So you've got U234 now in the mix in this uranium bomb, which apparently is about the size of a tennis ball.
And that turns the uranium-234 into uranium-235.
It just takes up a neutron and turns into U-235.
Del Guidochis had a different idea.
He said that it knocks uranium-238 up to 239, and then that decays to uranium-235 or to plutonium-239.
And so you would expect to find a small amount of plutonium in the fallout from one of these weapons.
And in fact, we were finding on the depleted uranium oversight board, which I sat on for the Ministry of Defence for about five years, they did find small amounts of plutonium.
In the fallout material from the EU weapons usage.
And also a small amount of U236, which is another isotope that you would get from 235 by adding another neutron.
So if you put all of this stuff in a bag and shake it, what comes out is a neutron bomb.
And in fact, I can't think of any other explanation.
I mean, because...
Hold on.
Where you start here, you start here with the fact that there cannot be U235 in the environment unless you put it there.
Okay.
Now, if what you're saying here is accurate with the neutron bomb, then it means that The kinetic damage that's being caused to the hospitals in Gaza and the residential buildings and what have you may be the secondary effect, but the primary effect is actually genetic damage of an ethnic group, which would be the very definition of genocide or genetic...
Well, this is the same thing that they did in Fallujah.
Exactly the same thing.
And the other thing about neutrons, and this is why Yeltsin...
I mean, the idea has been around for a long time.
A bloke called Samuel Cohen in America invented a version of the neutron bomb, and the Americans built the neutron bomb.
They have a load of them in the front of some of their missiles because of the neutrons.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but I want our audience to understand.
If these bombs are being dropped on Gaza, then wouldn't this mean that None of the Palestinians there, none of the Gazans will be able to have viable children.
It'll be like Fallujah, because that's where they used it as well.
They obviously used it in Fallujah, because it's the ideal weapon for killing people who are hiding behind stone walls.
It doesn't knock down the walls, it kills the people.
Got it.
That's why I was going to say Yeltsin called it the capitalist bomb.
Because it doesn't destroy property, it destroys people.
So this is, again, this is ethnic cleansing in a whole new way to destroy the genetic integrity of a lineage of an ethnic group of people that Israel wants to destroy.
Absolutely.
I mean, and I think they know they're doing that, and that's why they're doing it.
Wow.
How do you prove this?
I mean, you've already mentioned the discovery of U-235 there.
Is there some other way to prove it?
It's not difficult to prove, all right?
And in a sense, the U-235 does already prove it.
But there are other...
Neutron activation products.
If you produce neutrons, then not only do you knock U235 up to U236 and U234 up to 235 and all that stuff, but you also knock iron up to cobalt-60 and you knock calcium up to calcium-45 and all that.
So you get what's called...
Activation products.
So you can easily scan for those products.
Have you found those?
You can find those.
The most remarkable one, the best one of all, is cobalt-60.
Because cobalt-60 has two big gamma peaks around about 1,000 keV.
And it's got a half-life of two years or two and a half years or something like that.
So if there's any metal there, if you've got like reinforcing rod in the concrete where they've blown this place, where the bomb has been used, then you cut off a piece of that and you take it home and you put it in a gamma spectrometer.
In fact, you don't even have to put it into a cooled gamma spectrometer.
You can just use an ordinary standard sodium iodide, you know, the sort of portable thing like I've got.
And you can see those two peaks, because there they are.
They stick out like a sore thumb.
So Cobalt-60 is the...
But nobody's going to look, you see, until someone comes along and they say, hey, look, this could be it.
Who's going to go and look?
Who's going to go and look?
Okay, and I'm sorry to keep asking these basic questions, but for my sake, as well as my audience, so you're saying that you take the reinforced steel bars, when they are bombarded by neutrons from a neutron bomb, then there is...
transmutation that takes place that generates a cobalt that has it's a radio isotope with a two two-year half-life which means yeah it's emitting quite a quite a lot of decay there that you could detect and that's what you're saying that you can you can see the peaks yeah and And the other thing that will be there, which is not so easy to find, but certainly there are lots of methods of looking for it, is carbon-14, because that's another one you'll get.
And you also get tritium.
So there'll be a lot of tritium in the water.
So there'll be tritiated water.
So if you get water from the pools when it's raining and all the rest of it, And you can measure tritium using liquid scintillation counting and all sorts of ways of measuring these things.
So those are three activation nuclides which you will get if they're using a neutron bomb.
It could be, of course, that they're tuning it so as not to be fantastically neutronic.
I mean, it could be that what they want is the bang rather than the neutrons.
So I'm sure you can tune all of this stuff.
I mean, theoretically, you could tune it to get more neutrons or less neutrons and more bang or less bang and so forth.
You can do that.
Looking at Fallujah, then, shouldn't we expect to see much higher rates of cancer and infertility in Fallujah?
Well, we do.
I mean, have those studies been done?
Yes, they were done by me, that very famous study that I published in 2010.
And I took them to the, I mean, it was a huge hoo-ha, you know.
I went to Geneva and talked to the Human Rights Council and to the International Red Cross and you name it.
And then a lot of the Arab lawyers were behind.
Behind me and various other people and so on, but we never managed anybody to get anybody to do anything except that the Iraqi government got on to me and they said, will you collaborate on a study with us to check on these levels of congenital malformation?
I said, yes, certainly.
And I said, but I need to be involved in designing the study because the problem is there's such a load of crooked epidemiology.
And they said, oh, no, we can't let you do that.
And so that was it.
I said, well, I'm not going to work with you.
Okay, wow, wow.
So then the upshot here is that we should expect to see among the surviving Gazans, who are all very, I mean, if they can survive that, that itself is an incredible feat.
You know, because Israel said, evacuate the north, we're going to bomb the north.
People evacuate, they get bombed while they're evacuating, then they go to the south of Gaza, and then Israel says, oh, and now, by the way, we're going to bomb the south.
Because that's where you're all concentrated now.
Something's wrong with that picture, you know, on a humanitarian basis.
It's like they wanted a higher concentration of people in the same place, which actually would fit your theory here of neutrons.
Exposure.
What's going on in Gaza is just beyond description.
I mean, there's no way in which I can accommodate the way in which the Israelis are behaving towards those human beings.
I mean, it's just, and nobody's doing anything.
I mean, everyone's sitting back on their hands, particularly the Americans, and watching, well, the American government, and watching it happen.
I mean, it's worse than Hitler and the concentration camps and the gas chambers and all the rest of it because it's a huge population all together in one place who are being systematically destroyed with genetic weapons and, I mean, words fail me.
But certainly, it's not as if we don't know that already.
I mean, this woman Manduka that I worked with in Fallujah, She has gone on to get money to study the people in Gaza and study congenital malformation in Gaza because, I mean, remember, they dropped these uranium weapons on Gaza in 2008, presumably then also in 2014, and so we would expect some sort of downstream effects that are measurable.
Now, it's not so easy to measure cancer effects because you need to have a controlled population.
That's right.
Difficult.
But epidemiology for children is not difficult because we know the number of children because we know what the birth rate is.
So we can take it like we did and we take the hospital and we say this year there have been 10,000 babies and look we've got 1,400 congenital malformations.
That gives us a rate.
So it's not difficult to do that.
That's easy epidemiology and it's been done.
So already in Gaza they have an enormously high level of congenital malformations there.
One more question.
I mean, what you've said is already quite horrifying.
And we only have a few more minutes left in this interview, but most of the weapons being dropped on Gaza are manufactured by the United States.
This would very likely mean that...
And by the way, I just saw an article that most of the bombs are unguided bombs.
They're not intended to strike particular targets.
These are area-effect weapons of mass destruction being dropped on a highly dense civilian residential infrastructure with Hamas tunnels underneath.
But this would mean that the U.S. has this technology.
Of course, you know that from Fallujah.
But who else has this technology in your view?
The Russians, for sure.
Well, I mean, they more or less developed it, in my understanding.
They originally called it Red Mercury.
Oh, this!
I've heard Red Mercury before.
Okay.
Okay, but the way I heard it was at much, much larger destinations, but I guess it could be scaled to any size.
No.
According to the people that were talking to a chap called Barnaby in the 1980s, when Channel 4 was looking into this red mercury question, he said it was about the size of a tennis ball, about the size of a baseball, and that's what they were all saying, too.
They wouldn't say what it was, and they were pretending it was actual mercury.
They said it was Hg2 mercury antimony oxide, Hg2Sb2O7.
But I think that was just some sort of cover-up, you know, because red mercury was Stalin's code for enriched uranium was red mercury.
Oh, wow.
Okay, so if the Russians have it, probably the Chinese have it, and now we have a whole new concern about nuclear war.
What about terrorism?
Could this technology be used for nuclear terrorism?
I don't see why it can't be.
I mean, but you have to have a certain degree of sophistication in manufacture, because you've got to make this hydride, you've got to get deuterium, you've got to get heavy water, or even tritium.
So you need a reactor to get tritium, and then you've got to react it in such a way as 300 degrees.
So it's not something you could knock up in the kitchen.
Well, thank goodness for that.
But clearly the U.S. is all about selling weapons to everybody around the world that will pay in dollars.
So the proliferation of this technology is probably very widespread.
Well, I think Mordecai Bonunu said that the Israelis had neutron bombs when he was whistleblowing in the 1980s.
They locked him up for 18 years.
The word is that they tested this bomb in South Africa.
They had a deal with South Africa before apartheid stopped.
There was a big Israeli-South African connection.
And this guy, Cohen, talked freely about the fact that lots and lots of people had this bomb.
It's just that nobody's identified it with what's happening at the moment.
That's the point.
I see.
For me, that was the epiphany, you know.
I mean, I said, ah, okay, right.
Wow.
And of course, Israel still will not publicly admit that they have nuclear weapons provided by the United States.
Yes, of course not.
And as far as I'm concerned, everybody thinks that I'm a nutcase anyway, so they'll just say one more piece of crazy stuff from Busby.
And of course, I'm not going to be very popular with the Israelis, which probably is not very good for my health.
Well, there is a lot of truth to that, but these days I think there's so much worldwide condemnation against Israel for its current tactics that they're probably busy with – I mean, they're even arguing with the U.S. State Department at the moment.
I'll tell you what I mean.
I've been public enemy number one with the nuclear industry and the nuclear military complex and, you know, all of those people for such a long time now that I've just more or less accepted that they might want to bump me off.
And that's a time, you know, what is life for if you can't sort of tell the truth and try and make the world a better place?
That's my position.
Yeah, I hear you.
No, I'm right there with you.
All right, we only have a few minutes left.
Your website, greenaudit.org, You want to tell people how they can follow your work or find your interviews?
What I want to tell people is this.
The most important thing that we can do now is to create a new report of the European Committee on Radiation Risk.
This is a sort of an opposite number to the ICRP, which I set up with my friends in 1998.
And we produced two reports that give a risk model that shows actually what the real effects of ionizing radiation and all these contaminants are.
And the last one was in 2010.
So we need to do a new one now.
And I've been meaning to do that for a long time, but we've got no money.
So I want people to go to the Green Audit website, press the button that says, you know, give us money or whatever it says.
Donate, that's it.
Little yellow button.
And to consider just giving us a little bit of money every month so that we can function now and produce this new report, the ECRR 2024.
As far as everything else is concerned, you can find me on Google.
I mean, you just put in Dr.
Chris Busby, and there I am, and all of the things that I do, and all the papers that I publish, and so forth, and they're all quite easy to understand and quite entertaining.
I mean, if you can be entertained by people dying from radiation, then...
Then that's what I do.
That is it.
I'm 78.
That's my job as I see it.
Okay.
All right.
Well, again, greenaudit.org is the website.
And Chris, I will volunteer ICPMS time at our lab if we can be of help just looking at...
Well, I think...
I'm just going to start with taking soil from my backyard, frankly.
And let me just take some Texas soil, put it in, and let me see what sensitivity we have at these targeted...
I'll tell you one thing you might be interested in, is try and get hold of some iron exchange, this is very important, get some iron exchange resin which is uranium specific, right?
I'll have to look into that.
Yeah, because then you can rinse all your nitric acid solutions through that stuff, and then you can push it off and concentrate it in that way.
Oh, okay, yeah.
Okay, perfect.
I'll look into that, or I'll have my chemist take a look and see what we can find there.
But, yeah, let's keep in touch on this and see if we can do something.
Because I'm interested in, you know, there were...
Nuclear, you know, contamination accidents in Missouri, in the United States, decades ago, and I'm interested in looking at the United States.
I've been in a number of cases on contamination.
I mean, there's one in St.
Louis, Coldwater Creek, there's one in Bridgerton, there's Metropolis in Illinois, and so on.
I'm sorry to cut you off.
We've got to wrap this up.
We're almost out of time.
But Chris, it's been an honor speaking with you today.
And for everybody watching, Chris Busby here, greenaudit.org.
I want to thank you for joining me today, Mr.
Busby.
It's been an honor.
Thank you.
All right.
All right.
Take care.
And for everybody watching, feel free to share this on other platforms and channels.
I'm Mike Adams here, the founder of brighteon.com.
Thank you for watching today.
Take care.
If you'd like to support your own health and longevity while also supporting this platform, check out the products we have back in stock now at healthrangerstore.com.
We've got superanthocyanins, which is an incredible combination of aronia berries, And it's got blueberries.
And you know how the dark purple pigments in plants, these have special properties.
And they're called anthocyanins.
And you can find them in things like purple carrots or eggplant or purple corn.
Well, we've captured those anthocyanins and put them in this format.
It's a delicious way to add these very potent nutrients to any smoothie or recipe.
And yes, they're very, very purple.
So that's available now at healthrangerstore.com.
We also have greens plus superfood.
You see on top there, that contains spirulina and various organic grass juices as well, of course, all in powdered form.
If you want to add greens to your diet in a convenient format, this is an easy way to do it.
It goes into smoothies.
You could use it in some recipes as well, but I think smoothies are the easier place to use it.
As with all the products that we offer at HealthRangerStore.com, these are also subjected to our rigorous laboratory testing, which includes heavy metals testing, lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic, and it also includes E. coli and salmonella testing that's in our microbiology lab, as well as glyphosate testing that's on our triple quad mass spec that does herbicide analysis.
And of course, soon we're adding dioxin testing to this as well.
So you can trust that these are clean, laboratory tested, certified organic products that are honestly labeled and honestly priced while offering tremendous nutritional value that can help support and enhance your good health.
At the same time, you're benefiting this platform and keeping us on the air so we can continue to bring you uncensored interviews, podcasts, and content that helps enrich and enhance the lives of millions of people all over the world.
Thank you for your support.
I'm Mike Adams, the founder of healthrangerstore.com I also cover emergency medicine and first aid and what to buy to help you avoid infections.
So download this guide.
It's free.
▲
Export Selection