Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
"Safe" Radiation is a Lethal Three Mile Island Lie
There is no safe dose of radiation.
We do not x-ray pregnant women.
Any detectable fallout can kill.
With erratic radiation spikes, major air and water emissions and at least three reactors and waste pools in serious danger at Fukushima, we must prepare for the worst.
When you hear the terms "safe" and "insignificant" in reference to radioactive fallout, ask yourself: "Safe for whom?" "Insignificant to which of us?"
Despite the corporate media, what has and will continue to come here from Fukushima is deadly to Americans. At very least it threatens countless embryos and fetuses in utero, the infants, the elderly, the unborn who will come to future mothers now being exposed.
No matter how small the dose, the human egg in waiting, or embryo or fetus in utero, or newborn infant, or weakened elder, has no defense against even the tiniest radioactive assault.
Science has never found such a "safe" threshold, and never will.
In the 1950s Dr. Alice Stewart showed a definitive link between medical x-rays administered to pregnant women and the curse of childhood leukemia among their offspring.
After a fierce 30-year debate, the medical profession agreed. Today, administering an x-ray to a pregnant woman is universally understood to be a serious health hazard.
Those who pioneered the health physics profession---towering greats like Dr. Karl Z. Morgan and Dr. John Gofman---set a definitive, impenetrable standard. A safe dose of radiation does not exist. All doses, "insignificant" or otherwise, can harm the human organism.
That has been repeatedly shown in major studies---done most notably by Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Jay Gould, Joe Mangano, Arnie Gundersen, Dr. Steven Wing and others---showing that among human populations near commercial reactors, infant death rates plummet once the reactors shut down.
In 1979, 32 years ago this March 28, the owners of Three Mile Island said there was no meltdown, no serious radiation release and no need for evacuation.
All were lies.
To this day no one knows how much radiation was released or where it went or who it killed.
TMI's owners ran ads dismissing the emissions as the equivalent of a single chest x-ray given to everyone within a ten mile radius.
But that included all the pregnant women.
Soon infant death rates soared in nearby Harrisburg. Some 2400 central Pennsylvania families sued based on the health impacts.
In 1980 I interviewed dozens of these people. Cancer, leukemia, birth defects, stillbirths, sterility, malformations, open lesions, hair loss, a metallic taste and much more were among the symptoms.
The death and mutation rate among farm and wild animals was also thoroughly documented by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and a team of investigators from the Baltimore News-American.
We were again told there were "no health dangers" from radiation that hit California from Chernobyl ten days after that 1986 explosion. But bird births at the Point Reyes National Seashore quickly dropped 60% from the levels that had been carefully monitored and recorded through the previous decade.
The cloud then crossed the northern tier of the United States. Heightened radiation levels were found in milk in New England---as they were throughout Europe from clouds that had blown from Chernobyl in the other direction.
The doses were neither "insignificant" nor "safe" to those far or near.
In Russia ten years later, I interviewed dozens of downwind victims, and many of the 800,000 "liquidators" who ran into Chernobyl's seething corpse to help clean it up. After TMI, it was déjà vu all over again.
The most recently published findings, from a compendium of more than 5,000 studies, indicate a global Chernobyl death toll in excess of 985,000, and still counting.
Today we are assaulted by yet another radioactive death cloud from yet another "perfectly safe" nuclear plant.
Fukushima's radiation is pouring into the air and water. The operators have reported radiation levels a million times normal, then retracted the estimate. Workers are being exposed to doses that are certain to be lethal. At least three of the reactors, and one or more of the spent fuel pools, hover at the brink of catastrophe.
Fukushima's radiation has now been detected in Los Angeles and Sacramento, and has blown east across North America. It has also been detected in Sweden, which means its blowing across Europe as well.
Radiation is not being released as a single puff. Rather it's a steady stream that could yet turn into a tsunami.
Fukushima's worst may be yet to come. Its collective emissions are virtually certain to exceed Chernobyl's.
And yet we continue to hear smug, misinformed "experts," TV meteorologists and industry talking heads saying these are "safe" doses.
The response of the Obama Administration has been beyond derelict. As the accident began, the President went on national television to assure us there was nothing to worry about, and that he would continue to demand $36 billion in loan guarantees to build new nuclear plants.
Since then, even as the Fukushima crisis mounts, President Obama has remained silent.
Millions of Americans have heard about potassium iodide (KI), which can be used to block the uptake of radioactive iodine and perhaps protect the thyroid.
But KI can have potential medical side-effects for some individuals. And timing can be critical. To say the least, we need to know when the radioactive fallout is present.
Yet the administration has not provided us with a national supply of KI, or guidance for using it.
At very least we need reliable real-time mapping of the radioactive clouds as they cross the nation. Every American should be issued a mask, and sufficient KI pills with directions on how to use them, if necessary.
Above all, we need national leadership that puts the health of our people first and foremost.
Americans who are of reproductive age---and their unborn, our babies, the elderly, those of us who may be specially sensitive---we all deserve better.
As we have learned so tragically from Drs. Stewart, Morgan, Gofman and Sternglass, from Gundersen and Mangano and so many other researchers, from TMI and Chernobyl, and from the on-going operation of nuclear plants where infant death rates continue to be affected---a "perfectly safe" dose of radiation does not exist.
No truly informed or responsible scientist, medical doctor, health researcher, TV weatherman, bloviating "expert" or on-the scene reporter would ever tell you otherwise.
Whenever you hear the term "insignificant" fallout, ask yourself: "insignificant to whom?"
"Acceptable" to which expectant mother. To whose child? To how many mourning parents? For which dying elder?
Nuclear reactors make global warming worse and prolong our addiction to fossil fuels. They stand in the way of our transition to a totally green-powered Earth.
As we continue to learn at such a huge cost, there can never be a "perfectly safe" nuclear reactor, any more than there can be a "perfectly harmless" dose of radiation.
"Impossible" accidents continue to happen, one after the other, each of them successively worse.
What we fear most about TMI, then Chernobyl and now Fukushima, is not what has happened---but what is yet to come, there, and at the next inevitable reactor disaster.
We are a pro-life movement.
Please call the White House, the Congress and your state and local governments and DEMAND they protect the health and safety of our people in the face of this disaster.
- Posted in
86 Comments so far
Show AllBetween your fearmongering and Rebecca Solnit's good sense, Harvey, I'll take Rebecca.
So then what is the safe dose of radiation for pregnant women and old folks according to Rebecca or according to you?
Ionising or non? For imaging or therapy?
People get xrays without noticeable harm. Yes, even pregnant women do.
Note that Wasserman says "We do not x-ray pregnant women". Since pregnant women *do* undergo x-ray when needed, I suppose his "we" must refer to himself and some other unqualified person. Or perhaps he's just lying.
So the radiation from the melt downs are not harmful?
Sure they might x-ray a fetus, but is it safe?
There are always exceptions it depends on the case.
This article is mainly about nuke plants not natural radiation that is pretty safe and necessary from the Sun because it is naturally filtered by the ozone layer.
So tell us what is the safe dose of unnatural radiation.... if x rays were healthy they wouldn't put a lead vest on me at the dentist...what are you trying to prove here anyway.
If you are trying to prove that all radiation is not harmful, that is not the point of what is happening during nuke plant accidents.
You asked me a question. I answered. Why are you working so hard to try to put me in the wrong?
You avoided the answer with another question.
You asked "Ionising or non? For imaging or therapy?"
Ok now you can put yourself in the right by giving us the safe dose of all the above diversions from the topic. OK get to work "Ionising or non? For imaging or therapy?" for sick old folks and young with bad immune systems and Fetuses, the safe dose for each type of radiation.
And what about what his article is about... you sound like a shill for the nuke industry with all of your diversions and suggesting that the writer here is lying... if you don't like being put in a bad light get out of the shadows.
You want to play gotcha? Go find someone else to play with. I'm not playing. You don't like the answer I gave so now I have to jump through more hoops to please you? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
You haven't answered anything that is on topic not even your own diversion.
There are no hoops here but your own, you just got caught with no real answers to the topic.
We need proof here on CD and you have none for your pathetic apologies for the nuke industry.
Your words are your own hoops you tripped up on.
Not to mention that nobody ingests or inhales nuclear particles during X-rays (or even treatment).
Telling the truth about nuclear power is "fearmongering" for nuke troll shills. In America, it's drill baby drill and let's build more nukes. In countries like New Zealand, Austria and Denmark, they are moving away from fossil fuels and they have completely rejected nuclear power. I can only hope that this Fukushima catastrophe will have put the stake in the heart of nuclear power. I also hope that the Japanese can get control of those 3 reactors which are in partial meltdown. I can't even imagine the horrific consequences if 3 reactors totally melt down.
Get your house tested ASAP for radon! This natural radiation can be a real killer. After cigarettes, Radon is the most common cause of lung cancer! http://www.epa.gov/radon/
On the other hand thank god the Japanese don't have to worry about the radiation coming out of that nuke plant in Japan. Just stay inside your house they are told... OMG what about the Radon!
Which just goes to show, Tom, that the value of simplistic thinking ("Two legs bad, four legs good") ranges from useless to deadly.
Tom,
You can mock it if you wish, but there is a value to the request to stay indoors.
The real risk of injury from contamination is the beta particles from the fission fragments. In your eyes they can give you cataracts. Inhaled they can scar your lungs. Compared to the beta particles, the gamma ray given off along with the beta particle is minor.
Beta particles have very little penetrating power. A pane of glass or the siding on a home is adequate shielding from beta.
In high doses, the gamma can be injurious as well but it is not the hazard that internal exposure (and eye tissue) to beta particles is.
Bill
I wasn't mocking the advice to stay inside. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of how on one had we are told the dangers of a natural form of radiation while we are continuously told why we shouldn't fear the man made kind.
Radon wasn't a problem years ago - it's just the cement slab floor, concrete blocks, and air-tight insulation that has brought the issue up. I got a radon detector about 15-20 years ago for the aforementioned reasons. Everybody doesn't need one though - you can just keep your basement ventilated instead. (Try a geiger counter on those cement blocks, just for fun.)
This was originally posted by "hypewaders" on another thread, but it needs to go here:
"One of the arguments used in support of increasingly strict radiation dose limits is that every incremental reduction in radiation exposure carries with it a net benefit to the public health. This hypothesis is also frequently cited by those with a seemingly irrational fear of radiation as justifying their fears, and the continued use of the linear, no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis helps to feed radiation phobia. Abandoning this hypothesis or explaining that it over-predicts risks at low levels of radiation exposure, if supported by appropriate scientific studies, may help alleviate radiation phobia."
"Recently-published data suggest that there is no detectable chromsomal damage from the high levels of natural background radiation found in Ramsar and other HBRAs, contrary to the predictions of linear, no-threshold or supra-linear models of radiation dose-response (Ghiassinejad et al. 2001; Mortazvi 2000). This suggests that the linear extrapolation of radiation risk from very high dose at high dose rates (e.g., to A-bomb , many animal studies) to moderate doses at natural low dose rates is scientifically invalid."
http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl/grkfiles/images/Karam.pdf
"Based on results obtained in studies on high background radiation areas of Ramsar, high levels of natural radiation may have some bio-positive effects such as enhancing radiation-resistance. More research is needed to assess if these bio-positive effects have any implication in radiation protection (Mortazavi et al. 2001). The risk from exposure to low-dose radiation has been highly politicized for a variety of reasons. This has led to a frequently exaggerated perception of the potential health effects, and to lasting public controversies."
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/ramsar-natural-radioactivity/ramsar.html
"In the last decade, an alternative hypothesis called radiation hormesis has gained adherents. The term "hormesis" describes any physiologic effect that occurs at low doses of a substance and cannot be anticipated by extrapolation from the substance’s toxic effects at high doses. Some everyday examples of hormesis include the effects of vitamins, trace elements, and hormones. In each instance, a small amount of the substance is beneficial but a large amount is toxic. Similarly, radiation hormesis proposes that low levels of radiation exposure produce health benefits. The radiation hormesis hypothesis can be shown graphically as a decrease in the radiation risk at low levels."
http://tech.snmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/1/11
"Low doses and low dose-rates of gamma rays and x-rays appear to stimulate the body's natural defenses, an effect that has been called radiation activated natural protection (ANP). This protective mechanism involves selective removal of aberrant cells such as those that are precancerous via apoptosis (cell death). The selective removal of precancerous cells via apoptosis it thought to involve intercellular signaling involving reactive oxygen and nitrogen species and certain cytokines. In addition, there is considerable evidence supporting the action of low-dose radiation in connection with stimulating immunity against cancer cells. These protective effects would operate for both sporadic and hereditary cancers. As mentioned above, there are evolutionary arguments suggesting that such protective mechanisms may have been essential to survival."
http://www.yourhealthbase.com/radiation_and_cancer_risk.htm
http://geology.about.com/library/bl/maps/blusradiationmap.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/county-cancer-map.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939692/
"The Philip Morris tobacco company feared that the study (and a possible IARC monograph on second-hand smoke) would lead to increased restrictions in Europe so they spearheaded an inter-industry, three-prong strategy to subvert IARC’s work. The scientific strategy attempted to undercut IARC’s research and to develop industry-directed research to counter the anticipated findings. The communications strategy planned to shape opinion by manipulating the media and the public. The government strategy sought to prevent increased smoking restrictions. The IARC study cost $2 million over ten years; Philip Morris planned to spend $2 million in one year alone and up to $4 million on research. The documents and interviews suggest that the tobacco industry continues to conduct a sophisticated campaign against conclusions that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other diseases, subverting normal scientific processes."
http://www.smokefreeillinois.org/files/ONG2000.pdf
Lets see how many logical fallacies this one commits. . .
1. This is a Red Herring (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html), since the tobacco companies are completely irrelevant .
2. Saying that these researchers are analogous to the Phillip Morris sponsored ones is obviously a False Analogy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html)
3. This is, not as blatantly as 1 & 2, an attempt to Poison the well (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html)
And on and on! These insane attacks are one of many reasons for my sig, as they show the work to, indeed, more and more like a newspaper!
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, NOT a newspaper!
"Statements by leading nuclear bodies
Radiation hormesis has not been accepted by either the United States National Research Council,[21] or the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.[22] In addition, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its most recent report:[23]
Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.
This is a reference to the fact that very low doses of radiation have only marginal impacts on individual health outcomes. It is therefore difficult to detect the 'signal' of decreased or increased morbidity and mortality due to low-level radiation exposure in the 'noise' of other effects. The notion of radiation hormesis has been rejected by the National Research Council's (part of the National Academy of Sciences) 16 year long study on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. "The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial. The health risks – particularly the development of solid cancers in organs – rise proportionally with exposure" says Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
reset,
Restated, your citation says that there are not enough data to support either radiation hormesis or linear no threshold so we will go with the more conservative approach which is LNT.
As a radiation worker, I agree with their decision.
Bill
Went right over your head, didn't it?
We are talking about pattern recognition here, which negates your analysis of the post.
A red herring is an argument which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. However, a pattern of corporate lying, corruption of research, and complicity by government agents is not a distraction - it IS the issue in question. I know that you do not want that to be true, so you distract us - in other words, you use red herrings routinely. Speaking of pattern recognition, this illustrates another pattern: accusing others of doing that which in fact you yourself are doing.
The "false analogy" charge I already mentioned. Tobacco is a false analogy to nuclear power, but comparing corporate deception - recognizing the pattern - about the two is not.
Poisoning the well - do you mean for example, characterizing your opponent's posts as "insane attacks?" Do you mean falsely accusing people of using logical fallacies?
CTRL-Z: Thank you for "trying." Your post does a good job of exposing the mentality behind those corporations that directly profit from tools of destruction.
Thanks Siouxrose. There are none so blind as, well, these nukers.
Or more simply, if there is no minimum dose of radiation without health effects, then we should be seeing higher cancer rates in Colorado Springs or Taos compared to a similar non-industrial US city at sea level, and cancer rates for airline pilots and flight attendants should be through the roof.
The real hazards are not radiaiton, but the ingestion or inhalation of fission products that can bio-accumulate - especially longer lived ones like Cs137, Sr90 or Plutonium.
Fission products give off dangerous radiation.
If the radiation is in the air you breath it.
in the food you eat it.
So what do you mean the hazards are not the radiation?
Jim,
Most nuclear radiation consists of two effects. When a radioactive atom undergoes a decay, it normally gives off a particle and a gamma ray. Fission fragments, which are the major concern in Japan, give off beta particles with the gamma rays. Uranium and plutonium give off alpha particles with the gamma rays.
I think what Sabo was saying is that an alpha or beta particle can do more injury (particularly if they are internal) than the gamma ray associated with them.
Alpha and beta particles have very limited ranges. A sheet of paper or your outer layer of skin will stop an alpha particle. A sheet of window glass will stop a beta particle. The sheet of glass or paper will do little to stop a gamma ray.
Bill
>>The real hazards are not radiaiton, but the ingestion or inhalation of fission products that can bio-accumulate - especially longer lived ones like Cs137, Sr90 or Plutonium.<<
To restate your position as I interpret it: Radiation from external sources is not hazardous as long as fission products are not inhaled, whereupon they become Helen Caldicott's "internal emitters", irradiating the body from within. Is that your position? If it is, then all we need to do in the event of a nuclear catastrophe is to stop breathing and all will be well.
"...all we need to do in the event of a nuclear catastrophe is to stop breathing..."
Does this mean that "The Color Purple" was a sequel to the China Syndrome?
I never knew!
Bill
lol
I'm looking into your response about shills on the other thread. Part of my response - Do shills exist? is upthread. Shockingly, I conclude that they do.
That's the easy part.
Any and all attempts to dispel the fear of the radioactivity of nuclear plant meltdowns is as ignorant as saying that the nuke bombs don't hurt after a couple years either, so here, hang out in this shelter a while. Did anyone mention half life and death? Or wipe out???
"Consensus reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) have upheld that insufficient human data on radiation hormesis exists to supplant the Linear no-threshold model (LNT). Therefore, the LNT continues to be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
Naturally we get low doses of all kinds of radiation from the sun and cosmic rays particles in space... the ozone can't filter everything and of course withoutout radiation from the sun, life would not exist on earth.
But what is the safe dose of man made nuclear radiation including for old sick people and fetuses?
That is what this article is about ... so what is your answer and please stay on topic if you can.
Pro-nuclear advocates like Mairead and Mark Abram give the impression that nuclear power is simply indispensable in the United States. But in reality only 18 or 19 per cent of electricity in the U.S., and about 8 per cent of our total energy, comes from nuclear power. This relatively minute amount could easily be replaced by other forms of power which are not as potentially pernicious as nuclear power plants such as wind, solar, tidal, ocean thermal and biofuels especially given the time that it would take to build another nuclear power plant in this country.
Hyperwaders used one Dr Roger Bate as a "source" in one of his posts in an attempt to somehow "prove" radiation was harmless.
Dr Roger bate is an economist who believes in the principles of "The Free Market" He sat on the board of groups like the American Enterprise Institute. He is not a Biologist or a scientist. He is not a Doctor of medicine. He fancies himself a Libertarian.
He has lobbied extensively on the behalf of Tobacco Companies writing a book wherein he claimed tobacco smoke was harmless. He advocates the widespread use of DDT.
In the article linked to Mr Bate claimed that the various ailments/diseases and cancers measured in Russia and Europe post Chernobyl were due to hysteria. It is his contention that people got sick because they were watching the news and all the scare mongering made them sick.
>>The death and mutation rate among farm and wild animals was also thoroughly documented by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and a team of investigators from the Baltimore News-American.
So I guess according to this "Economist" those animals were watching too much FOX news and reading too many newspapers.
Indeed an entire forest was bulldozed because its trees died due to radiation. I wonder how the trees learned how to read.
HBRA studies have been known to ignore some variables. I have a feeling that the same is true for other studies (it's common these days to get the results you want from certain studies, depending on who is paying for them).
There are other conclusions regarding the low-dose/high-dose debate. I don't approve of scare tactics (which have been abundant lately) but pretending the risk isn't as severe as it is goes along with having public officials and corporate sociopaths weighing public risk against their own careers. They know full well that the results of radiation probably won't show up for decades - and they'll be long gone by then. So I take their opinions with a grain of salt and factor 'agenda' into the equation.
How EXTREMELY stupid your argument!
"There's no such thing as zero risk! So let's take the riskiest, most irresponsible, suicidal path possible!" Sounds like a policy the corporate nuclear industry would love!
"Forget wind power, forget solar -- that's just hippie propaganda." Right?
Just because cancer kills people doesn't mean the nuclear option is any saner. Doesn't mean we should add nuclear disaster to the arsenal.
Please go buy a house near a nuclear reactor -- we need a die-off of stupidity.
More distraction.
Coal is not relevant to this discussion. The "we must consider nuclear because of our energy needs" argument is not relevant. "Wind and solar are too variable" is not relevant to this discussion.
You say "newer reactors are a lot less disaster-prone..." Really. That is your argument? As I said, the pro-nuke arguments are solidifying my opposition to nuclear power.
I agree; like it or not, there are no really-existing replacements for nuclear fission right now except for coal.
I notice that there are no only 3 comments regarding Bill Biggers article below this one. Ken Salazar has already opened big new ares of public land to strip mining - citing the Fukushima incident. So the anti-nuke-fueled coal rush is on. He also writes that Gill Gates has met Warren Buffet where they toured the huge Arch coal Powder River Basin operations. It appears that Bill Gates will be joining buffet in investing some of his Microsoft fortune in coal.
The question of whether or not nuclear power is necessary, in order to accomplish other goals such as reduced fossil fuel consumption, is not an argument that addresses the topic at hand - the safety concerns about nuclear power.
You have to go where the evidence leads you, even if that means rethinking all of your assumptions.. Your assumption that "we" must keep things going the way they are is an assumption that would allow any sort of horror to be accepted. In fact, we are seeing many horrors that result from your assumptions. How many times are we told, and in how many areas, arguments like the following "given A, B, and C, we MUST do such and such horrible thing? All alternatives are worse! we have no choice!" You argue this very line in the arena of partisan politics, if I remember correctly.
A, B, and C - your assumptions - are the problem. There is some sort of insanity going on where we are being forced to continually accept the supposed "lesser of two evils" in all things. We are being conned. It is the only way they can get us to accept all of these evils - by scaring us about a supposedly worse evil, and presenting that other worst evil as the only possible alternative. By this mechanism we are led again and again to accept virtually anything that the ruling class wants us to accept, anything that benefits them no matter how much harm is done to us.
Your arguments tacitly admit that we are living under tyranny, and that you think that is acceptable. Only tyrants present "lesser of two evils" in order to force their will on us. You don't deny that, you try to persuade us that we have no choice. Many are starting to reject that line of thinking, and don't care anymore - they are immune to the fear-mongering. They would rather die with their boots on, engaged in the good fight, then to whimper and crawl and beg and accept your "lesser of two evils." I know that I would.
"However, newer reactors are a lot less disaster-prone than the 40-year old ones at Fukushima. Future ones could be pretty well disaster-proof."
Faith based arguments got us into this mess
Yes, and the safest current form of long distance transportation - commercial aviation arose from the rickety Wright Flyer - that was was faith-based too.
Great example. Flying is the least energy efficient form of transportation.
Proof?
They also cover more miles per calorie than any other animal group
hardly 'faith-based' at all. After all it's long been known that things can fly. You have seen birds? Bees? Heard of flying fish or squirrels? (even tho they glide really) Those are bits of evidence that gave the humans the idea that flight was possible.
After all 'faith' is the belief in things which cannot be proven.
Good reply
This argument has been refuted many times. Repeating it over and over again does not overcome that.
The industry bases all of their pitches on the notion of safe levels. They introduced the concept, not the opponents of nuclear power. That concept is false. Saying that nothing is without risk is not germane or responsive to that. No one is saying that all things that have any risk should be banned, are they?
The key thing is that we are being lied to, and that the dangers are being underplayed. This is leading people to call for a moratorium, and that is a rational response on their part despite your efforts at characterizing them in various pejorative ways.
None of the other dangers you cite carry with them the same risks associated with nuclear power, so they are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
It is not "pretty much the situation we're talking about" that "the risk is so small you can't measure any increase in the cancer rate over the background rate." You are deceptively framing this issue in such a way that supports your argument.
We are not talking about "some risk of cancer." We are not playing "comparative death tolls" with you. We are not denying that everything caries risks. We are not merely talking about cancer. Only by strictly limiting the scope of the discussion and demanding that everyone stay within the bounds that you have created for the discussion can anything you are saying appear even remotely plausible or persuasive. That smacks of propaganda and talking points rather than a rational considered opinion, it is an attempt to sell people - through deception - on a particular point of view rather that sincerely and honestly engaging in a discussion. As I said earlier, the inability or unwillingness of those attacking the critics of nuclear energy to engage in sincere and honest discussion about this - given that they are all highly motivated and presumably giving it their best shot, and given that the arguments they are repeating are the same arguments coming from industry and must be presumed to be the very best apologies and defenses available - has moved me from a position of neutrality to total opposition to the nuclear industry. For whatever the weaknesses of the arguments by anti-nuke people may or may not be, the pro-nuke people - including those whose fortunes depend upon it - have no argument and instead resort to deception.
Strange that you would make the argument that "hey! Who knows? Maybe it is safe!" The rest of us are saying "hey who knows? Maybe it isn't." Sane rational people will err on the side of caution on this, thank you very much.
The article is not about "no radiation", even though you would like to spin it that way, it is about unnatural man made radiation.
Read the article about how many problems were found near and far away from nuke accidents and also nuke warfare which gets the radioactive material from power plants even the depleted uranium weapons exploding all over the world.
Do you consider the Depleted uranium dust in the air natural too?
Cancer is complicated... we know that but if you are not scared of it, go to Japan and volunteer for the clean-up.
Than we can take you seriously after your report or death.
You can't fool mother nature and you can't fool me.
Harvey has been one of the finest researchers in the arena for a long time. He has a rep for being succinct and accurate. I fear that what he says here is quite true. Time will validate his findings, just like the death of dolphins in the gulf; the reality will strike regardless of spin doctoring, and bs websites, and pandering by pundits of whorporate greed.
My personal theory is that the powers that be are seeing this as an opportunity to get a few more million off'ed so their trip to the New World Order shortens. They have to have a serious depletion of the population in order to implement the NWO. If you don't believe me, check out their constitution.
To our communal loss, Joe Bageant just died the day before yesterday at age 64. My kid brother died a year ago last December at age 67. Both died of cancer, both died too young.
Neither, to my knowledge, ever had even as much contact with "manufactured" radiation as I've had, which is more or less none at all apart from xrays, a radium-dial watch I owned ages ago, and something on the order of 150K hours in front of CRTs.
Does that tell us anything?