Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ransomnote
OK, so you can't give me a name. Fine, we'll leave it at that. I ll count that round as a win by default.

So, if you can't give me a name, and there is all this harm being done out there, how about a citation for a successful case brought by class action lawsuit that demonstrates harm to a group of people that is causally linked to radiation from a power plant? No individual names, just an example of case law that shows a group of people was awarded a judgment based on harm proved to be caused by radiation from a nuclear plant. Don't say it isn't possible to prove a case on this basis. There is tons of case law on the very same thing, for effects of things like pesticides, chemicals, tobacco use, pharmaceuticals, etc. You can't, because there is no such proof.

Those are horseshit calculations. I don't care who did them. During normal operation no plutonium is released from an LWR. In the most pessimistic accident scenario you are going to get local contamination and nothing else. Even if someone ingests a significant amount of plutonium, it is far from the 100% death sentence you fearmongers push. There is an ongoing study of plutonium workers at Los Alamos who have probably ingested more plutonium than could ever be emitted from a nuclear plant. The cohort group consist of 26 white males. Of that group, seven have died, compared with an expected death rate of 16 for US mortality at the age of these individuals. That means on average they are living longer than non-exposed individuals. (Interestingly, the "hot particle" plutonium "theory" pushed by fearmongers would predict a 99.5% mortality in this group, all from lung cancers induced by plutonium This has not happened.) Of the seven fatalities, three were from cancer (bone, prostate, and lung). That is not statistically elevated. Of the others, they show physical changes and illnesses consist with unexposed groups of this age. Of the 26 total, eight have been diagnosed with one or more cancers, which is within the expected range for a unexposed cohort group. It is worth noting that these individuals received far higher exposures to plutonium (from a laboratory, not a power plant) than any member of the public ever would from a nuclear plant even under the worst circumstances, and no demonstrable harm was caused them that can be causally linked to their exposure.

32 posted on 02/11/2012 4:12:34 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: chimera
I should add that the study of the Los Alamos workers has been ongoing for over 50 years. Far more than enough time for latent effects to be manifest.
33 posted on 02/11/2012 4:14:13 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: chimera

OK, so you can’t give me a name. Fine, we’ll leave it at that. I ll count that round as a win by default.
_____________________________________________

I stopped reading here because you are claiming to win by default when in fact you are refuting the scientific method used to gather medical data. Nuke pimps know that an individual one to one basis does not reveal direct causal factor for cancer but large, blind studies with thousands of people reveal mortality caused by radiation. You want to deny the basis for scientific research and then declare a win by default? Go waste someone else’s time.


34 posted on 02/11/2012 5:41:07 PM PST by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson