(This is my 999th thread posting)...
“Influential scientists who help set Japan’s radiation exposure limits have for years had trips paid for by the country’s nuclear plant operators to attend overseas meetings of the world’s top academic group on radiation safety.”
What? They don’t think they should attend “the world’s top academic group on radiation safety.?” I would think they’d want them to be there.
However, this also shows the opposite of a conflict of interest. These scientists were sent to these international conferences to learn the most recent information and standards. Had these scientists not had their trips subsidized, they would be far less able to make accurate estimations.
The “proof of the pudding” is if they cited information learned at these conferences as part of their assessments.
That is, it is being alleged that because they gave reports that might be considered as favorable to the industry, it implies that the data is neither correct or justifiable. But if this data was originally created by someone who did not have a conflict of interest in any way, then the accusation of impropriety is just slander.
Great news, do the Japanese realize that without irradiation from the nuclear weapons detonated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki there would never had been Godzilla, Mothra and King Kong? I just don’t think the Japanese realize this important fact.
“Low-dose radiation may be even good for you.”
Strange but true — the phenomenon is called “hormesis”
Its all among friends...
You mean some scientist can be bought with money; that they will modify, change, adapt, adhere to loose or flawed science in the name of retaining tenure, federal grants, etc.
I find that hard to believe. Look at global warming now called climate change. I think they should rename thier doctrine to political science for the sake of accuracy.
I wouldn’t rush to conclude that this is a conflict of interest.
In a big government, socialist state, the government would pay scientists to do this, and would impose regulations on the industry which might or might not make sense.
In a private enterprise society, the nuclear plant companies would pay scientists, because they wanted to latest and best scientific advice for what they were doing.
On the whole, the latter system probably makes more sense. Who do you want, a scientist paid as a consultant by the company, or a scientist paid by the taxpayers who is as likely as not to be some kind of left wing lunatic?
After all, where did all those global warmists come from? The government paid them to say what was wanted.
At least you left perhaps the most significant line in your missive for last!
While the Fukushima meltdowns were indeed the worst since Chernobyl, a better comparison, since Chernobyl was not a commercial generator, but an ancient graphite core reactor maintained for its weapons-grade by product, and entirely bereft of containment. Access to the core was through swinging doors. The core was surrounded by stacks of graphite.
The relevant comparison would be “worst since Three Mile Island!”, since Three Mile Island is/was a commercial reactor with full containment. Like Three Mile Island, the Fukushima meltdowns are a further testament to the amazing safety record of commercial reactors in that no commercial reactor has caused an injury to the public - ever. The injuries incurred by technicians and operators were not radiation injuries. No source of electrical energy has even come close to nuclear for its safety, and no energy source has contributed less contamination to our environment.
The “waste” fission products come from uranium removed from the earth, which can, if we wish, be more safely returned to the earth. Before the ore was located and mined it might have contributed to exposure. Real waste can be processed and placed where it will not be accidentally encountered, as it decays to irrelevancy.
There is indeed a credible case, but one which is politically shunned, that exposure to moderate levels of radiation might have health benefits. The Taiwanese government has tracked thousands who were accidentally exposed to cobalt-60 refined into re-bar used to build public housing, offices and stores in Taipei City in 1983. The high radioactivity was only discovered about ten years later. The families that lived in two housing projects have been tracked for well over a decade. They are stable, and their cancer incidence appears to be way below that of control groups. The high exposure group, about 20%, received between 15 and 160 mSieverts/yr, where normal background is about 1 mSievert/yr. Co-60 has a half life of 5.3 years. Where the incidence of all cancers from the comparable Taiwanese population would be about 113/100,000, the exposed apartment dwellers, tracked for almost twenty years, showed 3.5 cancers/100,000. This is a phenomenon that deserves research monies, but monies than have not been spent because of the political clout of religions antinuclear zealots.
This zealotry is comparable to the evil associated with Rachel Carson, whose Silent Spring led to the criminal banning of DDT by our EPA in 1973, even after commissioned scientific studies of dangers from DDT showed no risk, an act that directly caused the deaths from malaria of an estimated forty million African children. We will all die, but many of us know the pain and suffering from cancer. For research to be curtailed by ignorant zealotry, by people who probably still believe Al Gore's rising sea levels and anthropomorphic global warming deserve respect, is insufferable.
The medical profession has been for sale for a long time to industry. It was a not so great part of globalization’s, new profit-at-all-cost excess. Industry could care less about killing people and so with their minions, the doctor who assure us that all is fine and dandy.
If doctors do stand up to them, their institutions will be punished by the industry contractor.