Posted on 08/26/2013 7:34:30 PM PDT by Errant
State of the art medical science continues to support LNT. The latest BEIR VII builds on past research - all the way back to John Gofman’s pioneering work which demonstrated that there is no safe dose. So the nuclear power industry angrily denies the results of medical science and funds propaganda research to refute the solid science behind LNT. That’s why you may hear of a medical study re Kuala Lumpar (SP?) purporting to prove that concerns about radiation are unfounded. Read up on that fake medical study and discover that it is not legitimate science. There are other false, unscientific “studies” put forth by the nuclear power industry -but solid medical science refutes their propaganda. How inconvenient for them, eh?
I’ve just written a post about the basis for refuting the claim that there is a safe thresh hold beneath which one can ingest radioactive waste without harm. This is why I object to small amounts of contaminants in fish.
It is surprising to me that the Wood’s Hole marine biolgists discovery of tainted fish in San Diego just 5 months after Fukushima - and that 13 of the 13 fish tested at tested positive for Fukushima contaminants - means nothing to someone supposedly viewing this information “objectively.”
Nah. Your real objection is to anything nuclear. That much is clear from all your posts. You're just another anti-nuke propagandist.
"It is surprising to me that the Wood’s Hole marine biolgists discovery of tainted fish in San Diego just 5 months after Fukushima - and that 13 of the 13 fish tested at tested positive for Fukushima contaminants - means nothing to someone supposedly viewing this information “objectively.”"
Because without NUMBERS on HOW MUCH radioactivity is there, the "study" means precisely nothing. So they found Cs-137. Since the beginning of the atomic age, Cs-137 has been produced and "gotten into nature". I suspect you can find measurable Cs-137 most anywhere on the planet by now.
UNLESS you have data on HOW MUCH was detected originally, and another set of data taken more recently that shows an increase above that amount by an increment greater than the statistical background, you have zero to back your attempted scare-mongering.
I have posted the woods hole article a few times now. I thought by now people understood the reason why that study is of interest. It wasn’t a comparative study, although I look forward to learning more about this issue as more information becomes available - it was a heads up to study further and to not assume it is impossible that we could possibly encounter contaminants because of the mythological wish that “dilution is the solution to pollution.”
Again, a nuke pimp refers to scare mongering. You’ll excuse me for not apologizing for posting on threads which are of interest to me. I am against incompetence, mismanagement and lies in the nuke industry - you have summarized my specific objections to pertain to “anything nuclear.”
All you have done is to repeat various forms of the comment "found Fukushima radioactivity in 13 our of 13 fish samples". That doesn't constitute a "study". It constitutes propaganda. There is NO indication that the Cs-137 found is from Fukushima. There is NO data to indicate that the levels are increasing over time.
"Again, a nuke pimp refers to scare mongering. You’ll excuse me for not apologizing for posting on threads which are of interest to me.
Post all you like. Just don't be surprised when the shortcomings of the science in your repetitious blather gets pointed out. As to being a "nuke pimp".....BS. I guess in your world "if you're not against it, you're a pimp."
"I am against incompetence, mismanagement and lies in the nuke industry - you have summarized my specific objections to pertain to “anything nuclear.”
And I'm against incompetence and propaganda in science. Which is what your postings amount to. I leave you with two words......"lynx hairs". Can you say "green pimp"??
Well,I provide links for people who are worth relaying information to.
So in your reality, we close our mouths and ignore the fact that government insured power plants are polluting the air, ocean and land and lying about it in order to avoid compensating those they harm or accepting responsibility for their incompetence ‘cause we’re good docile conservatives? As a biologist, I find my conservative political beliefs are not at odds with science. I don’t know why you sold out.
In other words, people you think will "yes-yes" your point of view.
"So in your reality, we close our mouths and ignore the fact that government insured power plants are polluting the air, ocean and land and lying about it in order to avoid compensating those they harm or accepting responsibility for their incompetence ‘cause we’re good docile conservatives?
Standard anti-nuke fable rant. The fact of the matter is that the ultimate blame for Fukushima rests with the anti-nuke greens who have fought tooth and nail to prevent spent fuel reprocessing and re-use. THAT is precisely why the spent fuel was present in such large quantities in on-site "waste ponds" instead of in a secured and securable facility like Yucca Mountain.
And if something similar happens at some or other US plant, the blame will sit in precisely the same place.
"As a biologist, I find my conservative political beliefs are not at odds with science. I don’t know why you sold out.
I'm not the one spouting unproven, unvalidated "information". I have the science background to actually understand the issues. "As a biologist" I seriously doubt that you do.
Note...while getting my PhD in chemistry, I also took a minor in nuclear science. I have handled Cs-136, Co-60, Cf-252, and any number of other radioactive materials. I have studied shielding, dosimetry, health physics, and any number of other nuclear-related topics. Just FYI, I have never worked in the nuclear industry, own no nuclear-related stock, and have no green ax to grind like you. But I "do" know the difference between real science and scaremongering fables.
I provide links to people willing to read objectively. You have decided that information you don’t want to hear must be propaganda - hence, you can always look up the articles yourself and not waste my time.
In college, I wanted to go into the nuke industry and it was always the “path not taken’ for me for many years. Until Fukushima. Then I discovered a corrupt industry propped up by our government in the US because no insurer was willing to insure a nuclear power plant - they would automatically go out of business if there was even one disaster. Thank about that. SO the government stepped in and insurers the plants by denying all claims. That’s why Japan has declared regions that are not fit for human habitation (too contaminated) as “safe” - that way they don’t have to pay money to those they’ve harmed. That’s why they tell farmers who have contaminated rice (and other crops) that there is no mandatory regulation barring them from selling contaminated crops - because the government would have to compensate them otherwise.
Hey maybe you like to be controlled by the government more than I do. Maybe you like it when a special interest gets protection from the will of the people. I think that’s it. I want checks, balances, accountability and you want the citizens to shut up while the government and nuclear industry lies to them, abuses them, and distributes radioactive waste wherever they please. It’s kinda getting dirty in the northwest with that powerplant dumping strontium into waterways and no one knows how to clean that up. Just call them environmentalist freaks - that’s the ticket! THe spent fuel pools are precarious but intact, for now. Who knows how long they’ll hold up or what will happen to them. No, the problem right now is three core melt throughs - but blame it on those who didn’t trust the nuclear power companies to manage fuel storage. Hey, remember that Lawrence LIvermore Lab fire? With LLL admitting that the hillsides contained casks above ground that were never intended to be burned for days? WHY would anyone doubt the nuke power industry???TSK TSK TSK.
Ah, I see you blame fuel storage for the location of the plants in a highly seismicaly active zone, TEPCO’s history of falsifying safety records, TEPCO’s refusal to respond to warnings about tsunamis and the location of the generators, TEPCO and JAPAN’s refusal to accept international help when it would still make a difference, TEPCO’s refusal to release SPEEDI data which would have prevented people from fleeing in the direction of the intial radioactive plume and...well...all of TEPCOS flat out lies - like the fact that they knew the fuel had melted through containment months prior etc. All the unbelievable lies and mismanagement are the fault of your mythical scape goats. Got it. Now I understand you.
You think it's bad that the nuke industry and government lies?? I think it's bad that the green movement lies..just as badly, if not worse. I "came of age" (college years) during the height of the birth of both the "environmental" and "anti-nuke" memes. Greens lie, they lie all the time, and about every issue. The anti-nuke "cause" was initially started by, run by, and financed by the KGB.
I recall one class during my PhD years taught by a leftist Jewish chemistry prof. This was during the construction of the River Bend plant, which I followed VERY closely, as it was about 20 miles from my parents farm. Said professor assured us, in class, that it was inevitable that the reactor vessels would suffer both hydrogen and radiation embrittlement, and "just crumble away". That was almost fifty years ago. I don't recall any reactor containment ever failing because of embrittlement.
At the start of the "nuclear age", the experts on the subject set out a reasonable and safe plan for progression with time. That initial plan was fought tooth and nail by every possible delaying tactic, and has been largely been abandoned, not for lack of scientific merit, but simply because the industry couldn't afford the dozens and/or hundreds of frivoulous lawsuits initiated by guys like you.
So, yes, I "do" put a big chunk of the blame on the KGB anti-nuke/green groups. By now, we should have been running third or fourth generation plants on recycled fuel with a permanent storage system up and running. Instead, we are running first or second generation technology developed in the 1950's, with "waste" storage in pools at each plant. And that is supposedly "better" than the original plan(s)
Now, as to the science. You are claiming that the Woods Hole study proves that Fukushima is contaminating fish, and that "we're all gonna die" because of it. The actual fact is that Cs-137 was found in fish samples, at some non-stated level. That does NOT prove either that the Cs came from Fukushima or that anyone will suffer any effects at all from it.
I am neither left nor green. I’ve never voted left/green nor do I sympathize with those factions. You seem to define objection to the incompetence and abuses of TEPCO and Japan as “green” “leftie” etc. Conservatives and republicans can and should hold out for accountability, leadership, and competence in the nuclear power industry; we shouldn’t lower our standards for fear some childlike person will engage in name calling.
I think it’s bad when the government tells people that there is no harm to human health for those living in areas that, at equivalent levels of contamination, were evacuated in the Ukraine as unlivable. It’s bad when Japan’s standards for health and safety dip below those of the old Soviet Union. You say the anti nuke cause was started by the KGB. I doubt thats true. But if it is, I believe the abject failures and lack of professionalism and integrity of those in nuclear power did more damage to the industry than the KGB could even dream of.
You cite the failings of a leftist Jewish chemistry prof. (why specify that he’s jewish???), I cite the statement-as-fact that the nuclear industry has absolutely defended “It’s impossible to lose containment” right up to and months after three containment vessels failed. Blindness and ignorance on both sides. One on the part of caution, the nuke power industry’s on the part of recklessness. Lie about it now, deny it later, and then call anyone who objects a “leftist or a greenie.” How’s that strategy workin’ out for ya? Doesn’t it matter that the containment failed in three reactors? You wanna change the subject to what one person said 50 years ago? 3 containment vessels failed and you still wanna play that game???
Oh I’m not a greenie or a leftie so I don’t resemble your fictional evil guys ruining nuclear power for ya.
_______________________________________________
You say: So, yes, I “do” put a big chunk of the blame on the KGB anti-nuke/green groups. By now, we should have been running third or fourth generation plants on recycled fuel with a permanent storage system up and running. Instead, we are running first or second generation technology developed in the 1950’s, with “waste” storage in pools at each plant. And that is supposedly “better” than the original plan(s)
_______________________________________________
I say, the nuclear power industry, and guys like you, have a history of denying responsibility for their actions and blaming those you victimize. The abject incompetence and failure on display would still cause harm regardless of what technology was involved. TEPCO new of hazards and didn’t respond - how is that the fault of the technology? Incompetence, mismanagement - there is no Version 2.0 for failed management that succeeds.
_________________________________________
You say:
. You are claiming that the Woods Hole study proves that Fukushima is contaminating fish, and that “we’re all gonna die” because of it. The actual fact is that Cs-137 was found in fish samples, at some non-stated level. That does NOT prove either that the Cs came from Fukushima or that anyone will suffer any effects at all from it.
_________________________________________
You are just flat out lying.
I never said, and never will say “we’re all gonna die.” Your lie is the last resort of the loser apologist. Discussing, reviewing, explaining etc. - these aren’t the marks of hysteria you portray.
Re the science: Do you realize that Fukushima has a signature (it changes but it’s a composition of isotopes unique to samples taken in Japan) The amounts found in the fish samples matched the signature. I don’t have time to teach you why the samples in San Diego should be of interest to scientists. As for proving “anyone will suffer” for consuming tainted fish, the BEIR VII, among other research indicates dose is cummulative and small doses increase risk of cancer/illnesses by small amounts. Go argue with the researchers - they don’t agree with you.
Blah, blah, blah. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Your postings follow the standard down-the-line meme that the anti-nukes have followed for fifty years. The failures of TEPCO are between them and the Japanese people.
"But if it is, I believe the abject failures and lack of professionalism and integrity of those in nuclear power did more damage to the industry than the KGB could even dream of."
"TEPCO" is not "the nuclear power industry". It is one company among many.
"You cite the failings of a leftist Jewish chemistry prof. (why specify that he’s jewish???)
Because he was.
"I cite the statement-as-fact that the nuclear industry has absolutely defended “It’s impossible to lose containment” right up to and months after three containment vessels failed."
Said failure was not due to "embrittlement". The point I am making is that the anti-nukes will say ANYTHING to stop/slow the implementation of nuclear power. ANY excuse, no matter how ridiculous. During the construction of River Bend, one group filed suit because the plant's applications for license didn't "adequately address the impact of radiation on the local sweet potato crop".
"Doesn’t it matter that the containment failed in three reactors?
Sure it does. Caused by a major catastrophic earthquake. The point is that we should by this date have had intrinsically safe reactors for which that failure was impossible. Designs to do so have long been proposed. But due to the continuous delays from the anti-nukes, those were not carried forward.
I note that the response has NOT been "well, let's develop and deploy the intrinsically safe designs", but "shut down all fission power plants", "ban nuclear power".
"You wanna change the subject to what one person said 50 years ago?
Sorry, dude, but the anti-nuke movement (unfortunately) is a lot more than one person.
"TEPCO new of hazards and didn’t respond - how is that the fault of the technology? Incompetence, mismanagement - there is no Version 2.0 for failed management that succeeds.
Really??? An assertion with zero proof, just like everything else you've posted.
"I never said, and never will say “we’re all gonna die.”
You're obviously unfamiliar with humor. The pattern is this. Some incident happens, a small piece of negative information is posted, which it then exaggerated and amplified until the final perception is that "we're all gonna die" if we don't immediately rush out and pass legislation banning something or other.
Precisely the same thing went on during the BP Gulf Oil spill. The massive amounts of evil surfactants and carcinogenic compounds were going to kill off all life in the Gulf of Mexico, be swept into the oceans, and kill all life there. Didn't happen, did it?
"Do you realize that Fukushima has a signature (it changes but it’s a composition of isotopes unique to samples taken in Japan) The amounts found in the fish samples matched the signature."
Really?? So where is the data?? Your postings didn't even give an amount of total radioactivity, and now you assert that not only that, but an isotope by isotope analysis was done.
"I don’t have time to teach you why the samples in San Diego should be of interest to scientists."
Ah yes, you have proof, but can't be bothered to back up your assertions.
"As for proving “anyone will suffer” for consuming tainted fish, the BEIR VII, among other research indicates dose is cummulative and small doses increase risk of cancer/illnesses by small amounts. Go argue with the researchers - they don’t agree with you.
So we should prevent people from moving from (for instance) Louisiana to places like Denver because it will increase their exposure to radioactivity??? Like it or not, we live in a sea of existing radiation, and are in fact ourselves radiation sources. How much does the Fukushima added dose increase the risk?? And continuing to blather "any increase is unacceptable" is simply foolish (but typical of anti-nuke notions).
You’d have to be more educated about the differences between the difference between exposure to radiation in Denver and exposure from the Fukushima . You’d just have to be more educated in general to understand why people take an interest in what TEPCO and Japan are doing, or perhaps pick up a newspaper and read to learn how Fukushima is impacting, and will continue to impact the US for decades. And you don’t want to learn. There’s alot for you to learn, the EPA has a nice collection of concise data on the differences among isotopes and effects on human health. The BEIR VII will be beneficial to you too.
Your posts are repetitive boilerplate and you are unwilling to learn the basics about radiation. Why should I be charged with the task of bringing you up to speed. Look it up yourself, you need the practice and you’ll need to do a fair amount of reading.
And YOUR credentials in nuclear are?????
"You’d have to be more educated about the differences between the difference between exposure to radiation in Denver and exposure from the Fukushima .
Denver is mostly cosmic rays. Fukushima is radioisotope exposure. But you have been saying for this entire thread that ANY additional dose, no matter what kind or what magnitude, is a dangerous exposure, and should be avoided, preferentially by passing laws banning something and by shutting down all fission power stations. That position, carried to its logical conclusion means we should evacuate cities at high altitudes, ground all passenger airlines, and forbid building houses over granite bedrock. Ban stone tiles and counter-tops (radon, y'know)
"....perhaps pick up a newspaper and read to learn how Fukushima is impacting, and will continue to impact the US for decades."
NEWSPAPERS??? Don't make me split my sides laughing. 99.9% of reporters are completely ignorant of ANY science, much less nuclear. But I "do" read at least one newspaper daily, and others sporadically. Mostly for laughs. Many times the supposedly "hard news" is funnier than the comic strips.
"And you don’t want to learn."
Really. I thought that was what this thread was all about. I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get you to produce MEANINGFUL data to back up your blather.
"Why should I be charged with the task of bringing you up to speed."
Because you're the one making claims with no substantial data to back them up.
"Look it up yourself, you need the practice and you’ll need to do a fair amount of reading."
LOL. Actually, I did spend (wasted) some time on Google looking up Woods Hole and Fukushima. I found lots of scaremongering, pretty much in the same vein you are peddling. Hard facts.......zip.
What I have found thus far is what I term the "echo chamber effect". Some organization with supposed credentials issues a press release on some "scary" topic, typically worded with weighting toward the "we're all gonna die" alarmist position (that's what brings in the new grants, y'know) . This gets picked up and posted online, and then a zillion bloggers put something up and start referencing one another.
If you have the credentials you insist you have, then you are intentionally distorting discussion of this topic. You LIE, of course, when you claim that I said “ANY additional dose, no matter what kind or what magnitude, is a dangerous exposure, and should be avoided, preferentially by passing laws banning something and by shutting down all fission power stations. “
You LIE. See? You distort discussion re science given you are supposed to know better, and then you LIE. I cite state of the art medical research (i.e., Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII) which says small amounts of exposure = small amounts of risk. You distort that into “preferentially by passing laws banning something...blahblahblah.” I am not including background radiation in this discussion. I am not saying “preferentially by passing laws banning something and by shutting down...”
I am clearly against INCOMPETENCE and LIES on display, to our detriment, in the nuclear power industry. THis is obvious so you don’t need to start lying about something else now. Whether or not Denver receives cosmic rays has nothing to do with ignoring safety regulations, building on fault zones, and the persistent incompetence and lies which have brought us 3 nuclear melt-throughs. No point in my citing more sources - you deny they exist or insist they are not objective science (what was it, “scaremongering”?) even though they are standard biological sampling techniques by a respected marine lab.
If you have the credentials you claim, you have decided to use them against the public interest by ridiculing reasonable discussion and making manipulative, scientifically irrelevant statements like comparing Denver to Fukushima. Fukushima occurred because of bad policy and a culture of lies and manipulation. Normal people would like to change that. You don’t. In fact, you seem to imply that only stupid scaremongers get involved in discussion when a special interest, supported by the government, abuses the public trust. It’s weird how the nuke pimps insist ALL science, dating back to the 50’s, demonstrating the hazards of exposure to ionizing radiation, is fake, false, non-existent, scaremongering, etc. It doesn’t exactly build the credibility or the nuke industry, or you.
So what in the world do you mean when you say this:
State of the art medical science continues to support LNT. The latest BEIR VII builds on past research - all the way back to John Gofman’s pioneering work which demonstrated that there is no safe dose.
If there is no safe dose, then doesn't that mean that any exposure is a dangerous exposure, since the opposite of "safe" is "dangerous?" Why are you contradicting yourself?
He wrote:
But you have been saying for this entire thread that ANY additional dose, no matter what kind or what magnitude, is a dangerous exposure, and should be avoided, preferentially by passing laws banning something and by shutting down all fission power stations. That position, carried to its logical conclusion means we should evacuate cities at high altitudes, ground all passenger airlines, and forbid building houses over granite bedrock. Ban stone tiles and counter-tops (radon, y’know)
____________________________________________________
I said small exposure increases risk of cancer and other illnesses by a small amount - that’s the science to date. He falsely implied that I am essentially advocate legistlating against exposure from background radiation in Denver, stone tiles and computer tops. This pointless hyperbole to portray me as irrational when the bedrock of my assertion returns to the BEIR VII (and other findings) that small exposure increases risk. Does any rational person advocate against unavoidable background radiation? I sure haven’t yet he says I have. I decry the incompetence that brings us 3 core melt throughs and he responds by saying I am advocating a fastidious avoidance of counter tops and Denver Colorodo. Living in Denver is a choice involving cosmic rays that those who live there find the risk acceptable, having the nuke industry distributing isotopes into the water, air and food chain removes our choice in the matter and is the result of poor decision making, incompetence and lies in the nuke industry and the government that props it up. He falsely portrays my position. Supposedly, he knows better than to compare radon with CS-137 or Strontium, but that doesn’t stop him. His posts are all distortion and hyperbole and it’s intentional.
Dear boy, that "is" the implication of your position, whether you flatly state it or not.
And I see you still haven't given us "your" credentials to make judgments on the issue.
"You LIE. See? You distort discussion re science given you are supposed to know better, and then you LIE. I cite state of the art medical research (i.e., Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII) which says small amounts of exposure = small amounts of risk. You distort that into “preferentially by passing laws banning something...blahblahblah.” I am not including background radiation in this discussion. I am not saying “preferentially by passing laws banning something and by shutting down...”
But "background radiation" MUST be considered on this issue.
"I am clearly against INCOMPETENCE and LIES on display, to our detriment, in the nuclear power industry. THis is obvious so you don’t need to start lying about something else now. Whether or not Denver receives cosmic rays has nothing to do with ignoring safety regulations, building on fault zones, and the persistent incompetence and lies which have brought us 3 nuclear melt-throughs. No point in my citing more sources - you deny they exist or insist they are not objective science (what was it, “scaremongering”?) even though they are standard biological sampling techniques by a respected marine lab.
Blah, blah, blah. Ranting with no information. You have yet to post a single meaningful datum supporting your position. How can you possibly say that I deny they exist? Just to be perfectly clear, what I said was that I could not FIND the information you say is there. Google is a big place, especially when the "echo chamber" is at work.
"If you have the credentials you claim, you have decided to use them against the public interest by ridiculing reasonable discussion and making manipulative, scientifically irrelevant statements like comparing Denver to Fukushima. Fukushima occurred because of bad policy and a culture of lies and manipulation. Normal people would like to change that. You don’t. In fact, you seem to imply that only stupid scaremongers get involved in discussion when a special interest, supported by the government, abuses the public trust. It’s weird how the nuke pimps insist ALL science, dating back to the 50’s, demonstrating the hazards of exposure to ionizing radiation, is fake, false, non-existent, scaremongering, etc. It doesn’t exactly build the credibility or the nuke industry, or you.
I repeat....the machinations of TEPCO or lack of same is an issue for the Japanese people and the Japanese courts, just as an incident with an American reactor would be for the US Courts. TEPCO is not "the nuclear industry", and you're painting the situation with a very BROAD green brush when you make that assertion.
FYI, I "did" spend some time googling and ran into the Wikipedia summation of your position (which contradicts your position, BTW). To sum that up.....the experimental data supports the hormesis theory, but prudent regulation ASSUMES a linear dose. Which is precisely what the professor who taught my health physics classes said forty years ago.
If you are going to understand health effects, you MUST compare radon, Cs-137 or Sr, as well as background radiation. Method of ingress into the body, residence time in the body, rate of excretion and probably a dozen other factors come into play. It is a very complex situation.
As one of my profs put it, if you are exposed to tritium, head down to your local bar and drink lots of beer.
"His posts are all distortion and hyperbole and it’s intentional.
Hardly. I'm simply trying to get you to understand the implications of your simplistic assumptions, which you very evidently do not.
Skimming your nonsense today, I see that you assert that we have no concern regarding TEPCO and Fukushima - so there’s more false information. Air and water are bringing contaminants to us. UC Berkeley testing of crops and milk, and the EPA reports of Iodine and that dairy farm in VT that dumped milk for high Iodine levels, the WOod’s Hole test of fish in San Dieogo are all indications. I recall reading about a dairy in Hawaii that fed milk cows Boron to bring the Iodine levels down. Oh but hey don’t let data get in your way. TEPCO and Japan do operate the way the US and it’s nuclear plants operate. And they operate like the UK and it’s power plants operate as do the Russians and their power plants. THe governments of these countries prop up the industry and are responsible financially for the harm caused and therefore deny harm caused. This is why the Japanese have told residents living in zones too contaminated that it is safe to live there (even the Russians evacuated people out of zones equally contaminated)- if they admitted it wasn’t, they’d have to compensate those people for lost homes and businesses. Rice too radioactive? Up the safety limit. I assume you know the safety limits on foodstuffs was raised in Japan AND the US as a result of Fukushima? The US denies harm done because it’s financially liable. This is why the US stonewalled and distorted for years before it finally admitted to damage done to “Downwinders” (above ground testing) and is doling out financial payment...to those still alive to claim it. Read up on TMI. THe residents still can’t understand how a brand new 50 year roof was eaten all the way through overnight and puddles of iodine/rust colored water, the morning after the “event”, from rainfall lay on the patios given that the power companies, backed by the US said it wasn’t their fault. The nuclear power industry stays in lockstep because what happens in one country affects nuclear power policy in other countries.
“hormesis theory” Ok, THIS is your level of expertise on display???? INCREDIBLE. Literally. Scientifically not supported. But Nietzsche would approve.
No - I never advocated banning background radiation and there is no comparison between incompetent management of a power plant and the fact that cosmic rays strike the earth. Sneering that people who object to 3 core melt downs distributing radioactive waste into the atmosphere are likewise objecting to cosmic rays and counter tops is self serving hyperbole.
I usually include links - now that I see your support for hormesis, I am glad I didn’t waste my time. If you page back through my posts, you’ll find many links to many stories and articles and the BEIR VII etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.