Nuclear power apologists ignore medical studies dating back to the 50’s proving the risks behind exposure, proving that exposure causes cancer, leukemia and other diseases. They ignore respected studies like the BEIR VII. They ignore that sad petri dish known as the Ukraine, where people born today are exposed to the same radiation that people were exposed to 25 years ago when Chernobyl blew up, and they raise their families in contaminated zones (only high level radiation zones were evacuated, others are forced to live their lives in contaminated zones because there’s no where else for them to live) and deal with debilitating illnesses. Nuke pimps act like all this evidence is non existant and come to this thread and have the audacity to ask, “Where’s the proof?” So hey, if Chernobyl didn’t flick a light on somewhere that maybe it’s harmful for people to be exposed to radioactive waste - what could possibly convince someone, eh? But hormesis? THAT is science nuke pimps can’t WAIT to get behind.
Why aren’t nuke apologists embarrassed to deny living proof (Ukraine) and decades of reputable peer reviewed large scale studies in favor of hormesis? How does one get the gall to portray themselves as scientifically objective and those who cite studies like BEIR VII as uneducated “hysterics”. How can you possibly claim the scientific high ground?
LOL. Gotcha covered, bud. You’re a ranting maniac antinuker.
It sounds to me like you get your information at sites like this:
http://allreactorsleakallthetime.com/category/fukushima-2/
I suspect that BIER VII is to radiation science as ICCC18 (or whatever the number of the upcoming document is) is to “climate change”.
Rant, rant, rant......it’s what you do. But ask you to provide even a single actual piece of real data, and you dodge, dodge, dodge.
Oh, and the professor who taught my health physics courses thought Gofman was a ranting nutcase.
You refuse to enlighten us with your credentials. You refuse to point to even a single piece of science (all I asked for originally was what was the AMOUNT of radioactivity in those 13 (or 15, or whatever) fish samples).
Not gonna waste any more time with you......I’ve got real world work to do.