Posts by CalDre

Praying for meltdown: The media and the nukes

Busby

"Busby's chief notoriety is his modelling work on natural background radiation, which is highly controversial. It's often self-published, and the Journal of Radiological Protection put out a paper (PDF/45KB) debunking his work".

Hmm, this is a completely non-peer reviewed diatribe consisting of ad hominem attacks and gross, unsubstantiated allegations, written by an admitted paid consultant to the nuclear industry. It's not scientific in the last - not one sentence of it.

If that's the best you have to "debunk" Busby's research, his credibility has just ballooned.

BTW, being that you are so "scientific" and "objective", I was shocked, yes, shocked! not to read about Busby's responses to the allegations you have made against him in your "sensationalist" diatribe. For your readers, you can find a brief explanation at http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/compendium_refs.htm .

Fukushima scaremongers becoming increasingly desperate

Chernobyl - Definitive Study

The most exhaustive study to date on the Chernobyl catastrophe, spearheaded by Dr. Alexey Yablokov and esteemed colleagues, estimates 1 million deaths attributable to the Chernobyl radiation, based on review of over 1,000 scientific papers published in the former USSR.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html

Undoubtedly Lewis would take crack-shots at this research, due to insufficient controls. This may be a valid criticism, but provides no reason to throw away the entire research. The fact is using proper controls is expensive if not impossible given the lack of data; what is worse is the ridiculous IAEA and WHO conclusions of only a few hundred deaths, which are achieved by a conscious sticking of the head into the sand AND DOING NO RESEARCH WHATSOEVER. Somehow no research is supposed to be more reliable than 1,000 scientific papers - in the pro-nuclear "I love the taste of fresh plutonium in the morning" crowd.

Data, Smata

"Three people sustained injuries equivalent to a mild case of sunburn."

How do you know this was a "mild sunburn". Are you their doctor, or did this assessment fly out of your behind? Because I follow this news and there has been no announcement as to their condition. If I missed something, please, link. Otherwise, I am sure you will volunteer to drink some of the "safe" water they stepped in, yes?

As to your comment: "None of this involves significant health hazards: actual radiation sickness is not normally seen until a dose of 1,000 millisievert and is not common until 2,000".

But according to the NRC (which is basically a captured agency controlled by the nuclear industry), "it is believed that 50% of a population would die within thirty days after receiving a dose of between ... 3500 to 5000 [millisievert] to the whole body, over a period ranging from a few minutes to a few hours." http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.htm. Many other organizations have more conservative estimates. Moreover these estimates are based on skin-exposure, rather than consumption - hence the tap water situation is far graver than equivalent exposure on the skin.

You want us to believe that at 2,000 mSv it's just some minor sickness, but at 3,500 mSv, 50% die?

Sorry your nuclear stocks aren't performing well - NOT!