• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • Welcome to the discussion on all things nuclear
  • This site is updated daily.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Looking forward to using this new venue
Hi.  I'm PostNuc (short for PostNuclear).  I hope some of you will welcome me to CafeRadLab.

I have participated in the discussion at Enenews since about 2012, first posting as Zombo, and later as PostNuclear.  I am a mechanical engineer and computer systems analyst.

To develop my understanding of the science and politics of various nuclear issues, I read most of Paul Zimmerman's "A Primer in the Art of Deception".  It's an excellent read, which you can dive in to here:


And, once you see what you get out of it, please purchase a hardcopy.

I think Paul would like that.

How about posting some excerpts?

I'm not actually a fan of redirecting people to previously unknown websites. Too many hazards possible.

I'll leave it up to others to click the link if they so choose. Just being internet secure. I don't mean to cast a shadow on you, Mike.

Can you bring us urls where your posts are? That'd go a long ways.
Jitsi chat: enfo.pia@gmail.com
Hi PostNuc, welcome.  I haven't read the book yet,  Paul Zimmerman's "A Primer in the Art of Deception"; thanks for the link to chapter 6.  Looks to be an informative book after reading the excerpt.  It details how the mathematically modeled radiation exposure dosages that became the de facto radiation standards we use to access radiation hazard risk came about.  

Quote:the quantity of energy absorbed is treated as if it is uniformly distributed throughout the mass that absorbs it, i.e., the energy is "averaged" over the entire mass. This is what the rad represents, ergs per gram.  To do this makes perfect sense within the mathematically oriented discipline of physics.  However, as we shall see later in the discussion, this model is woefully inadequate when transferred into the discipline of biology where averaging energy over a mass of living cellular material is, in many instances, a useless concept for determining biological effect.

Quote:inherent in the concept of “permissible dose,” that what was deemed an acceptable risk was a judgment call made by members of regulatory agencies, and that members of society had to accept an element of risk to their own health for nuclear technology to flourish.

The chapter goes on to discuss differences between the ICRP and ECRR models, hazards of Depleted Uranium, health effects from Chernobyl and Nuclear Power Plants.  The information presented in the book excerpt includes what we have learned about cellular biology in the last twenty years that demonstrates how inadequate using an external dose model to determine internal exposure is and how pro-nuke authorities have concealed the real hazards of man-made radioactive materials.  

Agree, PostNuc, an excellent read.  The link to the pdf is good, I'll be happy to share it with others.  The books content would be a good topic for CRL, maybe you could write up a better book report to share with us.  Hope you continue to add to the discussion here.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
Thanks for going there and bringing back excerpts, Horse! Looks like a great resource and I agree it'd be great to explore more.
Jitsi chat: enfo.pia@gmail.com

Forum Jump:

Browsing: 1 Guest(s)