• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
United Nations Lies re: Fukushima Radiation – Dr. Alex Rosen, IPPNW REDUX – NH #375  nuclearhotseat.com/2018/09/05/united-nations-fukushima-radiation-lies-dr-alex-rosen-ippnw-nh-375/

Libbe's featured interview this week:
  • Dr. Alex Rosen is a German pediatrician and Vice President of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War in Germany. We spoke originally in July of 2014, just after the United Nations UNSCEAR report was released.

LINK to Full IPPNW report in English, Critical Analysis of the UNSCEAR Report “Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and tsunami”

just pm me if needed.
that was written by no less than 19 physicians groups!
A  notable exception is the CRIIRAD, and the ECRR 

I wonder how much the members of the ECRR would agree with the paper.  For example 

"Where we agree with the UNSCEAR report" 
1 Calculating collective effective doses for all of Japan  
2 Estimating radiation doses for non-evacuated districts and neighboring prefectures  

Its great that 19 physicians groups went against UNSCEAR.   Without the revolution of an ICRP dosimetry overhaul, the noble effort will have a fraction of the impact against nuclear and the principles underpinning UNSCEAR that it might have had.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
I should say, 19 physician goups were signatories...I think the piece might have been written by Dr. Rosen.

I liked his paper here, and note it did have a few references to ECRR findings

I read with interest Rosens argument against the fallout vs background comparison made by UNSCEAR (and just about everyone else).   It seems obvious that attempting to prove that background radiation is bad stuff to be placed in the same category as fallout is not a productive argument.  If one manages to prove fallout is worse than assumed, then this must apply to background under the premise, and we are back to square one;  fallout is usually less than background.

Given that there is background radiation, what would be the stronger argument for an anti nuclear debate?

1) background radiation is just like all other ionizing radiation and  follows a linear no threshold risk
2) background radiation is different than nuclear fallout and does not follow a linear no threshold risk

Whatever the truth is, that is what we must go with.  But it should be obvious, the second situation is far better for the anti nuke debate.  For example  if background radiation was not toxic at all at biologically relevant doses, then any fallout would be...by definition....infinitely worse.  Nothing is more damning  than infinitely worse.

The studies out so far on background radiation have both conclusions, and a third...that health is reduced in the absence of some kinds of background radiation, notably k-40.    It goes without saying that if this is true, it is very good news for the anti nuker.   Keeping some of those studies on hand is useful.  It is powerful material in support of our anti nuclear message.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout

Forum Jump:

Browsing: 1 Guest(s)