• 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
Forbes v. Al Jazeera 27 Aug
#1
Forbes dissects the latest Mark Willacy report (26 Aug).

Fukushima: Time Bomb Or Training Device? http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/201...c953866c82

Of course, Forbes does not once mention DNA damage, bioaccumulation or biomagnification.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#2
Pia, nice piece of perception management you found at Forbes.  Atomic Ron can't see the pink clouds because of his rose colored glasses.  The Fukushima meltdowns are a black eye that the nuker's keep trying to cover up and minimize but they made the mess and they can't clean it up.  Design and procedural failures were to blame not the natural disasters that occurred.  The radioactive heavy metals and gases released are taking their toll on life and denial of the harm will increase the exposure we're all supposed to live with while they dilute the problem away.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#3
(08-27-2016, 04:33 PM)Horse Wrote: Pia, nice piece of perception management you found at Forbes.  Atomic Ron can't see the pink clouds because of his rose colored glasses.  The Fukushima meltdowns are a black eye that the nuker's keep trying to cover up and minimize but they made the mess and they can't clean it up.  Design and procedural failures were to blame not the natural disasters that occurred.  The radioactive heavy metals and gases released are taking their toll on life and denial of the harm will increase the exposure we're all supposed to live with while they dilute the problem away.

I usually don't engage in conversation with Atomic Rod because it's like hearing a tired old song play over and over again and again. But, I had to comment due to the persistent habit of nuclear pushers to ignore the human health impacts (DNA, bioaccumulation, biomagnification) because it's the big "sweep it under the rug/we already covered that and you don't need to worry about that anymore" attitude. 

Rod: "None of those were topics of the article because they have all been considered and accounted for with large safety margins in the radiation limits mentioned."

He neglects the numerous comments from "modern scientists" on the proposal who spoke against changing the linear no-threshold to favor of a hormesis policy. People like Rod are really good at painting the rosy picture and I wish they'd put their money where their mouth is and go live in one of several radiation swamps created through war, nuclear accidents, or uranium mining. After they've experienced the reality for 10 years or so, they might have something worth saying.

I see that others have jumped in to point out some of Rod's fallacies: 

Agnotologist: 
"The reason we have legally appointed scientific consensus bodies is so that untrained individuals need not debate. The scientific consensus is LNT..
Cuttler is with the Heartland Institute. The same people who will tell you carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming, or cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.
Allison has said publicly he’s not an expert.
But Adams cherry-picks, over and over and over."

Bas Gresnigt: 
"IAEA’s target is to promote more nuclear, so they are not the right body for acceptable radiation levels (as they also showed in the past).
Levels of 20mSv/a are oké for elderly people as they have a >100times lower level of cell division than babies & children (at cell division DNA repair is not possible).
But for fetuses even an increase of 1mSv/a creates already an ~100% risk increase on Down syndrome, neural tube defects, serious abnormal limbs, heart defects, etc. as shown by a.o. this unique rock-solid study: Congenital Malformation and Stillbirth in Germany and Europe Before andAfter the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/cache/Congenital Malformations Stillborn.pdf
So younger Japanese are right not to return.
Note also that the WHO expert committee concluded that up to 7% of the Fukushima children will get cancer (later in life) due to the radiation they got despite the fast evacuation!
Btw. Marie Curie died rather young of leukemia…."
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)