advertisement


Dr Helen Caldicott Says Fukushima Is Much Worse Than Chernobyl

Smells like crackpot to me.

Where's dim span when he's needed? These people are right up his street.

Paul
 
So lets get this right, all of the governments in the world are in league with each other to not report the real scale of the disaster. What's more, the doctors and the hospitals haven't been reporting the real scale of the casualties from the radiation.

Of course, given this is science, i'm sure these people can explain how we carry out experiments to verify their conclusions?

And since we need to get sensible units for these events, BED is clearly the answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
 
Cesare said:
So lets get this right, all of the governments in the world are in league with each other to not report the real scale of the disaster. What's more, the doctors and the hospitals haven't been reporting the real scale of the casualties from the radiation.

Of course, given this is science, i'm sure these people can explain how we carry out experiments to verify their conclusions?

And since we need to get sensible units for these events, BED is clearly the answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
Click to expand...

Well given the struggle UK and US nuke test veterans have had to endure for 30 or more years to gain compensation, yes they probably all have an interest in minimising the real impact of their policies-they don't need to collude with each other but there are global players in the nuclear industry with access and influence in many countries-the money involved is staggering so you decide(don't forget the graft of our own MP's while you do so.
 
Seeker_UK said:
You might want to listen to this programme:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010mckx

"Fallout: The Legacy of Chernobyl" - argues that the number of deaths directly attributable to the disaster are quite small.

So "crackpot"? No. But certainly a biased view.
Click to expand...

I was listening to the football so didn't get a chance to hear the programme and it isn't yet on iPlayer.

I do tend to think that the BBC are biased because they are part of the government propaganda machine.

It's instructional that one of its main reporters, Andrew Marr, took out a super-injunction some years ago.

He took it out because he is married and didn't want the press to report on the fact that he was shagging another journalist.

What a hypocrite he is.

I am just glad that Private Eye hinted at the story until Marr gave in.

Somebody should puncture the tires of that stupid car Marr drives to the studio during the opening section of his Sunday show.

Jack
 
cooky1257 said:
Well given the struggle UK and US nuke test veterans have had to endure for 30 or more years to gain compensation, yes they probably all have an interest in minimising the real impact of their policies-they don't need to collude with each other but there are global players in the nuclear industry with access and influence in many countries-the money involved is staggering so you decide(don't forget the graft of our own MP's while you do so.
Click to expand...

So all the worlds governments are involved in the one coverup? Even the ones without nuclear power? So all through the cold war, America and the USSR colluded to cover up the effects of nuclear radiation on the worlds population?

How about the anti-nuclear lobby - they haven't uncovered the real facts?

How about the doctors and the scientists who are independent?

I'm normally pretty good with conspiracies, but i'm struggling with this one.

Cesare
 
I see... Marr gets a super-injunction to cover his private life from the tabloid press, ergo the BBC he works for is a cover-up machine, therefore the BBC is deliberately hiding The Truth about Tchernobyl 25 years later. Is that it?
 
Cesare said:
So lets get this right, all of the governments in the world are in league with each other to not report the real scale of the disaster. What's more, the doctors and the hospitals haven't been reporting the real scale of the casualties from the radiation.

Of course, given this is science, i'm sure these people can explain how we carry out experiments to verify their conclusions?

And since we need to get sensible units for these events, BED is clearly the answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
Click to expand...
Have you read the report I linked to?
 
PsB said:
I see... Marr gets a super-injunction to cover his private life from the tabloid press, ergo the BBC he works for is a cover-up machine, therefore the BBC is deliberately hiding The Truth about Tchernobyl 25 years later. Is that it?
Click to expand...

Nope, I just happen to think that the BBC is a government propaganda machine.

Watch John Pilger's 90 minute documentary, The War You Don't See, and see what you think.

Pilger has twice been voted the UK's Journalist Of The Year and his documentaries have won academy awards.

I certainly no longer admire Marr, that's for sure.

Jack
 
OK, I'll look out for Mr Pilger's work. Has he done anything on Chernobyl?
 
PsB said:
I see... Marr gets a super-injunction to cover his private life from the tabloid press, ergo the BBC he works for is a cover-up machine, therefore the BBC is deliberately hiding The Truth about Tchernobyl 25 years later. Is that it?
Click to expand...
just sloppy is whst i'd interpret it as.

The IAEA write a report that appears to debunk the myth of Chernobyl as a catastrophe. Someone reads it and decides to base a prog on it as it's very current and also contentious. Not rocket science (or nuclear science either :)

If the IAEA report is correct and unbiased and the other collection of papers (scientific papers mind) just bullshit then I can't reconcile the thousands of Belorusian children who visited the UK with cancer of whom a great many subsequently died. It doesn't make sense.

Surely it should be possible to debunk the Eastern European studies, whereas from the parts I've read, they seem to debunk the IAEA report and leave it looking like political and commercial manoeuvring.
 
Maybe with the anniversary upon us somebody will do a serious article on the actual numbers of deaths, long term illnesses, etc. Most of what I've seen until now shows such huge variance in the numbers that it leaves you wondering whether the experts are talking about the same catastrophe and its consequences.
 
It would be great if somebody did.

There is a massive difference in the numbers mentioned by various organizations.

Some reckon that only a few thousand that were effected by Chernobyl, others believe it is well over a million.

It is almost like they are talking about different events.

Jack
 
jackbarron said:
Nope, I just happen to think that the BBC is a government propaganda machine.

Watch John Pilger's 90 minute documentary, The War You Don't See, and see what you think.

Pilger has twice been voted the UK's Journalist Of The Year and his documentaries have won academy awards.

I certainly no longer admire Marr, that's for sure.

Jack
Click to expand...

Pilger is a massive wind-up merchant, and you are apparently one of his toys. Journalists love to frighten people - sensationalism sells papers.

The Chernobyl accident appears to have had very little impact in terms of human physical health, but the psychological fallout has been considerable.
 
Blzebub said:
Pilger is a massive wind-up merchant, and you are apparently one of his toys. Journalists love to frighten people - sensationalism sells papers.

The Chernobyl accident appears to have had very little impact in terms of human physical health, but the psychological fallout has been considerable.
Click to expand...
so you've read and dismissed the collection of papers that contradict this position? I can't imagine you, as a scientific mind, would have just dismissed them, you know, just out of hand.
 
Greg said:
It's interesting, as the collection of papers entitled "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" (as published by the New York Academy of Sciences, though not published as an expression of their opinion):
http://www.nyas.org/publications/ann...6-753f44b3bfc1

...paints quite a different picture.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, on what basis do you give this book credibility over science based reports? What reason could the WHO and IAEA have for downplaying a Soviet era disaster? Why would you expect a book undertaken "with the initiative of Greenpeace International" to be a neutral assessment of the situation?

BTW I'm not prepared to pay to read it, so I'm having to make inferences.

Paul
 
Paul R said:
Out of interest, on what basis do you give this book credibility over science based reports? What reason could the WHO and IAEA have for downplaying a Soviet era disaster? Why would you expect a book undertaken "with the initiative of Greenpeace International" to be a neutral assessment of the situation?

BTW I'm not prepared to pay to read it, so I'm having to make inferences.

Paul
Click to expand...
Paul, firstly it's not a book, it's a collection of scientific papers which (as I understand it) the New York Academy of Science decided to assist in publishing in order to ensure the opposite view was available more widely for consideration given the entirely opposing conclusions of the freely available IAEA report - an organisation which globally represents the nuclear industry.

It is available somewhere to snaffle for free, so don't let cost stop you. I'm sure you would agree that it would be an entirely unscientific approach to dismiss the summarised findings without reading the papers and to instead subscribe to the IAEA report's findings on the basis it's probably fine.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the IAEA report on Chernobyl seemed so plainly in contrast with the general perception I have of Chernobyl that scepticism was inevitable and remains (IMO) warranted given the starkly different conclusions of the other collection of papers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top