advertisement


Dr Helen Caldicott Says Fukushima Is Much Worse Than Chernobyl

I suspect the attribution of deaths as a measure of radiation effects is a bit of a smokescreen in any case given the non fatal nature of genetic damage radiation does can be attributed to other factors..
 
..firstly it's not a book, it's a collection of scientific papers which...
Click to expand...
I've found a subset on Google Books. It's not 'scientific papers'. The chapters are not peer reviewed and previously published in established journals. It's a book, sponsored by Greenpeace with the involvement of anti-nuclear campaigners with a history of pseudo-science.

Which doesn't necessarily make it bunk. But,

Greenpeace book said:
Some experts believe that any conclusions about radiation based disease require a correlation between an illness and the received dose of radioactivity. We believe this is an impossibility.
Click to expand...

looks very dodgy indeed.

If you want to discount the WHO and IAEA findings you need to directly challenge their results.

Paul
 
An unforseen consequence is that you are no longer allowed to wear boxer shorts in Russia -- Chernobyl fallout.

Seriously, any scare story backed by Pilger has to be viewed with extreme scepticism. R4 ran a sensible programme about Chernobyl, and it is probably available on the BBC website.
 
Paul R said:
I've found a subset on Google Books. It's not 'scientific papers'. The chapters are not peer reviewed and previously published in established journals. It's a book, sponsored by Greenpeace with the involvement of anti-nuclear campaigners with a history of pseudo-science.

Which doesn't necessarily make it bunk. But,



looks very dodgy indeed.

If you want to discount the WHO and IAEA findings you need to directly challenge their results.

Paul
Click to expand...
Paul, are you sure we're talking about the same material?
 
Cesare said:
pray, which insightful post was that then?
Click to expand...

The one that explained how it doesn't need to be a conspiracy where different governments and a global nuclear industry/lobby share common interest. It's not that hard if you try your very very bestest.
 
today's radiation reading here in Tokyo:

2011-04-27 8:59: 14 micro-Roentgens/h (γ), (~8 cpm). 0.207 micro-Sieverts/h on Geiger counter (α, β & γ). Location: Aoyama Cemetery, Minato-ku. Weather: partly cloudy, winds from the south. Safe.
 
cooky1257 said:
The one that explained how it doesn't need to be a conspiracy where different governments and a global nuclear industry/lobby share common interest. It's not that hard if you try your very very bestest.
Click to expand...

Please link to the article or post.

Cesare
 
joel said:
Yup. Check out Monbiot's blog for a reasonably detailed refutation (with attributions) of this and some of Dr Chaldicott's other statements.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/13/why-this-matters/
No doubt Monbiot is also in the pay of the Conspiracy (though possibly not the oil/coal/gas portion).
Click to expand...

Have a look at Helen Caldicott's answer to Mobiot which was published by The Guardian.

It's: Here

Paul R ... Caldicott outlines the link between the WHO and the IAEA. It is clear that they are in the same boat together.

After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA's founding papers state: "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."

Caldicott then quite rationally states that:

"Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community."

Jack
 
Regardless of how this turns out, would the anti-nuclear lot please state how they believe the ever increasing power needs will be met?

Cheers.
 
i wish the RAf wouldn't test their aeroplanes over Morecambe Bay. A nice new typhoon up the jumper isn't something I would enjoy.

my experience of dangerous aeroplanes has been two. I saw a couple of twats doing opposition loops in front of my house which worried me. the second occasion was low flying large helicopters when the geese were about. No Chinook could fly through a skein of geese. I actually complained about that one and I got a nice letter from the raf saying they did take care flying right angles to the coast rather than along it etc.

I also used to work with Lancaster City Council (Heysham) and I was amazed how little stress the locals had about two power stations along the bay. We did lots of sampling for radiation and i can't remember us finding any problems. One time the local channels moved and I went out to try to measure radiation from older sediments, but I couldn't find anything obvious.

As I have said before, I probably have more risk from the Radon gas and medical radiation.
 
Monbiot is frequently wrong. He put his foot well into his mouth on economics and taxation recently. But in this case he's in the right zone.

Helen Caldicott is an activist who uses pseudo-science to confuse the gullible. She should be ignored. There are honest arguments for and against nuclear power.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top