You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #117: Did I not just see a subject line like this: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-05-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #109
117. Did I not just see a subject line like this:
"You cite CERRIE which, according to this report, are industry hacks"

That certainly smacks of name-calling, and I didn't see any qualifiers like "mostly"

The thing is, I don't have a horse in this race. I do think there's good reason to re-examine the effects of low-level radiation, I'm not thrilled about the widespread use of depleted uranium in weapons (though I'd stop far short of the rhetoric I've seen calling it nuclear genocide), and there seems little question that the uranium mining business has had more than its share of scandals. Your rhetoric, including characterization of scientists with whom you agree as the only ones who care, is intrinsically polarizing. For instance, upthread is the claim

"Those who claim there is NO EVIDENCE for deaths from nuclear power plant operations are in denial of reality and ignorant of studies by qualified scientists who actually CARE about humanity."

which suggests that the scientists who fail to find such evidence persuasive do not "CARE about humanity." I don't see how this advances your cause in any way.

I might add that I am a physicist myself (though I don't work in nuclear physics today, I used to work in positron emission tomography and was a "radiation worker" in that capacity, so I do know at least a little about conventional radiation protection theory and practice). If someone wants to tell me that we don't know much about low-dose radiation biology, I'm listening. But when I go to the sites you recommend I see so much that tells me that the scientists doing this work are less interested in science than advocacy. For instance, from Chapter 2: Basis and Scope of the Report of the 2003 ECRR report we read

The committee believes that in the search for scientific objectivity it should 'look out of the window', rather than following the trend of increasing dependence on processes of mathematical modelling. Thus the committee has considered the results of studies published in the peer-review literature and also reports, books and articles which have not been submitted for peer review.


Well, one can certainly choose to do that. But it ain't science! To suggest one can develop any meaningful risk assessment without mathematical modeling is absurd on its face. And admitting into a survey like this "reports, books and articles which have not been submitted for peer review" pretty much proclaims a deliberate decision to divorce one's work from the scrutiny that allows real science to recover from mistakes.

It's certainly possible that ECRR is right and all of mainstream radiation health science is wrong. I also recognize that there is an asymmetry in career possibilities for scientists in these areas that gives rise to non-paranoid questions about possible bias in studies. But there was no profit motive in scientists determining that chlorofluorcarbons damaged the ozone layer. All the cards have always been stacked against scientists who studied first the possibility and then the reality of anthropogenic global climate change. Yet in these cases, the process worked. We went from "everyone knowing" CFCs were inert and harmless to banning their widespread production and use. We're in the middle of a huge fight against the biggest entrenched interests you can imagine on climate change, and on the science side the voices raising concern are winning. In the end, if you do your science and have the arguments, the data lead you to the right conclusions. If ECRR truly has the facts on their side, the best move is to work through the scientific community, and be responsive to legitimate criticisms of their work (of which there are many, even of the best science).

The 2003 report is clearly developed with a policy goal in mind, propped up by cherry-picked findings. Even logical consistency takes a beating. For instance, in the executive summary we read "The committee concludes that releases of radioactivity without consent can not be justified ethically since the smallest dose has a finite, if small, probability of fatal harm." This implies, for instance, that it is ethically unjustifiable to burn wood, since all wood has a certain fraction of carbon-14 and therefore, in being burned, radioactivity is released. What is the counter to this? That what you mean is that only radiation released by the nuclear power industry is subject to this ethical argument? That only radiation released by the nuclear power or nuclear weapons industries has a finite, if small, probability of fatal harm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -2 nuke plant events - France and Japan ensho  Dec-02-09 11:10 AM   #0 
  - Once again, the most deadly energy technology in history, in the universe, vomits death  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 11:15 AM   #1 
  - Drama much? LOL  anigbrowl   Dec-02-09 11:20 AM   #3 
  - Yeah - if you think mutations and cancer and death are dramatic  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 11:24 AM   #4 
     - How many mutations, cancers and deaths have been linked to working at a nuclear power plant?  EOTE   Dec-02-09 11:30 AM   #7 
        - Baloney, nuke workers get ten times the dose of civilians and civilians are getting dosed every day  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 11:41 AM   #11 
        - And you still haven't addressed anything I said in my post.  EOTE   Dec-02-09 12:05 PM   #15 
        - Really? These links are not very relevant.  anigbrowl   Dec-02-09 12:55 PM   #17 
        - People can read the links and judge for themselves and mammograms can cause cancer  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 03:50 PM   #22 
           - As usual, you divorce the facts from the context  anigbrowl   Dec-02-09 05:25 PM   #31 
              - No, I don't. EVERY exposure creates additional risk of harm  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 07:29 PM   #35 
                 - Really?  Confusious   Dec-02-09 07:57 PM   #39 
                 - Yes Really! Cancer grows slowly so people don't "keel over dead" for a while...  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 09:33 PM   #44 
                    - Well, from the way you make it sound  Confusious   Dec-03-09 02:49 AM   #49 
                       - here is one study showing more than 60 Million cancer deaths from nuclear ...  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 11:56 AM   #63 
                          - So because there is nuclear radiation in the environment...  trotsky   Dec-03-09 12:25 PM   #69 
                          - That is what the studies prove: that nuclear power plant radiation causes cancer  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 06:02 PM   #83 
                             - You did not answer my question.  trotsky   Dec-03-09 06:20 PM   #86 
                                - yeah i did  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 06:49 PM   #87 
                          - no...that study references a MODEL...  ProdigalJunkMail   Dec-05-09 06:04 AM   #111 
                 - true - every exposure is added to the total  ensho   Dec-03-09 10:34 AM   #56 
        - For example, Dr. David Banner: physician; scientist.  AngryAmish   Dec-05-09 06:08 AM   #112 
           - And don't forget Peter Parker...  SidDithers   Dec-05-09 09:38 AM   #116 
        - well...if you count the movies(as some people probably do), then LOTS.  dysfunctional press   Dec-03-09 12:15 PM   #67 
  - "If"?! Don't you mean "When"?  closeupready   Dec-02-09 04:21 PM   #27 
  - It multiplies the sun many times?  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-02-09 06:35 PM   #34 
     - Science is hard. n/t  trotsky   Dec-03-09 11:44 AM   #61 
     - It (man made nuclear radiation) is a multiple of the amount of radiation you get from the sun  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 12:18 PM   #68 
        - So if I go stand next to a nuclear reactor...  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-03-09 12:34 PM   #72 
           - It depends on how close you are to the radiation spewing from it...  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 06:05 PM   #84 
              - Wait, so you honestly believe that a properly functioning nuclear plant...  trotsky   Dec-04-09 09:14 AM   #101 
                 - Yes ALL commercial reactors have radiation emissions and effluents  Liberation Angel   Dec-04-09 02:28 PM   #103 
                    - LMAO  trotsky   Dec-04-09 04:04 PM   #108 
  - Unrec...  SidDithers   Dec-02-09 11:17 AM   #2 
  - Yeah, ensho like to post these for some reason. Hardly any of them qualify as a "nuke event"  rd_kent   Dec-03-09 12:12 PM   #66 
  - It's a good thing we have humans around to take care of these problems.  EOTE   Dec-02-09 11:26 AM   #5 
  - What problems to worry about?  NutmegYankee   Dec-02-09 08:16 PM   #41 
  - Most Gen II & all Gen III plants will shut down on their own.  Statistical   Dec-04-09 01:16 AM   #92 
     - thats not technically correct.  Sirveri   Dec-04-09 04:09 AM   #96 
        - Agreed it is a generalization.  Statistical   Dec-04-09 08:08 AM   #99 
  - Radiation does not work like you seem to think it works n/t  Merchant Marine   Dec-02-09 11:29 AM   #6 
  - really?  ensho   Dec-02-09 11:36 AM   #8 
  - this was in reply to post #6  ensho   Dec-02-09 11:37 AM   #9 
  - Not a single word in this thread...  hayu_lol   Dec-02-09 11:41 AM   #10 
     - I post all the time about toxic coal plants. this thread is about nuke  ensho   Dec-02-09 11:45 AM   #12 
     - Really? I can't ever remember reading one of your posts about a Coal Plant Event...nt  SidDithers   Dec-02-09 01:00 PM   #19 
        - And every day there are thousands of new "Solar Power Events" that she never points out.  EOTE   Dec-02-09 01:10 PM   #20 
           - Exactly...  SidDithers   Dec-02-09 01:19 PM   #21 
     - again, baloney. BOTH nukes and coal plants spew toxic death  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 11:50 AM   #13 
        - Hyperbole  Confusious   Dec-02-09 03:58 PM   #23 
           - Hyperbole my ass/ Strontium 90 and radioiodine are NOT like solar rays  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 04:13 PM   #24 
              - You don't know how a nuclear plant works do you  Confusious   Dec-02-09 07:43 PM   #37 
              - And the vast, vast majority of Sr90 contamination today...  SidDithers   Dec-03-09 09:40 AM   #54 
                 - You have a source for that and...  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 03:55 PM   #80 
                    - NRC Data Sheet on the Tooth Fairy Project  SidDithers   Dec-03-09 07:58 PM   #89 
                       - lies and damn lies---more industry propaganda  Liberation Angel   Dec-04-09 12:59 AM   #91 
                          - I look forward to more of your delusional ramblings..nt  SidDithers   Dec-04-09 07:49 AM   #98 
                          - Of course it can't be nuclear weapons because that wouldn't support your agenda.  Statistical   Dec-04-09 08:20 AM   #100 
                             - If you don't provide a link it is harder to debunk your nifty graph chart  Liberation Angel   Dec-04-09 02:41 PM   #104 
              - I happen to work for French company  MyNameGoesHere   Dec-04-09 03:03 PM   #107 
                 - Then you must have seen this report on the failure of French nukes  Liberation Angel   Dec-06-09 01:18 AM   #122 
  - Next time skip the half reliable source  whistler162   Dec-02-09 11:53 AM   #14 
  - You know, the link is to a GREAT source for alerting about events which MAY be serious  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 04:19 PM   #26 
     - Serious being the key word...nt  SidDithers   Dec-02-09 05:08 PM   #29 
  - Sounds to me like proper proceedure, training and respose makes these plant quite safe...  OneTenthofOnePercent   Dec-02-09 12:26 PM   #16 
  - Yeah, imagine that. The safeguards in place prevented something from going wrong.  EOTE   Dec-02-09 12:57 PM   #18 
     - Something DID go wrong and the workers who get sick from the exposure  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 04:16 PM   #25 
        - You still haven't answered my original question.  EOTE   Dec-02-09 04:36 PM   #28 
        - The European Study on Radiation Risk conclusions (link)  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 06:33 PM   #32 
           - 10 million, 10 billion and you cant produce one death certificate  Pavulon   Dec-02-09 07:42 PM   #36 
           - That is bullshit too  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 09:53 PM   #48 
              - Yeppers, One name is what you owe.  Pavulon   Dec-03-09 08:19 PM   #90 
           - Be nice if you read it  Confusious   Dec-02-09 08:10 PM   #40 
              - I read it - it is from ALL sources: nuke tests AND power plants  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 09:51 PM   #47 
                 - I read it again  Confusious   Dec-03-09 02:59 AM   #50 
        - I live right near a nuclear power plant.  NutmegYankee   Dec-02-09 08:33 PM   #43 
           - You will regret it  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 09:46 PM   #46 
              - One example is hardly a scientific study  Confusious   Dec-03-09 03:11 AM   #52 
              - Here's a study your search missed: try a better search  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 12:43 PM   #74 
                 - Well, there where other plants where  Confusious   Dec-05-09 03:09 AM   #110 
                    - shhhhh...you're making valid points  ProdigalJunkMail   Dec-05-09 06:23 AM   #113 
                    - Many infant death rates  Liberation Angel   Dec-06-09 01:25 AM   #123 
                       - As I said before,  Confusious   Dec-06-09 03:03 PM   #129 
              - The rates were high back in the 90s. In the last decade, it dropped.  NutmegYankee   Dec-03-09 04:53 PM   #82 
  - Unrec.  ThomWV   Dec-02-09 05:18 PM   #30 
  - Instantly.  Occulus   Dec-04-09 03:21 AM   #94 
  - The study anyone who is not sure (or who is sure it is safe) should read on nuclear power  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 06:34 PM   #33 
  - Radiation leak in Japan means only ONE thing..........  thelordofhell   Dec-02-09 07:56 PM   #38 
  - OMG!! COME QUICKLY!! WOLVES ARE EATING MY SHEEP!!  NutmegYankee   Dec-02-09 08:29 PM   #42 
  - Strontium 90 causes bone cancer. tissue cancer and leukemia  Liberation Angel   Dec-02-09 09:38 PM   #45 
     - "EVERY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PRODUCES AND EMITS THIS SHIT AND IT IS KILLING US ALL"  proteus_lives   Dec-03-09 03:08 AM   #51 
        - It is killing us slowly so ...  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 06:08 PM   #85 
           - You never fail to make me laugh.  proteus_lives   Dec-03-09 07:07 PM   #88 
  - Breaking: Death count (employees + civilians) just announced.  Nihil   Dec-03-09 09:32 AM   #53 
  - Well said...nt  SidDithers   Dec-03-09 09:46 AM   #55 
  - Nope: see this: Cancer, miscarriages, hypothyroidism, mongoloidism, leukemia, birth defects  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 11:41 AM   #59 
     - Really? Was that "MILLIONS" in Cruas (France) or "MILLIONS" in Hamaoka (Japan)?  Nihil   Dec-03-09 11:54 AM   #62 
        - Millions of cancer deaths from radioactive waste/emissions  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 03:58 PM   #81 
           - you keep referencing a study that references a MODEL  ProdigalJunkMail   Dec-05-09 06:25 AM   #114 
  - K&R. Because too many want to pretend nukes are safe. //nt  Overseas   Dec-03-09 10:36 AM   #57 
  - Thanks - I posted the European Study so that folks can inform themselves  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 11:42 AM   #60 
     - And look at the success of Nuclear Industry PR  Overseas   Dec-04-09 10:14 AM   #102 
  - Once again: European Study conclusions on nuclear deaths/cancers infant mortality/miscarriages  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 11:30 AM   #58 
  - Please, by all means, compare your nuke data with that...  hayu_lol   Dec-03-09 12:04 PM   #65 
     - I am not comparing nukes to coal plants, BUT...  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 12:27 PM   #70 
  - Thanks, ensho, more "NUKE EVENTS" that are much ado about nothing.  rd_kent   Dec-03-09 11:58 AM   #64 
  - Fun to watch workers exposed to deadly radiation?  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 12:30 PM   #71 
     - Your response is evidence that you DID NOT READ THE LINKS.....  rd_kent   Dec-03-09 12:40 PM   #73 
        - They received what amounts to an ANNUAL dose of radiation from the nuke plant  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 02:02 PM   #77 
           - liquid radiation? solid radiation? really. In what fantasyland physics book did you learn that.  Statistical   Dec-04-09 01:26 AM   #93 
           - Shit like that is why Liberation Angel is NEVER to be taken seriously  Occulus   Dec-04-09 03:44 AM   #95 
           - You know  Liberation Angel   Dec-04-09 02:49 PM   #106 
           - The radiation is IN the liquid and solid nuclear emissions and effluents from nuclear power plants  Liberation Angel   Dec-04-09 02:47 PM   #105 
              - No, you just put it  Confusious   Dec-05-09 07:27 PM   #120 
           - You didn't read in enough detail  Confusious   Dec-05-09 07:24 PM   #119 
              - Radiation is IN the liquid effluents and waste water from nuke plants  Liberation Angel   Dec-06-09 06:26 PM   #131 
  - Wow.  caraher   Dec-03-09 01:52 PM   #75 
  - Excellent post...  SidDithers   Dec-03-09 01:59 PM   #76 
  - Oh please  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 03:21 PM   #79 
     - oh, but the study you reference only has the PUREST of intent  ProdigalJunkMail   Dec-05-09 06:27 AM   #115 
  - You cite CERRIE which, according to this report, are industry hacks  Liberation Angel   Dec-03-09 03:19 PM   #78 
     - Bear in mind that you just called Chris Busby an ex-"industry hack"  caraher   Dec-04-09 06:55 AM   #97 
        - I did not, there are dissenters in Cerrie as there have been in the NRC  Liberation Angel   Dec-05-09 12:08 AM   #109 
           - Did I not just see a subject line like this:  caraher   Dec-05-09 12:56 PM   #117 
              - Kick for another excellent post in this thread...nt  SidDithers   Dec-05-09 01:12 PM   #118 
              - Well, it seems like you have a horse in this race...promoting nukes and disparaging critics  Liberation Angel   Dec-06-09 01:08 AM   #121 
                 - Before you brought all this up I'd never heard of ECRR, Busby, CERRIE, etc.  caraher   Dec-06-09 09:14 AM   #124 
                    - Okay, but using as justification the one clear nuclear hack as reliable is disingenuous  Liberation Angel   Dec-06-09 10:54 AM   #125 
                       - And the reason the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth folks went along was?  caraher   Dec-06-09 02:32 PM   #128 
                          - The ENTIRE committee was threatened with Defamation Lawsuits if they didn't go along  Liberation Angel   Dec-06-09 06:22 PM   #130 
  - Government gags experts over nuclear plant risks (Re: Cerrie report)  Liberation Angel   Dec-06-09 11:13 AM   #126 
     - Guardian article: (Former Environmental Minister) Meacham Rails at "Biased" Cancer report  Liberation Angel   Dec-06-09 11:22 AM   #127 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC