Reply #125: Okay, but using as justification the one clear nuclear hack as reliable is disingenuous

[Liberation Angel]

I would have to refer to the following. let folks read these reports with quotes from the participants, and let people decide for themselves.

BTW - the fact is that, at least according to the Times of London, the committee members were threatened with lawsuits if they included the minority report in their final. That MIGHT explain why the reps from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth did not support publishing it.

But let folks read the OTHER SIDE of the STORY about how the environmental minister was sacked and the minority green members of the committee were threatened.

Finally, I have indeed linked sites which have peer reviewed studies.

The assertion by the industry hack's attack on Busby was at the heart of the comflict. This is what the industry does: it uses hack scientists and promoters to discredit legitimate research usually with lies and damn lies, threats and intimidation which is clearly what happened here. I do appreciate some of the links you have provided because they make it clear that the CERRI report is TOTALLY unreliable and DOES represent pronuke and industry promoting views while disregridng data and studies which do not meet their pronuke agenda. YOUR links make that clear.

But read these folks:



see

Sunday Times 1st August -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2761-1198060,00.html



Independent 8th September 2004 -

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=559316



Guardian 8th September 2004 -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1299369,00.html

They make some of this gobbledygook clearer and explain WHY the scientists who are telling us nuke radiation is killing us, especially children, near nuke plants should be listened to and that NO NUKES are part of any safe solution for energy problems.

Jesus is it OKAY to irradiate children near nuke plants with man made radionuclides which cause leukemia. One death in a thousand is too many. One in ten thousand is too many. AND that means ALL the children in that community (and their moms and dads and loved ones) are getting dosed. Maybe they won't get leuemia. maybe they will get bone cancer in 30 years. But WTF? Is that OKAY with you?

Even Cerri found the risks ten times higher than previously admitted. Busby et al say it may be hundreds of times that for low level exposure. It IS complex but it is not so complex than any idiot can see it is NOT a good idea to drench our communities and children with radionuclides which may well kill them.