Why do people fear nuclear power?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Stokes Pennwalt, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    Yes, paulsamuel, do just that and give us real statistics per time, per capita, mentioning all those scientific studies proving there are birth defects, cancers, leukemias, radiation poisoning, etc. Don't forget to provide the radiation levels in different regions, starting from the Reactor No 4, then to the town of Pripyat, then to the rest of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, so we can compare them with other regions in the world with higher natural radiation levels (that would cause the same alleged effects "seen" in Chernobyl, and would force mass evacuations and relocation).

    Hard facts, paulsamuel, not Greenpeace's "6 feet tall mutant chicken".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    what are you, shilling for the nuclear energy companys? ooh you slime ball


    shill **noun
    One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.



    hey, i'm not the one making claims that coal kills more people. Thats statisitcal lying by the nuclear energy advocates and includes mine disaster deaths, black lung from miners, all lung cancers within a certain distance of a coal mine or a coal burning plant, since coal was first used as a fuel over 200 years ago.

    it's all crap meant to mislead a naive public.

    the fact is that nuclear power plants are more dangerous, nuclear waste is more dangerous

    esp. in a time of terrorism where dirty bombs using nuke waste or sabotage of a nuke plant is a real danger. who cares if they blow up a coal plant, but imagine the disaster if they got a nuke plant

    here are 20 references that should give you a start, there are hundreds more:

    1) Romanenko A, Morell-Quadreny L, Lopez-Guerrero JA, Pellin A, Nepomnyaschy V, Vozianov A, Llombart-Bosch A. Related Articles, Links
    The INK4a /ARF locus: role in cell cycle control for renal cell epithelial tumor growth after the Chernobyl accident.
    Virchows Arch. 2004 Jul 1

    2) Murbeth S, Rousarova M, Scherb H, Lengfelder E. Related Articles, Links
    Thyroid cancer has increased in the adult populations of countries moderately affected by Chernobyl fallout.
    Med Sci Monit. 2004 Jun 29

    3) Ahman B, Wright SM, Howard BJ. Related Articles, Links
    Radiocaesium in lynx in relation to ground deposition and diet.
    Radiat Environ Biophys. 2004 Jun 19

    4) Kruk JE, Prohl G, Kenigsberg JI. Related Articles, Links
    A radioecological model for thyroid dose reconstruction of the Belarus population following the Chernobyl accident.
    Radiat Environ Biophys. 2004 Jun 19

    5) Florou H, Tsytsugina V, Polikarpov GG, Trabidou G, Gorbenko V, Chaloulou CH. Related Articles, Links
    Field observations of the effects of protracted low levels of ionizing radiation on natural aquatic population by using a cytogenetic tool.
    J Environ Radioact. 2004;75(3):267-83.

    6) Dobson R. Related Articles, Links
    Thyroid cancer has increased 12-fold in women since Chernobyl.
    BMJ. 2004 Jun 12;328(7453):1394.

    7) Gavrilin Y, Khrouch V, Shinkarev S, Drozdovitch V, Minenko V, Shemiakina E, Ulanovsky A, Bouville A, Anspaugh L, Voilleque P, Luckyanov N. Related Articles, Links
    Individual thyroid dose estimation for a case-control study of Chernobyl-related thyroid cancer among children of Belarus-part I: 131I, short-lived radioiodines (132I, 133I, 135I), and short-lived radiotelluriums (131MTe and 132Te).
    Health Phys. 2004 Jun;86(6):565-85.

    8) Mahoney MC, Lawvere S, Falkner KL, Averkin YI, Ostapenko VA, Michalek AM, Moysich KB, McCarthy PL. Related Articles, Links
    Thyroid cancer incidence trends in Belarus: examining the impact of Chernobyl.
    Int J Epidemiol. 2004 May 27

    9) Trivedi A, Hannan MA. Related Articles, Links
    Radiation and cardiovascular diseases.
    J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 2004;23(2):99-106.

    10) Williams ED, Abrosimov A, Bogdanova T, Demidchik EP, Ito M, LiVolsi V, Lushnikov E, Rosai J, Sidorov Y, Tronko MD, Tsyb AF, Vowler SL, Thomas GA. Related Articles, Links
    Thyroid carcinoma after Chernobyl latent period, morphology and aggressiveness.
    Br J Cancer. 2004 Jun 1;90(11):2219-24.

    11) Kovalchuk I, Abramov V, Pogribny I, Kovalchuk O. Related Articles, Links
    Molecular aspects of plant adaptation to life in the Chernobyl zone.
    Plant Physiol. 2004 May;135(1):357-63. Epub 2004 May 07.

    12) isaelides P, Sikalidis C, Tsitouridou R, Alexiades C. Related Articles, Links
    Distribution of fission products in dust samples from the region of Thessaloniki, Greece, after the Chernobyl nuclear accident.


    13) Sawidis T. Related Articles, Links
    Uptake of radionuclides by plants after the Chernobyl accident.
    Environ Pollut. 1988;50(4):317-24.

    14) Lowe VP, Horrill AD. Related Articles, Links
    Ecological half-life of caesium in Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus).
    Environ Pollut. 1988;54(2):81-7.

    15) Hakanson L, Andersson T, Nilsson A. Related Articles, Links
    Caesium-137 in Perch in Swedish Lakes after Chernobyl-Present situation, relationships and trends.
    Environ Pollut. 1989;58(2-3):195-212.

    16) Johanson KJ, Bergstrom R. Related Articles, Links
    Radiocaesium from chernobyl in Swedish moose.
    Environ Pollut. 1989;61(3):249-60.

    17) Coughtrey PJ, Kirton JA, Mitchell NG, Morris C. Related Articles, Links
    Transfer of radioactive caesium from soil to vegetation and comparison with potassium in upland grasslands.
    Environ Pollut. 1989;62(4):281-315.

    18) Cristaldi M, D'Arcangelo E, Ieradi LA, Mascanzoni D, Mattei T, Van Axel Castelli I. Related Articles, Links
    137Cs Determination and mutagenicity tests in wild Mus musculus domesticus before and after the Chernobyl accident.
    Environ Pollut. 1990;64(1):1-9.

    19) Muller WU, Dietl S, Wuttke K, Reiners C, Biko J, Demidchik E, Streffer C. Related Articles, Links
    Micronucleus formation in lymphocytes of children from the vicinity of Chernobyl after (131)I therapy.
    Radiat Environ Biophys. 2004 May;43(1):7-13. Epub 2004 Apr 08.

    20) Slebos RJ, Little RE, Umbach DM, Antipkin Y, Zadaorozhnaja TD, Mendel NA, Sommer CA, Conway K, Parrish E, Gulino S, Taylor JA. Related Articles, Links
    Mini-and microsatellite mutations in children from Chernobyl accident cleanup workers.
    Mutat Res. 2004 Apr 11;559(1-2):143-51.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    Edufer: "Hard facts, paulsamuel, not Greenpeace's '6 feet tall mutant chicken.'"

    Please cite the source of this quote. Where did you, Edufer, see Greenpeace claim something about nuclear radiation causing this "6 feet tall mutant chicken."

    Do you just attribute this hyperbole to Greenpeace as you claim any evidence contrary to your opinions as corrupt because it is easier to ridicule than to have an open mind? Heck, don't know why I ask the question. Too much water over the dam for me to entertain any question as to your open mindedness.

    Nice collection of citations, paulsamuel, and apparently on pretty short order. Did you use PubMed or some such service? I begin to see why Kofi Annan estimated the victims of Chernobyl to number in the millions. Apparently he and that other UN organization that differed from UNSCEAR's exonerating opinions did not just pull their statistics from thin air.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    pubmed.

    i love ncbi and i'll probably end up working there.
     
  8. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    Pubmed has been unavailable for the last three days (at least from South America, so I had to go to other sources, for analyzing the references).

    Most referenced studies are models, or have no relation with the myth of increasing cancers (thyroid or other types), or other detrimental effects attributed to radiation. That’s the risk of reading only the titles of studies without reading the whole study. As you know, nowadays there is a direct positive correlation between scientists getting more funding for continue their research, and the catastrophic implications in the titles of their papers.

    See an example:

    http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7453/1394-a

    (sic) = Thyroid cancer has increased 12-fold in women since Chernobyl: “The report says that although previous studies of the incidence of thyroid cancer in Belarus have shown an increase since the Chernobyl explosion, <b<the size of the increase is not well quantified”</b>

    Of course, reality says this is not true. The original study says at the end of its abstract:

    <dir><b>Thyroid cancer incidence trends in Belarus: examining the impact of Chernobyl

    Abstract </b>

    Background While prior studies of thyroid cancer incidence within Belarus have increased since the 1986 Chernobyl reactor accident, the magnitude of increase is not well quantified.

    <b>Methods:</b> Using <b>Belarussian national cancer registry data</b>, trends in average annual age-adjusted thyroid cancer incidence rates were examined by calendar year and gender. Incidence rates were also examined across specified time intervals, for specific age groups at diagnosis, and in ‘higher exposure’ regions compared with ‘lower exposure’ areas.

    <b>Results</b> Age-adjusted thyroid cancer incidence rates (adjusted to the WHO 2000 world population) have increased between 1970 and 2001 from 0.4 per 100 000 to 3.5 per 100 000 among males (+775%) and from 0.8 per 100 000 to 16.2 per 100 000 among females (+1925%). The relative increase among males (+1020%) and females (+3286%) in ‘high exposure’ areas exceeded increases among males (+571%) and females (+250%) in ‘lower exposure’ areas of Belarus. Dramatic increases in thyroid cancer incidence rate ratios were noted among both males and females and in all age groups. The highest incidence rate ratios were observed among people from ‘higher exposure’ areas ages 0-14 yr at time of diagnosis.</dir>
    The claim from this press release and the original study result (peer-reviewed? Replicated?) are at odds with the results of thousands of papers and epidemiological studies performed by thousands of scientists that contributed to the UNSCEAR’s reports, showing a negative correlation between radiation exposure and thyroid cancer. <b>Who must we trust?</b> Thousands of field studies performed during the last 18 years, or <b>one non replicated study using Belarus governmental flawed statistics?</b>

    Doubting about UNSCEAR’s scientific credibility and honesty, casts doubts onto the rest of the United Nation’s organizations, as WHO, WMO, UNESCO, UNDEP, or the IPCC, organizations that Mr. Chips has been showing as an example of sound science – just because they belong to an incorruptible organization as the UN.

    As Mr. Chips knows quite well, the UNSCEAR is the least favored scientific body within the UN, when it comes to funding. Dr. Zbignew Jaworowski (former president) as been appealing to the Assembly to provide more funds to the UNSCEAR, because it runs the danger of disappearing. It has been running on an annual budget of less than $50.000 dollars, while the IPCC and WHO have budgets running into the <b>hundred of millions</b>. That would give you an idea of what ¡s going on with the UNSCEAR. It began to fall in disgrace when back in April 1994 released its 1994 Report to the General Assembly revealing the concept of <b>“radiation Hormesis”</b>, or the beneficial effects of radioactivity in small dose levels. It was a highly <b>politically incorrect</b> report, so the word was passed in the UN: “Delenda est UNSCEAR!”.

    But when the background and personality of all scientists in those 146 scientific committees are investigated, the accusation of the UNSCEAR “being paid” or funded by the nuclear industry must be dismissed, brushed aside.

    Chernobyl is a highly emotional issue for the greens, and anything that challenges the idea of a ongoing catastrophe must be destroyed at once. As Harvard’s astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas once said when referring to the battle between science and emotion: <dir>“But petitioning emotion and showing consistency with some facts fail to reach the class of hard science -- a good hypothesis, to be accepted, must formulate specific predictions that survive testing and be consistent with all known, relevant and well-observed facts. Hypothesis testing is dangerous because it often leaves cherished cultural interpretations of reality in crushed shambles. Undermining popular superstitions is the result of deliberate action by humans to discover the facts of the material universe."</dir>
    And how many of those studies have been replicated? And what kind of peer review they have passed? Here is a recent example (last week) of what could happen to all of those studies if they had to face replication:
    <dir>http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040708/04

    <b>Fat hormone faces problems</b>
    In <i>Nature</i>, 12 labs fail to replicate effects of PYY3-36 on appetite and body mass.

    A paper published online with the July 8 issue of <i>Nature</i> delivers a heavy blow to the reputation of one of the prime candidates for a chemical treatment for obesity. Forty-two scientists, from 12 labs, report that they have failed to replicate the effects described in a 2002 study of the gut-derived hormone PYY3-36 on body mass and appetite in rodents.</dir>
    Read the rest of the story in the link above.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2004
  9. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    Apparently there is a signed legally binding document that UNSCEAR can not report anything not condoned by the IAEA. Interesting that UNSCEAR should limit its studies to thyroid cancer as generally representative of all cancer tendencies in the inflicted population.

    Edufer, you approach one of hundreds of studies and dismiss it, again one concerned with thyroid cancer, perhaps the least suspected result of the types of radiation released from Chernobyl.

    I understand that UNSCEAR is back on track now with substantial funding with statements like "They can get back on the job of helping define nuclear energy development" (not if or whether it should be developed) with special emphasis on incorporating non-no linear threshold theories and the idea that radiation is beneficial. I'm surprised you haven't caught that recent reenergizing of your trusted data source. Incidentally, I do believe it is quite possible that other UN organizations suffer from corruption, concerning depleted uranium for example, I find a direct difference between the results of studies done for WHO and their stated findings. It would be interesting to see some of the data that UNSCEAR bases its widely exonerating findings. Got a link to any such, pal?

    The last study you brought in here on Fat hormones hardly applies. Sure there is need for replication of studies and not finding ability to replicate casting negative light and at least need for further research to discern differing opinions but, Fat Hormone? If you want to claim that failure to replicate studies is at issue concerning the effects of radiation on Chernobyl victims (sorry, my bias shows, maybe they were the lucky ones to get in on the Hormesis band wagon) then post some direct failures to replicate, the more recent the better.

    BTW, lumping people and opinions togethor as automatically worthless because they are of the "greens" does not wash with me. I am a human being. I have no affiliation with the green party, greenpeace, or really, any environmental group. I give no contributions to such. I don't really study their literature either though sometimes I use it as a sign post to find data from what appear to be more reliable sources than their biased perspective. Me thinks you like to lump things togethor and oppose beliefs and assume affiliations with this nebulous "greens" label. I guess its easier than dealing with the issues.
     
  10. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    Edufer, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, shilling for big corporate polluters and attacking real scientists for trying to protect the environment.

    for those of you who don't know, Edufer represents an argentine group whose mission is to expose what it terms as "fraudes científicos, exageraciones y errores que abundan en el campo de la Ecología," i.e. to expose as fraud any scientific reports that would protect the public and environment from the big corporate polluters.

    I hope they're paying you well, you Judas! Don't you have grandchildren that you want to grow up in a clean world?

    Excuse me while I rip this guy a new one;

    hmmm, myth??

    Since research on atomics began, we have known about the dangers of radiation and radiation poisoning. In fact, lives were lost even among the researchers. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, also gave us the results of a gruesome war time experiment on the effects of radiation and radiation poisoning.

    How about energy from nuclear fission and the dangers the public is exposed to from reaping that energy in the form of the risk of nuclear power plant accidents, like Chernobyl?

    Edufer has called the effects of radiation poisoning from the Chernobyl disaster a myth. He has cited reports from UNSCEAR saying;

    this is an outright LIE!

    Here's what UNSCEAR really said;
    (From , Eur J Cancer. 2003 Feb;39(3):295-9.)

    Don't listen to this bozo!

    He's a liar, and he's got an agenda.

    Listen to this crap;
    Right! Sheesh, as if greens had any motivation except to protect public health and promote a clean environment as opposed to the nuclear industry and large corporate polluters whose motivation is greed.

    Edufer, your an asshole and a fucking liar. Get the fuck out of here.
     
  11. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    Yes, of course:

    The 1988 UNSCEAR Report (Two years after the accident) has 76 pages of highly scientific and technical information with 197 references to studies and reports by scientists, governments, international organizations, etc. I realize that recommending its lecture to you is as recommending Socrates ingesting his poison, however, here goes the link to the pdf document: http://www.unscear.org/pdffiles/1988annexd.pdf

    Then: http://www.unscear.org/pdffiles/1988annexgappx.pdf is the Acute radiation effects in victims of the Chernobyl accident (21 pages) describes in detail "Early effects in man of high radiation doses".

    Then it is: http://www.unscear.org/pdffiles/annexj.pdf In the UNSCEAR 2001 Report "Hereditary effects of radiation", the following findings are described with regard to <b>possible genetic effects of radiation exposures resulting from the Chernobyl accident</b> (4 pages: http://www.unscear.org/pdffiles/chernobylherd.pdf), whose Summary follows:<dir><b>4. Summary</b>
    14. Two studies of the genetic effects of radiation in humans have recently been published. One of them involved the offspring of survivors of cancer who had received chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatments and the other involved females who had been exposed to radiation (from beta particles, gamma rays, and x rays) during infancy for the treatment of haemangiomas. Neither of these found significant effects attributable to parental exposure to chemical agents and/or radiation.

    15. The results of studies of minisatellite mutations in the children of those exposed in areas contaminated by the Chernobyl accident and in the children of those exposed to the atomic bombings in Japan are not consistent: in children from Chernobyl areas, the mutation frequencies were increased, while in the Japanese children, there were no such increases. It should be noted that the control children for the Chernobyl study were from the United Kingdom.

    16. The search for genetic effects associated with Chernobyl exposures in Belarus or Ukraine, which had the highest contamination, and in a number of European countries provide no unambiguous evidence for an increase in the frequencies of one or more of the following: Down's syndrome, congenital anomalies, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, etc.</dir>
    I guess you understand wrong or have taken that info from <b>your</b> “trusted data sources”. That’s not what the UNSCEAR says in its website and/or ublications or press releases.

    You can see the “corrupt” way the UNSCEAR is being carried in this link, where you’ll find the basis of the story, and who is “cutting UNSCEAR’s legs”:

    http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/UN-Chernobyl/NucleonicsWeek15Aug2002.htm

    <dir>Nucleonics Week, Aug 15, 2002
    <b>NEW UNSCEAR WORK CYCLE STALLED BY UN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY</b>

    "The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), which was to have begun a new work cycle May 6-10, has been forced to make emergency arrangements to hold even one full meeting of its 21-country members this biennium (2002/03) "because our funds have been slashed by UNEP," the Nairobi-based <b>UN Environment Program</b>, without a word of warning and in contravention of UN General Assembly instructions, a committee member has told Nucleonics Week.” ...

    "…UNSCEAR budget figures, for the first two fiscal years of the penultimate cycle, show $1,220,800 for FY-92/93 and $928,600 for FY-94/95. For the first biennium of the FY-02/03 cycle, the figure is $674,000. An urgent appeal to UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer, by UNSCEAR office bearers for this cycle, failed to obtain the additional $65,000-$70,000 requested. So the officials - Joyce Lipsztein (Chair, Brazil), Lars-Erik Holm (Sweden), Yasuhito Sasaki (Japan), Robi Chatterjee (Canada), and Committee Secretary Norman Gentner - decided to cancel the first full meeting of the cycle, scheduled for May, pool the savings with 2003 funds, and convene a full meeting in January 2003….”

    "National representatives are becoming more forthrightly critical of UNEP. In a letter to the journal Science, dated July 19, Zbigniew Jaworowski (Poland), said the funds provided to UNSCEAR were "lean but adequate," though 2002 funding stands at about 50% of the 1992 level, not accounting for inflation.”

    "Saying he cannot understand why the UN accepts "a threat to UNSCEAR's very existence," for want of what amounts to an annual pittance, Jaworowski added. “It appears to me that the fiscal difficulties began when UNSCEAR financing was arranged via UNEP”. "A divorce of UNSCEAR from UNEP might be a possible remedy. Dissolution of UNSCEAR would be an immeasurable loss to world science and to future development of the radiation protection system.”</dir>
    I approached that study because it sounded as the most catastrophic one, and because paulsamuel had posted it. As I said, many other studies have no direct relation with Chernobyl effects, or support the idea of increasing number of solid cancers of any type.

    One of the main reasons for the claim is the <b>increase in screening studies</b> for thyroid and other cancers that brought to the surface the presence of the so called “dormant cancers”, that is, cancers that can go undetected for a lifetime, even without being the cause of eventual death.

    No. What’s interesting is that you twist arguments and try to accuse UNSCEAR scientists of concentrating just on thyroid cancers – and that is a gross mistake. As the same UNSCEAR has pointed out, they have been and are focusing on many different effects of the Chernobyl accident:<dir>At its last full meeting, April 23-27, 2001, UNSCEAR decided to develop eight annexes in this cycle, in addition to that on Chernobyl. For that one, procedures are already in place to collect all research data produced in the three republics - Belarus, Russia and Ukraine - most affected by the accident. The annex's tentative titles are, in the physical sub-group:

    Dose Assessment for Inhalation of Radon; Medical Radiation Exposures; Exposures from Natural, Man-made & Occupational Sources; and Radioecology; and, in the biological subgroup, Epidemiological Evaluation of Radiation-induced Cancer; Epidemiological Evaluation & Dose Response of Diseases other than Cancer; Mechanisms & Consequences of Radiation Response in Tissues; and Bystander Effects, Genomic Instability & Novel Aspects of Apoptetic Response.</dir>Your tactics of accusing people or institutions of corruption or misbehaving does not work with alert people. Perhaps the ignorant or the unaware will swallow the hook. Not me or other members of sciforums.

    You might not be part of Greenpeace or other green organizations, but as your identity is just some electrons hitting our monitor screens from anonymity, you could be throwing the stone and hiding your hand saying “I was not” – or just being a paid member of any of those green associations. You said: <b>“Me thinks you like to lump things togethor and oppose beliefs and assume affiliations with this nebulous "greens" label. I guess its easier than dealing with the issues.”</b>

    And that’s what you are precisely doing: lumping together all dissenting views with the “Green” mantra and litany (let’s call them “magenta” as the exact opposite) as paid liars by the <b>“oil-nuclear-chemical-bioengineering-car-pharmacy-etc industries”</b> I have been dealing with the issues, while you have been dealing with press releases. It has been show in any of your appearances in this forum.
     
  12. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    Paulsamuel, dirty name calling won't help your lack of scientific basis. When your resort to ad hominems, then you have lost the battle. That's something Mr. Chips and I have learned from our mutual name calling in the past. Also, you show a great deal of ignorance on scientific matters – that would make you an excellent bureaucrat in some governmental office working on environmental issues as EPA.

    You should note that “increased risk of childhood cancer” doesn't mean children actually got cancers of they will develop cancers. There is a scientific terminology that you must learn and remember.

    From the original source, UNSCEAR's website, (not Eur J Cancer.) go to http://www.unscear.org/ then click on <b>Press Releases</b>:<dir>According to the Committee's scientific assessments, there have been about 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer in children who were exposed at the time of the accident, and if the current trend continues, there may be more cases during the next decades. Apart from this increase, <b>there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure fourteen years after the accident.</b>

    There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated, <b>not even among the recovery operation workers.</b> Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an <b>increased risk</b> of radiation-associated effects, the <b>great majority of the population</b> are not likely to experience serious health consequences from radiation from the Chernobyl accident.”</dir>

    There is no relation between health effects from an atomic bomb blast and nuclear energy for pacific uses. You should know better. But in case you didn't know it (I am sure of that), here is some interesting information from the UNSCEAR website. Just for starters. <dir> <b>Cancer risks</b>

    The Committee has further assessed the cancer risks from radiation exposures based on reviews of epidemiological studies and results from fundamental radiological research. The primary source of information remains the Life Span Study of the <b>survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki</b>. It includes about 86,500 individuals of all ages and both genders with good dosimetric data over a wide range of doses. About 5% of the 7,800 deaths from cancer or leukaemia in this group of exposed people is due to radiation.
    For a population of all ages and both genders, the lifetime risk of dying from cancer is about 9% for men and 13% for women after an acute dose of 1,000 millisievert. For comparison, the worldwide annual per caput dose is 2.4 millisievert from natural radiation.</dir>
    If you haven't understood what this means, the fact is that people not exposed to radiation has 9% - 13% lifetime risk of developing leukemia, opposed to 5% risk for Hiroshima and Nagasaki's survivors. Do you get the idea? No? I guessed that.

    Then there are the United Nations General Assembly Resolutions:
    <dir><b>4. Resolution 55/121</b> dated 27 February 2001:*<b>The General Assembly,</b>

    <b>Recalling</b> its resolution 913 (X) of 3 December 1955, by which it established the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and its subsequent resolutions on the subject, including resolution 54/66 of 6 December 1999, in which, inter alia, it requested the Scientific Committee to continue its work,
    <b>Taking note with appreciation</b> of the work of the Scientific Committee and of the release of its extensive report, entitled Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes,
    <font color=#ff0000><b>Reaffirming the desirability of the Scientific Committee continuing its work,</b></font>
    <b>Concerned</b> about the potentially harmful effects on present and future generations resulting from the levels of radiation to which mankind and the environment are exposed,
    ...
    <b>Conscious</b> of the continuing need to examine and compile information about atomic and ionizing radiation and to analyse its effects on mankind and the environment,

    1. <b>Commends</b> the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation for the valuable contribution it has been making in the course of the past forty-five years, since its inception, to wider knowledge and understanding of the levels, effects and risks of ionizing radiation, and for fulfilling its original mandate <b>with scientific authority and independence of judgement;”</b> …

    3. <b>Reaffirms </b>the decision to maintain the present functions <b>and independent role</b> of the Scientific Committee, including its present reporting arrangements;
    4. <b>Requests</b> the Scientific Committee to continue its work, including its important activities to increase knowledge of the levels, effects and risks of ionizing radiation from all sources, and invites the Scientific Committee to submit its programme of work to the General Assembly;
    5. <b>Endorses</b> the intentions and plans of the Scientific Committee for its future activities of scientific review and assessment on behalf of the General Assembly;

    7. <b>Requests</b> the <b>United Nations Environment Programme to continue providing support</b> for the effective conduct of the work of the Scientific Committee <b>and for the dissemination of its findings to the General Assembly, the scientific community and the public;</b>

    9. <b>Invites</b> the Scientific Committee to continue its consultations with scientists and experts from interested Member States in the process of preparing its future scientific reports;
    10. <b>Welcomes,</b> in this context, the readiness of Member States to provide the Scientific Committee with relevant information on the effects of ionizing radiation in affected areas, and invites the Scientific Committee to analyse and give due consideration to such information, <b>particularly in the light of its own findings;</b>
    11. <b>Invites</b> Member States, the organizations of the United Nations system and non-governmental organizations concerned to provide further relevant data about doses, effects and risks from various sources of radiation, which would greatly help in the preparation of future reports of the Scientific Committee to the General Assembly.</dir>What means that the General Assembly (not Kofi Annam, of course!) is quite pleased with UNSCEAR's work and findings.

    By the way, I have not find any General Assembly Resolution praising or commending Greenpeace, the WWF, Friends of the Earth, Worldwatch Institute, etc. for their continuing misinformation.

    No, they are not paying me well. In fact, I am not being paid a cent – on the contrary, I put money from my pocket! That makes me an idiot, of course… So please, can you find someone that would like to send me 25 cents for my work?

    And because I have sons and grandchildren that I love and care for, I am doing this so there will be less sons and grandchildren in the world being affected <b>by green regulations that that have caused hundred of millions of unnecessary deaths in the world.</b>

    Entering this discussion without deep knowledge was a wild bet from your part. You lost your last chips.
     
  13. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    Edufer, long LONG posts with lots of long quotes are not nice. They are not conducive to posting back and forth. Please attempt to have more brevity to your replies. One can get the distinct impression that you are attempting to overwhelm the discussion rather than participate in a discussion. But then if you’ve got all the answers then it isn’t a discussion but should just be your informing us about truth. But all of the quotes from various people and studies, (actually few), can be put into your own words and then cited. From what I have observed, you do have a strong agenda to exonerate nuclear energy use and development from any culpability as well as other powerful inventions that were first used with inadvertent and designed human destruction. Therefore, I strongly suspect that you are trying to bowl us over rather than participate in some cogent discussion.

    Shit, looks like I got some studying to do. You didn’t post actual research findings by independent sources but this paper seems to be a major final statement, thanks. You’ve thrown me a curve ball when I was hoping for a little straight shooting so that we could more quickly and easily find mutual understanding but if the design is just to obfuscate, to drown out any debate through massive posting of one view then you rightly picked the stuff that does not make it easy to analyze the data for myself. Even the paper itself incorporates some real gaffes that do not make analyzing it any easier. Does not seem like a class act for a major UN organization.

    I really suspect there is contradiction between findings and conclusions for UNSCEAR. Now I go look. Damn PDF files. All of the references for that first paper are just text. Can’t copy and paste into Google or Altavista to go see if I can find the original studies because of the nature of PDF files. Got to just type the data in, limits how many I can research so I will be selective. Hmmm, I need a test claim from the text. But this is from 1988! Recently I posted some evidence that studies previous to 2001 were deeply flawed on the conservative side concerning how much core reactor material was ejected from the site. Oh well, should still be able to find some major differences between studies and a pertinent claim. Let’s see, from the summary, page 39 no shit, actually the table of contents appears to be incorrect. That’s real nice, as well as the grammatical errors. So the summary actually starts on page 36.

    Damn, have to type any quotes, “Exposures, mainly from released Cs137 will continue for a few tens of years from the external irradiation and ingestion pathways. Estimates of dose commitments have been made for larger geographical regions, based on projection models developed from fallout measurement experience.”

    Whoa! Stop right there. This was an unprecedented event. When was the last time a nuclear power plant reactor exploded and burned fiercely and freely for ten days? If they are only drawing from “fallout measurement experience” then they are using base data based on altogether different kinds of radionuclide release. I get the idea that this was a pretty lame study. Any ways, this points out a claim that is probably contradicting some observations, the amount and kinds of radionuclides released.

    Here I go with the magic fingers again (Fuck you!), “In Europe, the highest effective dose equivalents in the first year were 760 microSv in Bulgaria, 670 microSv in Austria, 590 microSv in Greece and 570 microSv in Romania, followed by other countries of northern, eastern and south-eastern Europe (Table 18).”

    Okay, found the contradiction within the study itself, go figure, this is not an example of careful data analysis and presentation. Table 18 is entitled “Country average of first-year dose equivalents” which is not what is reported in the summary. By not including that term “Average” in the statement in the summary quoted above they are implying that their derived dose equivalents cover anybody and everybody despite difference of exposure from various life styles, weather inconsistencies, geophysical factors etc. PISS POOR UNSCIENTIFIC BROOHAHA! Makes it easier though, I thought I was going to have to do some searching within the references. I do suspect the data in the tables as not worthy of accepting for face value when some obvious bias is already quite apparent.

    Okay, lets see how long I can keep this up (Fuck you again, Edufer). Hey, that second PDF document you link to actually has the “Conclusions” on page 15 as listed in the table of contents! Oh, ah, did you read it? There is nothing there that applies to this debate. Some more padding to your snow job, Edufer (fuck you again, thank you moderator for allowing us to vent frustrations with this bozo and thank you for suggesting the descriptive terms, paulsamuel).

    Okay, now for the next linked PDF file (fuck you!), annexj. Nice that the page numbers start at 451. That is actually what UNSCEAR is offering via their site? You’d think they’d try to make things easier to navigate unless their idea is to make it hard to analyze their findings (fuck UNSCEAR!). Okay, summary to the first section on page 466 (actually page 16), The only thing I can begin to fault there is that though they state that their study only analyzed Iodine 131 and Cesium 137, other radionuclides were released. They also note that more time based study needs to occur which means it didn’t for this analysis so one should not assume any final verdict that they may come to in this first section and now, onto the second section, equally effected by these failings of the study.

    Next section of that third linked PDF (incidentally, this does not seem to be the original data collectors talking but just the top level conclusions that were drawn from the data some how or other (very possibly in such a slip-shod way as the page numbering), at least the grammar appears better than that first PDF (Pretty Damned Fucked?). BTW, like the second PDF you post in your last two posts (unless you posted some more unadulterated crap since then) this third one (at least the first section) does not address anything cogent to the current debate, more fluff. You must have been eating a lot of rodents lately, Edufer, to come up with so many hair balls.

    Gotta scroll back up to the top and note the page number of the second section’s summary from that third PDF and then scroll back (used to be a time when a summary was a summary.) page 487. Now to scroll back down and keep my eyes on the PDF page numbers rather than use the quick advance capability of Adobe Acrobat Reader (fuck you and UNSCEAR). It’s actually page 37. Hmmm, interesting, “thyroid doses to adults were smaller than those to infants by a factor of about 10.” So how does this skew the data that only uses average dose approximations? This study does not address the possible over all effect of the radionuclide dispersal as it states itself it is concerned only with assessment for a fraction of the contaminated areas. MORE FLUFF, SNOW JOB AVALANCHE!

    Now your fourth Pretty Damned Fucked link, no table of contents but it is a short one and at least it does have a summary (note, unlike yourself, Edufer, I don’t quote lots of whole passages, People can go there and see if I’m taking things out of context or trust in my often cogent alalysis

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    rather than wade through mounds. Sorry folks for the length of this reply, even when trying to keep things brief, long posts with many references, a snow job attempt, requires a lot of heat to melt.) Okay, summary on page 4, nice of them to note that microsatellite mutations observed do not match those not observed in Japanese children from their atomic bomb experiences. Underscores the idea that the base models they used to estimate average exposures were flawed as I discussed concerning the first linked PDF. Shit, they do not reference their data on the analysis of observations of Chernobly victims (or the lucky ones depending on your degree of desire to exonerate) in the summary, only studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors and their children. Oh well, one would have to read the content of the paper. Excuse me while I go gag into the toilet for a while. I don’t want to read this shit! Tell you what, Edufer, if you are serious about this, why don’t you cull out the references hopefully with the names of researchers and their studies that were used to formulate this largely summarized document (Looks like one quarter of the brief is summary). Nice little note that they plan on posting the full text soon. I would have rather seen that.

    Hmmm, according to this letter by one of your favorite people, Jaworowski,June of 2003, http://mailman.mcmaster.ca/mailman/private/cdn-nucl-l/0306.gz/msg00031.html UNSCEAR is getting a new lease on life. Maybe they don’t post it on their web site. I really wouldn’t put such ineptness beyond them or yourself to remain ignorant of one of your own hero’s exultations. Maybe this was just more misinformation from your beloved Jaworowski? Hmm, so which is it? Were you mistaken or was Jaworowski about UNSCEAR getting a new lease on life (or license to promote death as I am finding)?

    Now, the fifth link (an HTML file, nice) about the ceasing of funds that occurred for UNSCEAR. Do you think maybe there were folks who found UNSCEAR so biased and inept that they helped that happen? I wouldn’t be surprised. They’ve got to do a whole lot better in my eyes to earn any kind of respect from me. Like the AEC, I suggest they fold and make a new corrupted entity as they have stuck their foot in their mouths too many times. Notice the note there that the IAEA uses data from UNSCEAR to formulate policy. There is evidence that it actually goes the other way, IAEA dictates what UNSCEAR will find. Why post the link and then quote much of the article, Edufuck? More padding for the cell you would put us in?

    Look at the studies again, sure looks like they are using thyroid cancer as a general analysis of potential other cancers.

    Edufer: “No, they are not paying me well. In fact, I am not being paid a cent”

    I can not trust a single thing you state, Edufer. Too many lies, too much misinformation, too much selecting biased data expressly for supporting your desired hypothesies has given me a total lack of trust in your statements.

    Enough for now. I got a life. I guess the length of this does not allow me to put in smilies. Every time I use the word "Fuck" please realize I wanted to include a smiley to suggest I am just being facetious with that word though, the frustration of talking to a wall does make me want to really mean that term of endearment. I do not like people who attempt to convince through sheer quantity rather than quality. Go fuck yourself, Edufer

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oh, some smilies made it!
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2004
  14. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    I found the following to be interesting. It points the way to more research. The most amazing thing I find about it, somewhat causing a bit of head turning on my part, is the difference of the organizations involved and the degree of disagreement between their findings. Non-profits, NGOs, academic and some science research foundations established for the purpose hold a very different conclusion from UNSCEAR, the IAEA and other high profile, what one might term “industry pundits” if one were to consider the possibility that UNSCEAR and the IAEA are being controlled by money. The paper includes citations directly within it which I think is okay. At least one should be able to drill down a bit. Notice this doesn’t mention Cesium 137 and another Cesium isotope known to be dispersed by the Chernobyl explosions and ten day long hot fire. I recall reading recently that Strontium 90 was also released in substantial amounts and some plutonium radionuclides were emitted. They all have a much longer half-life than Iodine 131, one of the quickest acting as far as facilitating thyroid cancer. Interesting statistic, that thyroid cancer incidence has increased from about 1,000 to 10,000 in at least one area affected, most among children at the time of the release and a largely inordinate amount of those cancers are malignant compared to previous observed frequencies.

    http://www.antenna.nl/wise/608/5598.php

    Here is the existing “statute” of the IAEA, as posted on IAEA’s site, http://www.iaea.org/About/statute_text.html

    Seems to me that it has a basic assumption that it exists to promulgate, the use and development of nuclear energy. They seem somewhat unable to address the possibility of alternatives. They see nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. I see no discussing of other alternatives except that their increase of use is liable to lead to less percentage supplied by Nuclear reactors over time. I did see a statement by their president about the importance of marketing nuclear energy around the globe. I also see that their headquarters are in the tallest tower in Vienna, if I remember the reference properly. Sure sounds like a cushy job for some and they are not hurting for money.
     
  15. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    calling you a liar is not name-calling, it's a matter of fact.

    you're a paid lobbyist for corpoarate polluters, i'm a scientist. you know nothing of science so your opinions on it are meaningless.

    Edufer is a LIAR!

    Here's what UNSCEAR really said (from http://www.unscear.org/pdffiles/annexj.pdf );

    pg. 497, " As seen in Tables 56-58 an increasing number of
    thyroid cancers among children and adolescents living in
    areas most contaminated by the accident have been
    diagnosed in the last 12 years. Among those less than 18
    years of age at exposure, 1,791 thyroid cancers were
    diagnosed during 1990-1998 (complete information is not
    available for the Russian Federation). The increase in all
    three countries for 1990-1998 was approximately fourfold,
    with the highest increase seen in the Russian Federation.
    "

    pg. 504, " There can be no doubt about the relationship between
    the radioactive materials released from the Chernobyl
    accident and the unusually high number of thyroid cancers
    observed in the contaminated areas during the past 14 years.
    "

    This is unambiguous evidence of Edufer's lies.

    What UNSCEAR really said;

    pg. 504, "In Ukraine, a significant increase [of leukemia was]
    reported (28 cases observed, 8 cases expected).
    "

    pg. 504, " the risk of leukaemia has been found to be elevated after irradiation for benign and malignant conditions, after occupational exposure (radiologists), as well as among the survivors of the atomic bombings."

    I have exposed Edufer as a liar and a shill.
     
  16. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    (Fuck you!),
    (Fuck you again, Edufer).
    Edufer (fuck you again, thank you moderator for allowing us to vent frustrations with this bozo and thank you for suggesting the descriptive terms, paulsamuel).
    (fuck you!), annexj.
    (fuck UNSCEAR!).
    (fuck you and UNSCEAR).
    Edufuck
    Go fuck yourself, Edufer

    A collection of highly scientific statements for refuting any argument.
    Perhaps from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and thousands of atmospheric nuclear tests fallout?
    If the 2000 UNSCEAR Report contains more than 1200 pages, and there are lots of Annexes, then it seems natural that annex J starts at page 451. (Go play with yourself, Chippy).

    Another highly scientific remark. Your green paranoia is getting worse, Mr. Nitwitt

    Haven’t you thought that they couldn’t care the less for getting the respect from a green paranoid like you? I feel the same way.

    Of course there were folks that felt UNSCEAR was destroying their patient, lifetime work of building up a <b>strong antinuke neurosis</b> among the general public. People like the UCS, Worldwatch Institute, Greenpeace, and the Green Lobby inside the United Nations has always considered UNSCEAR as a terrible enemy for their plans. Luckily, delegates from countries all over the world felt UNSCEAR’s work was highly valuable, so they ordered the mean green mole inside the UN organization to provide the funds to keep UNSCEAR job going.

    IAEA is and independent international body that stands for the LNT theory, that UNSCEAR is fighting against. How do you concile that with your contention that there is a collusion between IAEA and UNSCEAR? Make up your mind, Mr. Fuckchip!

    As if I care! You trust only the Gospel coming from the Green Antihuman Lobby. Go hug some trees!

    You would never recognize good quality even if you had it under your nose. Those who live munching garbage only appreciate garbage.
     
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,205
    Actually Edufer you can just scale down his argument to a bunch of ad hominems and Appeal the authority fallacies. He claims to be a Phd yet he has the personality of a child in there terrible twos.
     
  18. Mr. Chips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    954
    Edufer: "Perhaps from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and thousands of atmospheric nuclear tests fallout?"

    Exactly what I was suggesting, smarty pants. You want to paint me as ignoring the obvious so much you even support my contention that the study was based on using estimates derived from fallout not in character with the Chernobyl event. BUT the issues don't matter, in perhaps my second most long post you pick out the derogatory statements (oh you forgot my general disclaimer at the end, shit head) , rather than address any of the issues brought up but to again, marginalize with this "green" fucking asshole shit and claims of paranoia.

    I did not say there was a collusion between IAEA and UNSCEAR, you spinning lying SOB, I stated that IAEA dictates what the findings of UNSCEAR are to be. I should go see if I can find that document I've seen referred to that limited UNSCEAR to IAEA oversight. THAT means, dickhead, that the blanket exoneration and extreme summaries of UNSCEAR belie the true motives and desires of IAEA, an organization who's stated purpose is promotion of nuclear energy. IEAE has been around long enough that industry pirates have and are deeply immersed in its functionings most likely.

    Again, you invoke the "green" label rather than address issues or arguments. I honestly believe you have incorporated a far larger degree of anti-communication ad hominem than address any of the arguments, Edufer than I. You aim to fuck us over, demented one, person who seeks the mounting of frustration through deep religious adherence to your claims and avoiding any cogent rejoinder for real points, real arguments.

    Flaming is largely what you do, Edufer, more than any communication. Denigration on the basis of labeling is your modus operandi. Issues and details and facts, they mean nothing to you unless they support your extremist views which you will repeat and quote from in length in a desire to swamp this thread, asshole.

    Hey, have a little strength of character, dude. Show me the garbage of the claim that implies no doses over a certain limit were contradicted by UNSCEAR's own presentation. Can't address that? You do know what "average" means and yet you can not address the fact that they leave it out of their conclusion that the data is based on averages?

    WellCookedFetus, is all you can offer ad hominem, Fucker? What about the points? Easier to keep your favored opinions by attacking integrity rather than the issues, the points, the arguments?

    Ad hominem can be a way of life and it need not involve any flame words. Sometimes it does involve flaming. The long and continual reliance on the slow incendiary burn, such as the continual use of "greens" is much more an avoidance of cogent discussion than the occasional use of swear words. I say your whole approach is to fuck us over and over and over with biased and special interest controlled propaganda with all the buzz words designed to avoid looking at any contrary evidence.

    Me thinks you got the fouler mouth, Edufer, by far.
     
  19. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    shut the hell up fetus and mind your own business, adults are talking

    BTW he was replying to Chips.

    Try to keep up, or get the heck out
     
  20. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    smarty pants.
    you spinning lying SOB
    shit head
    "green" fucking asshole shit
    dickhead
    demented one
    asshole.
    Fucker


    More examples of sound scientific arguments that can be used in any discussion to prove one’s point. Keep them coming and show us your wisdom, Mr. Nitwit.

    Flaming is largely what you do, Edufer, more than any communication. And your posts are “quenching” or “smothering”, isn't it? Nice logic.

    You didn’t use the word collusion, but you implied it, by all means! You are betting your soul on that <b>“IAEA dictates what the findings of UNSCEAR are to be.”</b> Daring and mighty claim! I guess you have the proofs and evidences for such a claim. Signed documents, agreements, hidden cameras, tape recordings, etc. As UNSCEAR and IAEA are completely independent organizations, if IAEA orders UNSCEAR what to say, then there is something that resembles “agreements, collusion, plot, conspiracy, you name it”.

    Mr. Nitwit, you talk too much and say nothing intelligible. You are an amazing case of someone putting together a long string of words to deliver utter nonsense. Delightful!

    WellCooked: who told you Mr. Nitwit has a PhD? He’s just a jet of electrons on our monitor screens giving the impression he’s a living entity. Once he states his real name, where he lives, where he works, provide a picture of his ugly face, then we could assume he really exists.

    It looks as Mr. Nitwit is about to explode. We better ease on him or he's going to have a heart attack tonight.
     
  21. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    You are not an adult yet, paulsamuel. You are just a unemployed teenager eager to become a public servant in a government's office – where your ineptitude and lack of talent will go unnoticed. “Scientist”? You haven’t got what it takes to be one!
     
  22. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    I exposed you as a liar and a shill. You have no retorts so must resort to lying about me. My credentials are publicly available on the www, liar.
     
  23. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    You have exposed no one, sweetie. And your credentials surely are public at www.useless.moron.fart
     

Share This Page