Click to get your own widget

Saturday, April 02, 2011


   An American media personality Ann Coulter has spoken out on the LNT/hormesis strongly supporting hormesis.

   Her shtick is to go OTT and thereby court notoriety, for example by pointing out that the Democrat majority depends on women's votes and that thus votes for women may have been a bad idea, so lets not take this as total victory so much as the arrival of reinforcements.

   It is a sign of how controlled our media is that she would never get on air here. I don't think anybody could dispute that she would get the ratings of 10 O'Clock Live up if that were ever the primary concern.

   I first saw this on one of those eco-fascist blogs which pretend to scientific standards and posted this reply
Despite the word count you make no attempt to produce any actual evidence for LNT. That is because there is none. None whatsoever.

It was invented by bureaucrats because it gave them a simple and overcautious rule but it is not and never has been science.

Without going through everything - I will show the fault and clear bias in the attempted refutation of the Taiwan case. It refers to having found a positive correlation with leukemia & then points out that it is only among people under 30. Out of a population of 7000 the number who are both under 30 and cancerous must be less than the fingers of one hand. If we are talking of 1 or 2 cases it it is not statistically viable and anybody basing their case on it must know that.

The evidence for hormesis, on the other hand, comes from a large number of unrelated sources, some them using very large populations (the whole US population and the level of radon in homes), some repeatable (laboratory examination of plants and cultures); some over immense times (natural radiation in part of Iran and of India is 200 times normal background and has been since we lived in the trees); and some thoroughly studied accidents where exposure can be fully known (Taiwan & the radium watch dial cases). All of them strongly support hormesis.

This is a collection of links to evidence on the subject. I offered to do a collection of links proving LNT but nobody had any. Perhaps the writer of this article can do so - the offer remains open.

LNT is the basis of the entire anti-nuclear scare movement. If has deprived the human race of inexpensive nuclear electricity and probably thereby cut our wealth by about 60% and allowed millions to die in cold and poverty. If it is not scientifically proven this makes the global warming scam and perhaps even the DDT one look as small as the medieval witchburning one.
  I look forward to the vituperative writer being the first in the world to produce actual evidence for the official theory, or acknowledging it it isn't science ;-)

  Which induces me to make an estimate of how many people, worldwide, LNT and the anti-nuclear scare story has killed.
Some studies have suggested that as many as 50 000 people die annually because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly.

I don't want to go OTT so lets settle on 25,000 preventable deaths annually in the UK.
The UK is 1/30th of the world economy. I could assume lives saved would be proportional to world population (roughly 3/4%) and an estimate between the 2 would be justified but I intend to make this a conservative calculation.

The unambiguous fall off in the progress of nuclear power began in 1985 (it taking at least 10 years to plan and build a plant) so that is 26 years.

Total deaths 25,000 X 30 X 26 = 19.5 million minimum, 750,000 annually

Not numerically comparable with the 70 million from the false eco-fascist DDT scare story over a longer period, but since that was mainly among African children while this is mainly among old people in the developed world, arguably of more importance here. Since this scare has not only caused death but impoverished the entire society (we would be about 2.4 times wealthier had we kept building nuclear plants) the deaths are only a minor part of the overall cultural effect. . Indeed that impoverishment will have caused secondary deaths of at least equal numbers but this contains so many imponderables I am ignpring it here.


Labels: , ,

Nuclear's green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril

This was 20 years after the accident but we heard of many unusual clusters of people with rare bone cancers. One doctor, in tears, told us that one in three pregnancies in some places was malformed and that she was overwhelmed by people with immune and endocrine system disorders. Others said they still saw caesium and strontium in the breast milk of mothers living far from the areas thought to be most affected, and significant radiation still in the food chain. Villages testified that "the Chernobyl necklace" – thyroid cancer – was so common as to be unremarkable; many showed signs of accelerated ageing.

If it doesn't kill anyone instantly its safe seems to be your selfish attitude.
Much of what cynical highlander writes is anecdotal or hearsay. That does not tell us how much, if any is true. What we should perhaps be asking is why so many people are so desperate to exaggerate the risks in nuclear energy. What is it that they are really afraid of?. Do they fear technical progress itself? and is that in turn a form of denial, because any and all lasting solutions to humanity's problems, short of extinction, will require technological progress to acheive.
I think Luddism is a misxture of fear of a future which will be different from the present and class fear of the lower classes not staying poorer (ie the hatred of cheap plane flights) and of them developing new skills (the original Luddites smashed looms which allowed anybody to match weaver's skills).

The proposal calls for building framed structures around the 45-meter-high containment buildings and then wrapping them with the sheeting, the sources said.

If all of the four buildings were wrapped in this manner, it would cost about 80 billion yen and take up to two months, the sources said.

They can't even stop radioactive water leaking at reactor two (assumed) so no amount of technology can sort the corrupt unsafe nuclear industry.
Checking the link shows this is not an automatic acknowledged by the industry it is a "government" "proposal" that the option should be "studied". Once again "desperate to exagerate".
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.