DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Nuke Puke
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2233--------------------------------------------------
What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been re
ported
By: AGelbert Date: November 20, 2014, 5:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been
reported," Randall Thompson
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
told Facing South.
"Hundreds of times worse."
Thompson and his wife, Joy, a nuclear health physicist who also
worked at TMI in the disaster's aftermath, claim that what they
witnessed there was a public health tragedy. The Thompsons also
warn that the government's failure to acknowledge the full scope
of the disaster is leading officials to underestimate the risks
posed by a new generation of nuclear power plants.
Fundamental to the industry's case for expansion is the claim
that history proves nuclear power is clean and safe -- a claim
on which the Thompsons and others, bolstered by startling new
evidence, are casting doubt.
Randall Thompson could never be accused of being a knee-jerk
anti-nuclear alarmist. A veteran of the U.S. Navy's nuclear
submarine program, he is a self-described "nuclear geek" who
after finishing military service jumped at the chance to work
for commercial nuclear power companies.
He worked for a time at the Peach Bottom nuclear plant south of
Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania's York County, but quit the
industry six months before the TMI disaster over concerns that
nuclear companies were cutting corners for higher profits, with
potentially dangerous results. Instead, he began publishing a
skateboarding magazine with his wife Joy.
But the moment the Thompsons heard about the TMI incident, they
wanted to get inside the plant and see what was happening
first-hand. That didn't prove difficult: Plant operator
Metropolitan Edison's in-house health physics staff fled after
the incident began, so responsibility for monitoring radioactive
emissions went to a private contractor called Rad Services.
The company immediately hired Randall Thompson to serve as the
health physics technician in charge of monitoring radioactive
emissions, while Joy Thompson got a job monitoring radiation
doses to TMI workers.
"I had other health physicists from around the country calling
me saying, 'Don't let it melt without me!" Randall Thompson
recalls. "It was exciting. Our attitude was, 'Sure I may get
some cancer, but I can find out some cool stuff.'"
What the Thompsons say they found out during their time inside
TMI suggests radiation releases from the plant were hundreds if
not thousands of times higher than the government and industry
have acknowledged -- high enough to cause the acute health
effects documented in people living near the plant but that have
been dismissed by the industry
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif
and the government as
impossible ;) given official
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/> radiation dose estimates.
The Thompsons tried to draw attention to their findings and
provide health information for people living near the plant, but
what they say happened next reads like a John Grisham thriller.
They tell of how a stranger approached Randall Thompson in a
grocery store parking lot in late April 1979 and warned him his
life was at risk, leading the family to flee Pennsylvania. How
they ended up in New Mexico working on a book about their
experiences with the help of Joy's brother Charles Busey,
another nuclear Navy vet and a former worker at the Hatch
nuclear power plant in Georgia. How one evening while driving
home from the store Busey and Randall Thompson were run off the
road, injuring Thompson and killing Busey. How a copy of the
book manuscript they were working on was missing from the car's
trunk after the accident. These allegations were detailed in
several newspaper accounts back in 1981.
Eventually, after a decade of having their lives ruled by TMI,
the Thompsons decided to move on. Randall Thompson went to
college to study computer science. Joy Thompson returned to
publishing and writing.
Full article that proves, ONCE AGAIN, that the USA has been a
FASCIST Corporatocracy in the service of profit over planet for
a LONG TIME here:
HTML http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/04/03/716139/-Startling-revelations-on-Three-Mile-Island-nuclear-power
[quote][font=times new roman]“We as a nation must undergo a
radical revolution of values… when machines and computers,
profit motives and property rights, are considered more
important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism
and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”
-- Martin Luther King, Jr. April 4, 1967[/font][/quote]
#Post#: 3233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: June 1, 2015, 7:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Nuclear Insanity[/center]
[center]Congress keeps funding overbudget plutonium site
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
with no real
customers[/center]
MOX Gets Golden Hammer Award for Egregious Waste
The Washington Times has awarded its Golden Hammer Award to
South Carolina's Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel facility. The MOX
program, which is intended to convert 34 metric tons of
weapons-grade plutonium into fuel for nuclear power plants, is
viewed by many as an egregious example of government waste.
In 2004, the project was expected to cost $1.6 billion, with a
completion date of 2007. Now, in 2015, over $4 billion has been
spent on the project, which is only 67% completed. Congress
appears likely to provide $345 million in funding for MOX in
Fiscal Year 2016. At this rate, studies have shown that the
lifecycle costs for MOX will reach $114 billion. The MOX plant
also lost its only potential customer for the fuel, Duke Energy.
No other nuclear utility has been willing to take the risk of
using MOX fuel in nuclear reactors.
Kellan Howell, "Congress Keeps Funding Overbudget Plutonium Site
with No Real Customers," Washington Times, May 7, 2015.
[center] [img width=300
height=250]
HTML http://scotteriology.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/6954808303_7cffb41d4c_z.jpg[/img][/center]
HTML http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/7/golden-hammer-congress-keeps-funding-overbudget-pl
#Post#: 3253--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: June 5, 2015, 1:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear watchdog wants auditor to oversee Vermont Yankee fund
Amy Ash Nixon Jun. 4 2015, 7:12 pm
[quote]“If Vermont Yankee runs out of decommissioning funds,
Vermonters will be left holding the bag. We have lost the right
to audit how Vermont Yankee is spending the decommissioning
money because it is not regulated as a traditional ‘utility’ but
rather is a ‘merchant plant’ selling power where and when it
could,” Gundersen said Thursday.[/quote]
[center]
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb029.gif[/center]
[quote]
bob zeliff
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
June 5, 2015 at 5:53 am
It is becoming more and more obvious that Entergy continues to
find ways to not only avoid it’s responsibility to decommission
its obsolete plant but is bleeding away funds…evan when the
decommissioning fund is INADEQUATE complete the job.
This will leave the final huge clean up bill to taxpayers.
I think it is time not only for Hoffer be given the authority to
monitor the decommissioning funds but our Federal Legislators,
Leahy, Welch and Sanders to apply pressure to Obama and the NRC
to do their jobs responsibly. [img width=100
height=60]
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png[/img][/quote]
[center] [img width=275
height=190]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060914180936.jpeg[/img][/center]
HTML http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/04/anti-nuke-group-wants-hoffer-to-oversee-vermont-yankee-fund/
#Post#: 3254--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: June 5, 2015, 2:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Plant decommissioning, according to estimates, takes 25
to 100 YEARS! But here's the kicker. NO NUCLEAR POWER PLANT EVER
BUILT HAS EVER BEEN TOTALLY DECOMMISSIONED. IOW, we-the-people
will be STUCK with the bill after the profit over planet nuke
pukes make off with the profit over planet.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paxDogM6MjU&feature=player_embedded
[img width=640
height=430]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-281014151757.png[/img]
#Post#: 4039--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: October 25, 2015, 1:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The following is the happy talk press release. The fact is that,
even though Dr. Martin Keller is a microbiologist by training,
he worked at Oak Ridge Labs, a funnel for nuclear welfare queen
money in the USA. We-the-people pay to run that lab and every
nuclear power plant operator in the USA has been given ALL the
research they come up with FREE so they can PRIVATIZE any
profits from that knowledge. So it goes.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
Statement from U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz on New
Leadership at NREL
October 20, 2015 - 5:04pm
“The Department of Energy welcomes Dr. Martin Keller as the new
director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
Martin’s track record in building links between the basic
sciences and our Nation’s energy challenges will help NREL
reinforce its place as the world’s leading laboratory for
renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development.
“I would also like to thank Dr. Dan E. Arvizu for his excellent
service of more than 10 years as NREL director. As director, Dan
helped to bolster America's research efforts in renewable energy
and energy efficiency, and Martin will continue that effort,
further advancing America's low-carbon economy. We look forward
to seeing the important innovations NREL will put forth in our
national interest under this renewal of strong leadership.”
HTML http://energy.gov/articles/statement-us-secretary-energy-ernest-moniz-new-leadership-nrel
HTML http://energy.gov/articles/statement-us-secretary-energy-ernest-moniz-new-leadership-nrel
Agelbert NOTE: Somehow, I do not expect a former Oak ridge
National Laboratory LOYAL member of the "nukes are renewable
energy" fecal coliform pushing propagandists to champion wind
turbines, solar energy, ground source heat pumps and EVs. I DO,
however, expect to soon read a "wonderful" announcement about
"advances" in those "small, clean" nuclear power plants our tax
dollars have been thrown at willy nilly for the past decade (or
more). [img width=100
height=080]
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png[/img]
Dr. Martin Keller is a stalking horse for the new nuclear
boondoggle of smaller, "safe and clean" (NOT!) nuclear power
technology for your neighborhood. Have a nice nuclear day.
:evil4:
HTML http://pre.cloudfront.goodinc.com/posts/full_1303746397smallnuke.jpg
I'm sure the nuke pukes will applaud. ::)
#Post#: 4063--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: October 30, 2015, 1:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/O0giXvhEWMo[/center]
[center]
Halliburton Sold Nuclear Technology to Iran via Foreign
Subsidiaries
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
[/center]
By Iranian.com / October 20th, 2015
Senate hearing on foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies dealing
with Iran
Halliburton, the notorious U.S. energy company, sold key
nuclear-reactor components to a private Iranian oil company
called Oriental Oil Kish as recently as 2005, using offshore
subsidiaries to circumvent U.S. sanctions. This clip shows
Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Sherrod Brown
(D-Ohio) grilling Sherry Williams, V.P. and Corporate Secretary
for Halliburton about the company’s deplorable ethics and
questionable practices.
HTML http://www.constantinereport.com/halliburton-sold-nuclear-technology-iran-via-foreign-subsidiaries/
#Post#: 4071--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: October 30, 2015, 8:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Bob Zeliff
October 30, 2015 at 9:10 am
This is just another of so many disappointments from the NRC and
Entergy.
Obama’s appointees have been Nuclear establishment insiders.
They do not seem to serve us well…only time will tell.
Is there open/transparent analysis how the current $600m
decommissioning fund will meet the estimated $1200m cost (is
that a good estimate??) with all the withdrawals that Entergy is
taking.
Bob Dobalina
October 30, 2015 at 11:59 am
NO INVESTIGATION INTO ENTERGY FINANCES NEEDED….THESE ARE NOT THE
DROIDS YOU’RE LOOKING FOR….[/quote]
NRC: No investigation into Entergy finances needed [img
width=80
height=40]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/>
Oct. 29, 2015, 5:43 pm by Mike Faher
HTML http://vtdigger.org/2015/10/29/nrc-says-no-investigation-into-entergy-finances-is-needed/
[center]
[img width=200
height=150]
HTML http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwx7wy0tIK1qd9a66o1_500.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][img width=100
height=080]
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 4157--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: December 6, 2015, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]A Big Fat Radioactive Lie [/center]
Posted on Dec 5, 2015
By Emily Schwartz Greco / OtherWords
Wikimedia
This piece ran on[font=times new roman] OtherWords[/font].
Not long ago, no billionaire worth his cufflinks would be caught
dead without hurling bales of money at our nation’s educational
system. They bankrolled charter schools, high-stakes testing,
and the splintering of big high schools into smaller academies.
Their failure to make American kids learn more scuffed the
luster on this enduring philanthropic fad.
Billionaires have landed, therefore, on a new mission. As Donald
Trump might say, they want to make nuclear energy great again.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
“If we are serious about replacing fossil fuels, we are going to
need nuclear power,”
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/> PayPal co-founder and Facebook mega-investor Peter Thiel
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/>crowed in a New York Times op-ed shortly before negotiators fr
om
195 nations gathered in Paris to seal an international climate
pact.
[center][img width=600
height=200]
HTML http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwx7wy0tIK1qd9a66o1_500.jpg[/img][/center]
Thiel, who personally invests in nuclear energy, made the
self-serving demand that the U.S. government forge a “plan to
fund and prototype the new reactors that we badly need.”
In other words: What does a guy like me with only $2.2 billion
to my name gotta do to get my corporate welfare handout?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
Bill Gates [img
width=160]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]is<br
/>also advocating heavy public investment in novel designs that
these nuclear cheerleaders swear will be safer and cheaper than
the 391 reactors that now generate about one in 10 watts around
the world.
As the Paris climate talks got underway, the Microsoft
co-founder launched an unprecedented multibillion-dollar “clean”
energy fund, backed by the U.S., Chinese, and Indian
governments, as well as other billionaires and some foundations.
Don’t be surprised if it’s nuclear-friendly.
The crowd of rich men with tech cred dipping their toes in these
radioactive waters also includes Amazon titan Jeff Bezos and
Paul Allen, Gates’ fellow Microsoft co-founder.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
But there are many reasons why governments, including our own,
should resist their call to pump more tax dollars into nuclear
energy. Namely:
[quote]
Reactors are expensive, they’re very difficult to shield from
terrorist and other security threats, and they’re prone to
catastrophic accidents that have created ghost towns in Japan
and the former Soviet Union. Furthermore, there are still no
solutions for meeting the daunting challenges of safeguarding
nuclear waste and cleaning up abandoned uranium mines.[/quote]
And nuclear power takes too long to crank up. Remarkably, five
of the 62 reactors under construction worldwide have been in the
nuclear pipeline for three decades. It’s too slow to stop the
climate crisis.
Besides — to a much greater extent than solar and wind power —
nuclear energy emits its own carbon pollution. Those greenhouse
gas emissions come largely through the use of fossil fuels in
activities like reactor construction, waste transportation, and
uranium mining.
More importantly, successful businessmen ought to be able to
spot an uncompetitive industry when they see one.
Here’s what Lazard, an investment bank with $180 billion under
management, has to say about today’s top energy options:
[quote][b]Utility-scale “wind and solar are much cheaper than
gas and coal, and less than half the cost of nuclear.”[/b]
[/quote]
Renewable energy’s competitive edge makes it no surprise that
generation from solar power is now growing exponentially and
wind power has been expanding by more than 20 percent annually
for the past seven years around the world as nukes have fumbled.
The total amount of global nuclear energy remained well below
1996 levels in 2014.
A total of four new nuclear reactors in Georgia and South
Carolina are at least three years behind schedule and billions
of dollars over budget. That bodes badly for the save-our-nukes
billionaire class because (sorry, guys ;D) those power
stations were supposed to be models for ramping up nuclear
energy quickly without cost overruns.
I wonder what they’ll choose as their next losing battle.
Emily Schwartz Greco
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
is
the managing editor of OtherWords, a non-profit national
editorial service run by the Institute for Policy Studies.
OtherWords.org.
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_big_fat_radioactive_lie_20151205
#Post#: 4690--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: March 14, 2016, 11:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: And example of a well meaning person being
insulted by a nuke puke propagandist troll: >:(
[quote]
To Agelbert:
I wanted to ask you for your feedback on the dude who thinks
radiation is not a problem - and hey, if you don't want to get
into it, NO worries. I actually wonder if the guy is out to
lunch anyway (he's got comic strip "heroes" for his Facebook
page photos... that's enough to turn me off... not exactly
worthy of any of my respect... I am assuming he is a grown man).
But I have a hard time leaving an argument, especially when I
get insulted. Again, if it looks to you like he is indeed out to
lunch, I'll walk away promptly, and just continue to be very
happy to know people like yourself! There is another fellow I
follow via Disqus, goes by the moniker: "darkmark". I very much
need to be reminded that there are folks out there ready,
willing and able to take aim at the fools.
_____________
What I posted to him, in response to something he said to me,
was the following:
Mike, you are being presumptuous. Oh, and by the way, did you
read the article you posted up there about the babushkas in
Chernobyl? Not in any place in it does it say that radiation is
safe.
How much radiation is safe? Zero. There is no such thing as a
safe level of radiation. Much like the lead poisoned water we’re
hearing about, radiation is cumulative. The more you get; the
more you get to keep.
You want some real science?
Dr. John W. Gofman, Father of Antinuclear USA Movement
Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, Emeritus UC Berkeley
Poisoned Power is the most authoritative case against nuclear
power ever written. The Atomic Energy Commission cover up about
the health effects of ionizing radiation. Gofman established the
biomedical division of he Lawrence Livermore Lab. He was given a
$3.5 million dollar annual budget per year from 1963 o 1970 to
study the biological effects of ionizing radiation. He was
pronuclear when he as given the research project. In 1969, they
took their results to the AEC Chairman Glenn Seaborg.
Seaborg rejected the results, quashed the study and cut his
budget to $150,000 in 1970. Gofman laid off his 150 research
assistants and resigned in the same year. The AEC when on to
blackball Gofman in the nuclear industry Poisoned Power tells
the story in it entirety.
In 1965, Dr. Ian MacKenzie published an elegant report entitled
"Breast Cancer Following Multiple Fluoroscopies" (British J. of
Cancer 19: 1-8) and in 1968, Wanebo and co-workers, stimulated
by MacKenzie's work, reported on "Breast Cancer after Exposure
to the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" (New England
J. of Medicine 279:667-671), but few were willing to concede
that breast-cancer could be induced by low-LET radiation.
Gofman and his colleague, Dr. Arthur Tamplin, quantified the
breast-cancer risk (1970, The Lancet 1:297), looked at the other
available evidence, and concluded overall that human exposure to
ionizing radiation was much more serious than previously
recognized (Gofman 1969; Gofman 1971).
_________
This was his
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>reply:
I miss Dr Seaborg. He told good stories. The first time I met
him he was wearing a t-shirt that read "I'm in my element." It
was the year they named Seaborgium after him. :)
As much as he contributed to chemistry, I think his most
important work was when he was working on the national
educational policy and wrote in his report that if a foreign
country had imposed our system of schooling upon us, we would
rightly consider it an act of war.
You quoted Mercola. Exactly the same level of veracity as
realpharmacy or naturalnews. I'm sorry that ear candling and oil
pulling don't cure cancer. Really, I am. Meanwhile, the rest of
us have science to do. ;) ::)
[/quote]
Well, that troll (that is what he is) pretending radiation is
"okay" in small doses, that's one of their cons. You see, back
in the late 1920's some fools thought radiation was great stuff
and were drinking radium solutions. They began to die and that
was the end of that. Then some other fools in the late 1930's
claimed that radiation (from abandoned mines with a high
radioactivity) "accelerated" the evolution of fruit flies there.
Have you seen all those pretty pictures or drawings of a fruit
fly with two sets of wings the "radioactivity increases positive
mutations" crowd loves? The Geneticists made it their symbol!
Well, if you study college level biology, you can't avoid it.
It's THE icon of all the fools claiming radiation is "okay" (AND
all the geneticists claiming evolution provides for all positive
mutations - something that, despite what you may have read, has
NEVER been proven - but that's another subject. ;D).
HTML http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rRh1ZnF62_8/UREkhJcZqoI/AAAAAAAAAsU/IuqtVHmvsnA/s1600/fruit+fly.gif
What they always have left out is that the fruit flies
(Drosophila melanogaster) with that extra pair of wings are
sterile AND only ONE PAIR of wings has muscles for flight
attached to it. IOW, it's NOT a positive mutation. It's an
evolutionary disadvantage to be sterile and have a dysfunctional
pair of wings to drag around.
The term for what radiation actually does to life forms is
"mutagenic" effects.
Insects, which are far less susceptible to radiation damage than
mammals, because they have proportionately less water than
mammals in their tissues, still experience severe mutagenic
effects.
But that didn't stop the radiation lovers. The "love" for
radiation got even worse when the bomb was invented in 1945. If
you look at the Nuke Puke section of this forum and the topic
1950s, you will see what I mean.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/the-nuclear-insanity-of-the-1950s/msg182/#msg182
Like the government then KNEW what radiation does since the
1930's (LONG before the bomb!), the troll you are dealing with
undoubtedly knows and is pushing, not only the lie that "low
doses are like an x-ray or flying in an airplane at 30,000 feet"
but, once he gets you t accept THAT, the next step is the con
about low doses being "GOOD" for you. They even have a name for
that bit of heinous mendacity. It ls called "Hormesis".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
You can test your troll very easily buy asking him if he thinks
Hormesis can help humanity. He will wag his head up (through his
written reaction) and down so furiously that it will make your
head spin.
At any rate, I'm a veteran of taking those propagandists apart
piece by piece. They just move the goal posts and dance this way
and that, no matter what hard scientific proof you present to
them or even the data from the Eminent Dr. Gofman. You saw how
your troll tried to pretend your post on data from him was not
accurate ( the old questioning the source TRICK
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp).<br
/>Dr. Gofman is hated by the nuke pukes because he was one of th
em
and proved conclusively that there is no "safe" dose.
So, instead of accepting the evidence (that Dr. Gofman merely
built upon from the older 1930's hard data), they continue
disparaging the truth.
They claim to be objective. They are not. But they use the
ignorance of most people against them. These propagandists sound
oh so calm as they rattle off some half truths that ignore all
the dangers in radionuclides.
For example, the fact that most people don't understand
radionuclide photon frequency energy math (Most people wrongly
only associate photons with light - and the energies of the
photon frequencies - [i]there are several bands in each
radionuclide - are completely off of people's radar :([/i])
makes it very difficult for the average person to understand how
the linear model of radiation dosage is a con perpetrated by the
Nukers (against Dr. Gofman's will) so scientists and doctors
doing epidemiological studies of cancer clusters near nuclear
power plants people would NOT have a scientifically accurate
starting point to link radionuclides with cancer.
Radionuclides radiate in all directions. When a person ingests
them the damage is HUNDREDS of times worse than an x-ray or
flying at 30,000 feet. Yet the nukers pushed this linear theory
to low ball the effects. It was a despicable scam based on mens
rea from the start.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
I could go on and on but, to give you a brief (though the
document isn't vey brief ;D) of what is the truth and what you
are up against with these nuker trolls, I dug this up from my
files and am posting it here for you to read at your leisure.
These nuke pukes have no ethics whatsoever. >:(
Here are some snippets from a paper discussing how background
radiation, once heralded (wrongly) as the cause of evolution and
natural selection because it induces mutations that are passed
on to future generations. The problem they encountered is that
about 98% of mutations in life forms are deleterious, not
beneficial. Any statistician will explain to you that if you
increase the mutation rate, you decrease the viability of the
species experiencing all the mutations. But that did not stop
the nukers from developing the LNT theory happily adopted by the
AEC and EPA.
The target theory, earlier developed and now factually proven by
the proportionality of inverse proportionality distance to
damage from ingested radionuclides, is still hotly contested by
the nukers claiming their ARE beneficial effects to radiation.
The fact that the immune system will respond to an insult and
appear to be "benefited" by some radiation is reverse logic. We
are built to address certain insults. Add them up and our immune
systems are overcome. this is science instead of wishful
thinking. The LNT is still the favorite (and thoroughly
misleading and inaccurate because it ignores the damage from
nanometer distances with ingested radionuclides) of the nukers
for obvious reasons (not mentioned in the paper, of course).
Origin of the linearity no threshold (LNT) dose–response concept
Edward J. Calabrese
Keywords Ionizing radiation · Linearity · Dose response · Risk
assessment · Threshold dose response ·
Target theory · Eugenics · LNT
Babcock and Collins (1929a, b) tested the hypothesis of Olson
and Lewis (1928). They found a location in which the natural
radiation was twice that found in their University of
California/Berkeley laboratory. Using the ClB strain sex-linked
recessive Drosophila assay, they reported an increase in
mutation that corresponded in the same proportion as the
difference in background radiation, supporting the
proportionality hypothesis. Detailed experimental methods
including the actual radioactivity levels were never published,
although such data were promised to be provided in a subsequent
paper.
In 1930, Hanson and Heys provided further support for the
hypothesis that “natural radiation may be responsible for the
mutations that are the grist of the natural selection mill with
the resulting evolution of new forms.” Their findings were based
on a study of fruit fly mutations in an abandoned carnotite
(i.e., uranium) mine. Such interpretations were initially
supported by commentaries by various authors (Lind 1929; Dixon
1929, 1930).
In 1930 Muller and Rice University physicist, Mott- Smith,
challenged this LNT evolution perspective by
reporting that natural radiation, which was of such a lowdose
rate, could only account for about 1/1,300 of the gene mutations
that occurred spontaneously in Drosophila melanogaster, assuming
a linear dose response. The authors concluded that other causes
must explain the origin of most mutations that spontaneously
occur. Nonetheless, in his dissertation, under the direction of
Muller, Oliver (1931) stated that cosmic and terrestrial
radiations must account for some proportion of the spontaneous
mutations (see Muller 1930).
[center]
Target theory versus LNT (Linear No Threshhold) [/center]
The radiation target theory as applied to mutations was
formulated by the detailed interactions and collaborations
of leading radiation geneticists and theoretical physicists
during the mid-1930s. Although Muller was a geneticist, he was
drawn quickly toward the physics-mutation interface, accepting
significant elements of target theory for radiation-induced
mutational effects, including the important assumptions that
damage was proportional to the energy absorbed, linear dose–
response modeling and that effects were cumulative and
deleterious (Muller et al. 1936).
This excitation was proposed to affect a permanent change or
mutation to a different molecular structure. Ionizing
irradiation was the only effective way to induce mutations; it
showed no threshold, suggesting that the absorption
of radiation is a quantized and additive process (von Schwerin
2010).
A “quantum-jump” was considered to be the physical process
caused by a hit on a target, resulting in mutation. Treatment
effects induced by a physical agent like ionizing radiation were
believed to be caused by one or several discrete biophysical
events, that is, hits on a target. Based on hypotheses about
what constituted a hit, statistical models were used to
construct dose–response relationships. If there was only a
single hit on a single target, the dose response was linear. As
the number of assumed hits increased, a more threshold like the
dose response would appear.
This conceptual framework led to the conclusion that mutation
was a single-hit process, proceeding from a single ionization,
from a quantum of ionizing radiation in a specific sensitive
zone of the gene. This theoretically based perspective became
not only a workable model but a firm belief within the radiation
genetics community even though there was no knowledge of the
physical nature of the gene.
[center]Ionizing radiation[/center]
In the radiation risk assessment area, two endpoints were
adopted to which linearity was applied: germ cell mutations
and cancer. In the case of germ cell mutations, based on several
publications in the early 1950s by Muller (1951,
1954), the BEAR I Genetics Panel (1956) proposed to limit
exposure to ionizing radiation such that exposure would not
exceed doubling of background mutations from conception through
the first 30 years of life. The panel assumed that exposure to
ionizing radiation could cause mutations to germ cells in a
linear manner and had the potential to cause adverse genetic
effects in individuals and future generations. The panel derived
a risk assessment methodology for application to both
first-generation offspring and total genetic risk, including
future generations. The panel derived a doubling dose method
(i.e., the dose of ionizing radiation, assuming linearity at low
dose, that would equal the number of mutations resulting from
background exposure), to estimate population-based risks. This
doubling dose methodology would predict the number of genetic
diseases based on three parameters: the assumed doubling dose,
the proposed exposure limit and the background incidence of
genetic disease.
HTML http://radiationeffects.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Calabrese-2013_Origin-LNT-concept.pdf
As to the radiation induced mutagenicity in fruit flies, here's
a modern, below please find a modern, up to date study. No
insects are not human. In fact insects, because of lower water
percentage content in their tissues, are MORE resistant to
radiation than mammals are. Do you want a link to that too, Mr.
"biologist Scientist"?
Mutagenic Effect of 5000 r Gamma Rays in Drosophila simulans
MUHAMMAD HASSAN
Postgraduate Department of Zoology, Government College,
Faisalabad–Pakistan
SNIPPETS
Irradiation treatment. For irradiation treatment, 45 unetherized
young (2-3 days old) male Drosophila simulans
flies were exposed to 5000 roentgens (r) of gamma radiation in
COBALT60 GAMMA CELL (220 Canadian make with the radiation
chamber 21 x 155 mm). In the cell chamber,36 flies within the
bottles were kept approximately at the distance of 10 cm from
the target. The exposure time was 2.28 min for 5000 r gamma
radiations.
Identification and isolation of mutants. The irradiated males
were crossed to controlled virgin females, on the
same day. The F1, F2, and F3 generations were examined to
identify visible mutant flies. To identify and isolate the
mutant flies, the phenotypic characteristics namely, sex, body
size, eyes, head, thorax, abdomen, bristles, wing
shape, wing venation and genitalia were examined under binocular
microscope, at magnification X 100. In each
culture bottle, three pairs of Drosophila simulans flies were
kept for 3-4 days and then the flies were released. The new
flies of F1 generation were counted and examined under the
binocular microscope to identify the autosomal and sexlinked
dominant mutations for three successive days until there were no
more flies emerging. Pairs of F1 flies were allowed to mate
randomly for the production of F2 and F3 generations. The
controlled culture was also grown parallel to irradiated flies
for the sake of comparison.
[center]RESULTS AND DISCUSSION[/center]
Induced Mutants were identified and isolated from the culture of
Drosophila simulans flies irradiated by
5000 r of gamma radiation and their genetic pattern was studied
to the maximum extent. However, no
spontaneous mutant could be recorded in the controlled strain of
the fruitflies grown parallel to the irradiated culture.
It seems likely that these mutants were produced due to
semilethal structural chromosome mutations induced by 5000 r
gamma radiation, in the present investigation.
HTML http://www.fspublishers.org/published_papers/73648_..pdf
Here's a very good book. As might be expected, NO EVIDENCE has
been PUBLISHED about the mutagenicity of Radiation in humans.
But then the AEC had an "agreement" since the 1950s with the
World Health Organization (that conducts a large chunk of these
studies for the U.N. on many health issues) that NO STUD?Y on
radiation effects can be published with the AEC's permission. If
you do not get what that means, feel free to call me a raving
conspiracy theorist". A think I'm being Occam's razor logical.
When you read even the summary, radiation mutagenicity jumps
right out at you from the careful presentation of empirical
data. What's more, adaptation and hormesis are debunked while
they privately admit they don't have "evidence" of human
mutegenicity. However, the fact that the risk assessment clearly
supports Target theory as opposed to LNT say it ALL. Read on.
Google this book:
Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation::
BEIR VII PHASE 2 (2006)
By Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels
of Ionizing Radiation, Board on Radiation Effects Research,
Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council.
SNIPPET:
Animal data support the view that low-dose radiation acts
principally on the early stages of tumorigenesis (initiation).
High-dose effects on later stages (promotion or progression).
are also likely. Although the data is limited, the loss of
specific genes whose absence might result in animal tumor
initiation has been demonstrated in irradiated animals and
cells.
[center]Heritable Genetic Effects of Radiation in Human
Populations[/center]
RISK ESTIMATION METHODS
In the absence of data on radiation-induced germ cell mutations
that can cause genetic disease in humans, all of the methods
developed and used for predicting the risk of genetic disease
from the mid-1950s to the present are indirect. Their strengths
and weaknesses are reviewed in BEIR V (NRC 1990). One such
indirect method is the doubling dose method, on which attention
is focused in this section. It has been in use since the early
1970s (NRC 1972, 1990; UNSCEAR 1977, 1982, 1986, 1988) and is
used in the recent UNSCEAR (2001) report.
The Doubling Dose Method
The doubling dose method enables expressing of the expected
increase in disease frequency per unit dose of radiation in
terms of the baseline frequency of the disease class. The
doubling dose (DD) is the amount of radiation required to
produce in a generation as many mutations as those that arise
spontaneously. Ideally, it is estimated as a ratio of the
average rates of spontaneous and induced mutations in a given
set of genes:
(4-1)
The reciprocal of the DD (i.e., 1/DD) is the relative mutation
risk (RMR) per unit dose. Since RMR is the reciprocal of DD, the
smaller the DD, the higher is the RMR and vice versa. With the
doubling dose method, until recently, risk was estimated as a
product of two quantities—namely, the baseline disease
frequency, P, and 1/DD:
Last link. I promise!
[center]Low dose radiation’s harmful effects on fruit flies –
implications for the human species[/center]
The discovery, as the scientists state in their article, can
shed some light on the problem of individual irradiation
sensitivity. It is known that low doses of radiation sometimes
result in serious inborn defects, and sometimes leave no traces.
In part, it is connected with the a priori random nature of
ionizing radiation, but there are also a number of
genetically-based molecular-biological differences, many of
which have not been yet defined.
SNIPPET
The mutant flies bred by the scientists have a number of
significant peculiarities. The experiments have shown that even
low doses of X-ray irradiation (not exceeding 10 R) can cause
serious defects in those flies' legs.
In addition, the mutant flies' cells are less resistant to the
so-called superoxide radicals.
Superoxide radicals are ions which appear in cells under both
normal and pathological conditions. Superoxide radicals have
very high rates of reactivity, which is why their excess damages
many types of bio-molecules, including DNA. The mutations in
Drosophilaflies' cells lowered their ability to resist that
damage.
“These results may have broader implications beyond the model
organism. In particular, they may indicate an increased risk of
pathological response to radiation in humans carrying
hypomorphic mutations of these genes in their genome (note that
both genes are highly evolutionarily conserved). Such
individuals may be more vulnerable than the bulk of the
population to even low levels of
radiation………
HTML http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-reveal-secret-vulnerability.html
[center] [img
width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-140316233702.png[/img][/center]
HTML http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-05-reveal-secret-vulnerability.html
Adaptation, low dose hypersensitivity, bystander effect,
homeisis and genomic instability are based mainly on
phenomenological data with little mechanistic information.
#Post#: 5742--------------------------------------------------
Re: Nuclear Power Industry Mendacious Propaganda
By: AGelbert Date: September 28, 2016, 5:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Vermont delegation clashes with nuclear
industry[/center]
Sep. 27, 2016, 9:59 pm by Mike Faher
VERNON — As the federal government works to come up with new
rules for decommissioning nuclear plants like Vermont Yankee,
U.S. Rep. Peter Welch can distill his hopes into two words.
“We’re trying to say over and over again: ‘community
involvement, community involvement, community involvement,’”
said Welch, D-Vt.
He doesn’t believe the nuclear industry has the same goals.
That’s why he and 14 other federal lawmakers — including Sens.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. — have sent a
letter to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission expressing
their concerns about the industry’s recent lobbying.
The Nuclear Energy Institute is pushing for “limited scope” ;)
rulemaking that does not, for instance, mandate increased state
and local input in decommissioning. But the lawmakers’ letter
contends that approach “risks prioritizing the concerns of the
nuclear industry over those of our constituents.”
[quote]“This feels very much like a brazen effort by the
(nuclear) industry to jump ahead of the line,” Welch said
Tuesday.[/quote]
Vermont Yankee was a divisive presence in the state during its
42-year run as an operating nuclear facility. The end of power
production at the Vernon plant, however, signaled a new era of
conflict.
Issues — often pitting Vermont officials against plant owner
Entergy, the NRC or both — have included the proper uses of the
plant’s decommissioning trust fund, the scope of emergency
planning and the timing of decommissioning.
Those conflicts have stemmed partly from a lack of clear federal
regulations for decommissioning nuclear plants. Rather, nuclear
licensees are forced to seek a variety of license amendments and
regulatory exemptions to make changes after their plants shut
down.
So the NRC [img
width=160]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]<br
/>has started a years long process to come up with better
decommissioning rules, with officials saying the agency
“understands that the decommissioning process can be improved
and made more efficient and predictable.”
It’s an opportunity for everyone with an interest in
decommissioning — including activists, governmental officials
and plant operators — to try to shape that process ;). NRC
spokesman Neil Sheehan [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img]<br
/>said the commission has received more than 170 comments on
rulemaking.
As could be expected, there is plenty of disagreement. For
example, Vermont officials pushed for more financial regulation
of decommissioning nuclear operators, while the Nuclear Energy
Institute — a Washington, D.C.-based industry group — countered
that such regulations are unnecessary.
The institute argues that there’s already a “proven regulatory
framework” for decommissioning and no need for wholesale change.
The group is asking the NRC only to adopt clear regulations so
plant operators don’t have to undertake costly, time-consuming
license amendments and regulatory exemptions.
In a Sept. 16 letter addressed to NRC Chairman Stephen Burns,
Welch and his colleagues aren’t buying it. “We are concerned by
recent requests calling on the NRC to narrow the scope of this
rulemaking,” the lawmakers wrote.
[quote]The legislative group — consisting of Vermont’s
delegation, 11 lawmakers from Massachusetts and one from
Illinois — lay out their vision for better nuclear plant
decommissioning. Their requests include:
• Community involvement should be enhanced, in part by requiring
plant operators to include state and local officials’ input in
their decommissioning plans.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
• Decommissioning trust funds should be used “strictly for
statutorily authorized purposes.”
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
• Spent nuclear fuel must be moved into sealed dry casks “as
quickly as possible.”
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
• All of a plant’s emergency capabilities should remain in place
until that fuel transfer takes place.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
• A former nuclear site should be “returned to beneficial use
promptly,
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
instead
of decades after the plant ceases operations.” The federally
approved program called SAFSTOR currently allows decommissioning
to take up to six decades. >:(
In their letter, the lawmakers argue that “delaying
consideration of these important issues would hamper the NRC’s
proper goal of comprehensively reviewing and revising the rules
that govern the decommissioning process.”
[/quote]
Welch has been heavily involved in the decommissioning debate
via his seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which
has jurisdiction over nuclear issues. “The rulemaking process is
underway,” Welch said Tuesday. “We have had some positive
signals from the NRC that they would take very seriously our
request about local government participation.”
[quote]But Welch is concerned that the Nuclear Energy Institute
“is wanting to basically bifurcate the rulemaking process” and
overlook his requests. Welch equates it to “the industry
charging ahead and the community falling behind.”[/quote]
Rod McCullum [img
width=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png[/img],<br
/>a Nuclear Energy Institute senior director who handles
decommissioning issues, doesn’t see that as a fair assessment.
The changes proposed in the congressional letter, McCullum
argues, actually would hamper decommissioning by making it more
expensive and less efficient. ::)
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
“Let’s fix this in a way that makes it more efficient so we can
get to what the community and the utility are both interested
in, which is safe and timely decommissioning,” McCullum said.
“We’d love to work with the signatories of this letter in that
direction,” he added. “But we must look at the unintended
consequences as well.”
Sheehan said the NRC is not taking a stance on the legislative
letter, as staff members are still reviewing the many comments
submitted on decommissioning rulemaking.
[center]
[img
width=440]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-111214174727.png[/img][/center]
He cautioned that the work of creating new regulations for
decommissioning nuclear plants will not be quick. At this point,
the agency’s schedule calls for a final decommissioning rule to
be presented in 2019 to NRC commissioners, who must vote before
it can take effect.
“We have made clear that the decommissioning rulemaking process
will take several years, which is not unusual for the
development of new regulations given all of the steps involved,”
Sheehan said.
[center] [img
width=300]
HTML http://memecrunch.com/meme/5L3XX/spiderman-bullshit-detector/image.jpg?w=544&c=1[/img][/center]
HTML http://vtdigger.org/2016/09/27/vermont-delegation-clashes-nuclear-industry/
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page