Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Radiation.
Log In to post a reply
80 messages
View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

wracket
wracket
1298 posts

Re: Radiation.

cyberpainter wrote:
Another article by HC, refuting Monbiot. Might as well give this one equal time...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation


Monbiot references this article and responds to it in one of the links above. Maybe Caldicott's just too busy to bother to write a coherent article with proper citation of facts rather than stooping to belittling Monbiot by suggesting that he's not qualified, while she herself falls back almost entirely on vague claims of consensus opinion.

Honestly, I'm not suggesting that because she's better at soap box grandstanding than bilateral debate that she's wrong and he's right. But if she is right then we really need someone a bit better versed in how to construct a scientifically-sound argument, because the message is far too important to be swept under the carpet. If, on the other hand, the reason she is unable to cite her sources is that there are no legitimate ones...well, then it's just dangerous and irresponsible on her part to engage in such fear-mongering to push her personal agenda.

She claims that all Turkish-grown food is poisonous--where is the support? The very source she cites evidently only suggests that one crop of Turkish tea was spoiled by Chernobyl. That's a far cry from what she suggests. Maybe it's true, but if so, we need facts to support it...and then we need to get the word out!

She claims that there are nearly one million deaths linked to Chernobyl...and that there is NO DEBATE among the medical community in this regards. Yet none of the international bodies, medical or other, support her claim in the slightest (most seem to suggest the number is closer to 0.4% of that count). Her source? She (and those like her) keeps going back to a recently translated group of papers from a few Russian scientists who made spurious claims using dubious methodology and refers to them as a paper published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. But that very organization has made it quite clear that they simply acted as a publishing house--the paper was not peer-reviewed and they don't support its claims. She (and a lot of the anti-nukes) are citing this paper as a form of Chernobyl bible and attaching the NY Academy of Sciences name to it to give it legitimacy...and in doing so are misleading the public. I honestly don't know if they're doing so intentionally--but I would suggest that a lot of people are looking a lot harder for support to their prejudicial view on the matter than is healthy. Here is the Monbiot post that deals with the NY Academy of Sciences question, if you're interested:

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/

Apr 24, 2011, 13:15



________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Topic Outline: