IAEA admitted that their standards are not based on what is safe but how great is the possible benefit.

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2012-07-03 17:40

Incredible!:
“They agreed that their standards are not based on what is safe but how great is the benefit [read profit]. That’s how IAEA provides recommendations...Today, Mohideen cited a report by the United States-based National Academy of Sciences which said that “ONE OUT OF 5 WORKERS will suffer from cancer” if exposed to IAEA’s allowable levels of radiation.
“The panel admitted to this" and then went on to say that they still felt there "should be sufficient justification for this project."
http://my.news.yahoo.com/panel-admits-no-safe-radiation-level-says-cap-0...

‹ Milk sample update (1/14/2012) Up To 200,000 Protest Nuclear Restart in Japan! ›

It is true that “ONE OUT OF 5

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-07-27 16:42.

It is true that “ONE OUT OF 5 WORKERS will suffer from cancer” if exposed to IAEA’s allowable levels of radiation.

It is also true that “ONE OUT OF 5 WORKERS will suffer from cancer” if exposed to no occupational radiation at all.

In any randomly selected group of workers from any industry it will be true that “ONE OUT OF 5 WORKERS will suffer from cancer” because that's the base cancer rate in human beings.

I hate innumeracy.

Mohideen cited a report by

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-07-04 09:56.

Mohideen cited a report by the United States-based National Academy of Sciences which said that “ONE OUT OF 5 WORKERS will suffer from cancer” if exposed to IAEA’s allowable levels of radiation.
“The panel admitted to this" and then went on to say that they still felt there "should be sufficient justification for this project."

A 20% cancer rate is acceptable to many people, especially those that do not have to actually work in those facilities!

This is right out a fiction horror flick

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-07-27 11:49.

I am reading this stuff and totally mortified.

Is human life so desposable?