Submitted by Angela (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 19:15.
I totally agree with the Anonymous that is critical of Caldicott. I haven't seen any experts in the field support her statements. Personally, I need to see data, peer-reviewed literature, or agreement among experts. I will be skeptical of anything else.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-06 06:18.
People are not going to find their truth-force or inner authority in listening to the military or industrial “experts,” but in listening to themselves. Every one of us is an expert on what it is like to live on an endangered planet.
We can break the mountains apart; we can drain the rivers and flood the valleys. We can turn the most luxuriant forests into throw-away paper products. We can tear apart the great grass cover of the western plains and pour toxic chemicals into the soil and pesticides onto the fields until the soil is dead and blows away in the wind. We can pollute the air with acids, the rivers with sewage, the seas with oil - all this in a kind of intoxication with our power for devastation at an order of magnitude beyond all reckoning.
Biologist Paul Ehrlich has declared that to look simply to technology for a solution would be a "lethal mistake," and that "scientific analysis points, curiously, toward a need for a quasi-religious transformation of contemporary cultures."
My estimate is that less than 20 percent of people in current Western and Westernized societies ever reach true adulthood. Although human development is no more urgent a need than the infrastructural changes discussed earlier, it is our most fundamental need. The cultivation of authentic adulthood and genuine elderhood goes far beyond any modifications in how we generate energy or conduct business, agriculture, and politics. We need contemporary cultural codings that allow our full humanity to once again blossom. We need new, widely adopted practices for parenting children, educating them to become full members of not only a family and culture, but, equally important, of the Earth community as it exists in their particular bioregion. We require new, much more effective ways of supporting teenagers to uncover and embody their most authentic selves and, when ready, to learn the arts of inscendence so that they might explore the mysteries of nature and psyche and eventually, with good fortune, receive a vision revealing their unique place, role, or niche in the Earth community.
Now I know the pronukers will attack RPHP too, but they have physicists, health physicists, MDs and epidemiologists who have done more than a decade of research and studies and peer reviewed articles which validate Dr. Caldicott's position.
Robert Alvarez ( http://www.ips-dc.org/staff/bob ) is on the RPHP board of directors and is one of the top nuclear experts in these fields of radiation and risk in the country.
Dr. Caldicott is herself a preeminent expert in the field of radiation risk and is a pediatrician whose specialty is genetic disorders.
I ANYONE is credible on the damage to the dna and our internal organs from radiation, especially in children, Dr. Caldicott is.
Her primary critic, George Monbiot, has no credentials whatsoever in ANY of these areas and is just a stooge and a mouthpiece for the energy industry.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 13:26.
The RPHP takes liberties with it's statistical analysis of cancer clusters. Their results do not fall outside of normal statistical probability and they trumpet them as signs of "significant" illness.
They then align themselves with the ECRR which, in three attempts has yet to provide a widely believable model for risk, and with Ms Caldicott and the entire group in that camp.
Extreme claims require equally extreme proof. None of the studies by this group has even even come close to furnishing that proof with sources that are both verifiable and peer reviewed.
As for Ms. Caldicott, she desires political power above all else. Her resume of short stints here and there with an overall focus of eliminating nuclear weapons (first) then moving on to nuclear power shows someone who is ascending in clout to fight for her cause. She even says this in her recent Op-Ed where she laments that her group doesn't have enough political currency to get rid of nuclear energy. To me that's not how she should go about effecting change - through powerbrokers, and not sticking to a factual argument - and betrays her aspirations as seeking power over her cause. She is simply a very visible mouthpiece for an extreme view at this time.
Submitted by bill (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 17:10.
What about the generally scientificly accepted facts that NO DOSE IS SAFE" and that every dose internally increases the risk of harm?
You provide no evidence or links to attack the RPHP who ARE experts in health physics, epidemiology, science and medicine (as were many of the mebers of the ECRR) and they HAVE produce peer reviewed studies which are available at their site:
There is no extremism in the claim that the risk is uncertain but MAY be severe, especially in children and developing fetuses, in human beings and in all living things at VERY low doses.
ONE ray of hope here is that with the knowledge and technology we NOW have we can look MUCH more carefully at the consequences. ONE thing that the RPHP and ECRR have repeatedly urged is ongoing testing, sampling and studies to clarify and establish the risks and consequences UNLIKE the industry and nuclear shills and government who do NOT provide sufficient data, testing or honest information, neither do they provide what they do provide in an expedient way, for the public or even researchers to be fully aware of the crucial data.
I actually trust Dr. Caldicott and, at RPHP, Dr. Sherman and epidemiologist Joe Mangano, who are doing the very best they can with almost negligible resources to get the data and do the studies and presrnt them to the public.
You can rag on Dr. Caldicott and the RPHP and the ECRR all you want but unless you have the data to prove they are wrong, then it is wiser and more compassionate to say to hell with the nuclear industry and its lies and obfuscations and protect our citizens.
BTW, the Japanese Nuclear Agency today ADMIITTED (and APOLOGIZED) for HIDING information on the extent of nuclear contamination near Fukushima in the various prefectures in order to prevent panic and agreed to release this data on what contamination REALLY was occurring in the next few days.
The HEAD of the Japanese Nuclear Agency RESIGNED in protest this past weekend due to the Japanese government understating the risks and exposing children to levels of radiation as high as emergency levels for nuclear works by sending them back into contaminated schools and schoolyards!
So you can choose to support government and the nuclear industry lies and coverups of the risks and levels of contamination by denigrating those who are trying to expose and lay bare the risks and levels of contamination all you want.
I am grateful that with BRAWM we get hard data and with honest brokers like the RPHP we can get the studies done.
But unsourced ad hominem attacks on Caldicott or the folks at RPHP because they are telling us based on their years of study and expertise that this radiation, even at low levels, will KILL or seriously harm many of us, especially children, is just acting as mouthpiece for the industry's positions which, imho, are totally lacking in any credibility whatsoever.
The EXTREME proof necessary, if that is what is needed, is that nuclear power and low level radiation is NOT completely insane and dangerous and deadly. Fukushima and Chernobyl and the pandemic of cancer and thyroid disease speak the horrific truth to the lies of the industry. They CANNOT be made safe and harmless and they WILL kill people and other living things. Lots of living things. Caldicott is correct and honorable. The industry is a monster.
Anyone who has a political agenda (pro-nuke or anti-nuke) will tend to skew science for their causes. This, in my mind is reprehensible and, if perpetrated by someone who is a known expert, completely removes scientific credentials. I try to remain agnostic on this issue (pro and against nuclear energy) and let the science and hard data (peer-reviewed) become paramount lest I let my own personal bias seep in. This is always hard for a scientist because we all have bias in one way or another. Those who are so obviously not skeptical of their own bias do not deserve to call themselves experts and the public should be wary of any and all of their claims. Scientists are not perfect, and we all have to fight against our own personal bias when interacting with the public. This is the only way to properly give justice to these very complicated issues.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-05-03 01:39.
>The HEAD of the Japanese Nuclear Agency RESIGNED in protest this past weekend
I don't think the guy you're talking about was the HEAD of anything. Toshiso Kosako was an advisor to the prime minister. If you don't have enough reading comprehension to retain basic data from a newspaper article it would be a good idea to refrain from commenting on the state of the field when it comes to low dose radiation.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 19:10.
Think what you want, that the Nuclear industry has hidden their data and lied by omission. On the other hand, the data coming out of Caldicott, et. al is pure conjecture based on flawed data. A lie to generate a political movement. This does nothing to provide an honest debate.
And, for Bill:
If you use the word shill in the future your post is logically bankrupt. Continuing to slander those that want an honest debat of the merits and risks of all future energy sources are not shills, and it's a crutch for your broken arguments.
Submitted by PAC (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 13:01.
She is not an expert in her field, whatever her field is now. She hasn't been a practicing doctor since 1980 and she was never a scientist. She just lectures now writes books that contradict themselves. Just because someone is pro nuclear does not make them mouthpieces for the nuclear industry. If the nuclear industry is all powerful like many on this forum believe, you would think then that we would have been building nuclear power plants since 79.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 16:14.
Just because someone questions her (or any other activist) doesn't
make them "pro-nuclear". Any reasonable and open minded person would
question whatever is presented. Regardless of what side of the nuclear
issue they are on. Otherwise they are nothing more than lemmings.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 16:56.
I cannot stand how people listen to Helen Caldicott and think she is a nuclear expert. She is a pediatrician who has devoted her life to the elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. I don't have a problem with someone who is anti nuclear, but at least use facts and scientific analyses to justify your position. Making blanket statements like "doctors know there is no safe dose of radiation" without any proof does not mean it is true.
Doctors are not the experts when it comes to radiation and health. The experts are health physicists who spend their lives studying the effects. Doctors go to med school to learn how to treat people, not to run scientific experiments. She always brings up the NYAS report about a million deaths when that report was discredited since it used zero science to come up with that number. Her book about nuclear power is full of misinformation and even contradicts itself. All I want is her to justify her views and back them up with scientific data, which she never does.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-06 11:10.
Go look at the results of Chernobyl -- there are photos of children and animals with all kinds of mutations you can check out. We've messed to much with mother nature and now we are seeing the horrible results.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-06 11:07.
I think you are full of it. Radiation is not good for people in any way shape or form. It mutates things. Too much sun radiation mutates our skin and causes cancer. You are probably a shill for the nuke industry--probably getting paid for it, too.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 22:09.
The NYAS report was based on 5,000 scientific reports mostly in Slavic languages. One of the authors is a distinguished scientist, Dr. Alexey Yablokov , who was a member of the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences and the senior science adviser to President Yeltsin.
Remarks by Ralph Nader on the 25th anniversary of the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl, Ukraine.
The disaster at Chernobyl’s reactor on April 26, 1986 continues to expose humans, flora and fauna to radioactive lethality especially in, but not restricted to, Ukraine and Belarus. Western countries continue to reflect an under-estimation of casualties by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
IAEA’s figures top off at 4000 fatalities since 1986 that is highly questionable given IAEA’s conflict of interest between its role of promoting nuclear power and monitoring its safety. An agreement between the IAEA and the World Health Organization (WHO) provides for WHO’s deference to IAEA’s casualty figures which has compromised WHO’s priority of advancing health in the world. The United Nations naturally adopts the IAEA figures and the West’s nuclear regulatory agencies, similarly committed to promotional functions, ditto these under-estimations.
The position that the level of mortality and morbidity from Chernobyl over the past quarter century is much larger comes from a compendium of 5000 scientific studies, mostly in the Slavic languages edited by Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. (Read it online here) Dr. Yablokov, a biologist, is a member of the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences. The translated edition was published under the auspices of the New York Academy of Sciences.
At a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on March 25, 2011, attended by C-SPAN, CNN and independent media, but not the mainstream media, Dr. Yablokov summarized these studies and estimated the death toll over nearly twenty five years at about one million and mounting.
Because of the mainstream media, including the major newspapers, blackout on the Yablokov report since its translated edition came out in 2009, I asked Dr. Yablokov this question at the news conference:
“Dr. Yablokov, you are a distinguished scientist in your country, as reflected in your membership in the Russian Academy of Sciences, what has been the response to your report by corporate scientists, regulatory agency scientists and academic scientists in the West? Did they openly agree in whole or in part or did they disagree in whole or in part or were they just silent?”
Academician Yablokov replied that the compilation of these many reports has been met with silence. He added that science means critical engagement with the data and implied that silence was not an appropriate response from the scientific community.
Silence, of course, is not without its purpose. For to engage, whether to rebut, doubt or affirm, would give visibility to this compendium of scientific studies that upsets the fantasy modeling by the nuclear industry and its apologists regarding the worse case scenario damage of a level 7 or worse meltdown. It would require, for example, more epidemiological studies ranging into Western Europe, such as the current review of 330 hill farms in Wales. It would insistently invite more studies of the current health and casualty data involving the 800,000 liquidators—workers passing through since 1986 who have been exposed in and around the continuing emergency efforts at the very hot disabled Chernobyl reactor. And much more.
Public silence has not excluded a sub silentio oral campaign to delegitimize the Yablokov compendium. A quiet grapevine of general dismissals—unavailable for public comment or rebuttal—has cooled members of the press and other potential disseminators of its contents, including the National Academy of Sciences, the science advisers to the President and any other thinking scientists who decide that there isn’t enough time or invulnerability to justify getting into a contentious interaction over the Yablokov report.
The ability of corporate science and its regulatory apologists to inflict sanctions on dissenters is legion. There is a long history of censorship leading to self-censorship by those who otherwise might have applied Alfred North Whitehead’s characterization of science as “keeping open options for revision” to the ideology of atomic power.
I call for an open rigorous public scientific-medical debate on the findings and casualty estimates of the Yablokov report, to determine its usefulness for necessary programs of compensation, quarantine, accelerated protective entombment of the still dangerous reactor, and expanded studies of the past and continuing ravages issuing from this catastrophe and its recycling of radioactivity through the soil, air, water and food of the exposed regions. Such a public review is what the science adviser to the President and the National Academy of Sciences should have done already and should do now. The continuing expansion of the Fukishima disaster in Japan provides additional urgency for this open scientific review.
Effects that occur by chance, generally occurring without a threshold level of dose, whose probability is proportional to the dose and whose severity is independent of the dose. In the context of radiation protection, the main stochastic effects are cancer and genetic effects.
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, April 28, 2011
Stochastic effect, or "chance effect" is one classification of radiation effects that refers to the random, statistical nature of the damage. In contrast to the deterministic effect, severity is independent of dose. Only the probability of an effect increases with dose. Cancer is a stochastic effect.
Submitted by PAC (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 20:09.
The NRC uses conservative values in order to overestimate the damage from events. Radiation is stochastic at high levels. However, no one knows what it is at low levels. It is assumed to be stochastic, but there is no evidence to say that it is or isn't. The main difficulty is the ability to determine the effect of low doses of radiation on cancer risks. The effect will be drowned out in the noise of cancers that will occur from other sources.
Submitted by sth (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 20:18.
44 percent cancer rate for men(current usa) it will be hard top that but one day we will have a 51 percent rate meaning u will be special if u dont get cancer.i believe even BIERIV report said it was presumable a stochastic effect existed...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-02 00:09.
Then you'll want to avoid a lot of things.
Personally, I believe in the stochastic effect. In fact,
I think it's pretty obvious in the case of radiation. And
I don't like this situation any more than anyone else.
However, if you are truely concerned about the stochastic
effect, you would cease A LOT of activities. Medical
procedures, air travel (both the flight and the security
imaging), going out in the sun, granite counters, sitting
on a granite rock in the mountains, living in a house
(all houses have radon build up), using your pc, going
for hikes in the woods, and the list goes on and on. But,
we knowingly add to our exposure every day.
The real science is in determining how much additional
risk exists in each activity or event. And not blindly
believe that every exposure *significantly* increases
our risk.
Here's something to think about. Which is more of a risk?
1. Having a relatively small number of cells in your body
exposed to radioactive particles for the rest of your
life?
or
2. Having *every* cell (or a large percentage) in your
body exposed to radiation for a relatively short period
of time (air travel, airport body scans, CT scans, etc).
Given the description below, it appears that the stochastic
effect is more a game of chance than a certainty. Kinda
like buying tickets in the lottery. And it would seem that
#2 above buys a lot more tickets in that game than what
we are seeing in the US due to Fukushima. Again, I don't
deny that there's an increased risk due to this incident.
But, is it really a significant increase? Just a question.
I don't have the answer.
"Stochastic effects are those that occur by chance and consist primarily of cancer and genetic effects. Stochastic effects often show up years after exposure. As the dose to an individual increases, the probability that cancer or a genetic effect will occur also increases. However, at no time, even for high doses, is it certain that cancer or genetic damage will result. Similarly, for stochastic effects, there is no threshold dose below which it is relatively certain that an adverse effect cannot occur. In addition, because stochastic effects can occur in individuals that have not been exposed to radiation above background levels, it can never be determined for certain that an occurrence of cancer or genetic damage was due to a specific exposure."
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 18:48.
A lot has been posted on this forum about the evil folks involved
with and profiting from the nuclear industry. Some true and some
imagined. But, very little has been posted about the other side of
the coin. Which are the folks who try to further their existing
political and/or profit agendas by taking advantage of the panic
the Fukushima accident has created. This accident is a huge opportunity
for those who make a living out of anti-nuclear speaches, books,
interviews and web sites. In my opinion, both sides of the coin are
evil and can't be trusted. And they can be easily identified by the complete lack of balanced perspective being presented.
Just for the record, I don't see the BRAWM team on either side of
the coin. They are simply reporting their findings and giving at
least some idea of what to compare it with. Whether you believe that
comparsion or not is up to you.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 21:08.
Give me a break! "make a living out of anti-nuclear speeches, books, interviews and web sites" YEAH, RIGHT. There are just SO many people who thinkg "you know, I want to get really rich, so I'm going to become an anti-nuclear activist... that's the surest way to make a lot of money!" Please, spare us, OK? If you want to be pro-nuclear, fine, but to claim that those who dedicate their lives to ridding the planet of nuclear power are as "evil" as those like GE raking in billions peddling this cancer on us is beyond insulting.
While it's possible that activists who oppose nuclear may exaggerate or even bend the factual line in their zeal to advance their cause, but it's because they are passionate about trying to end something they see as incredibly damaging to the human race. To claim that there is a cadre of people out there conspiring to profit off being anti-nuclear activists is just absurd on its face.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 22:40.
Let's see, because I questioned an "activist":
1. I am "pro-nuclear"
2. I have put, not one, but *all* activists at the same level of
"evilness" as the nuclear industry
3. I have declared that there is a conspiracy on the part of activists
to profit off of bing ant-nuclear
You are wrong on all counts.
1. I'm more anti-nuclear power than ever. I think it's arrogant and
stupid for man to think they can work with it for the long term without
serious consequences.
2. I don't care about levels of evilness. I'm just looking for the facts.
And anyone that distorts the facts for whatever reason is evil.
And I don't paint all activists with a broad brush. In fact, I'm not
painting *any* activist with any brush. I'm just looking for all to be
questioned. And not accept what they say as accurate simply because
"they are passionate about trying to end something they see as incredibly
damaging to the human race". I get that they are passionate. But, their
passion doesn't help me make decisions. Accurate information does.
3. I don't think there is a conspiracy on the part of the activist. But,
I do believe that there are individuals out there that are capitalize on
this crisis for their own benefit. I've seen it. Sites with sensational
headlines that provide little context. And I wouldn't even classify them
as "activists". Many state no position on the subject of nuclear power
at all. They just want to get you to the site. Period.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 19:19.
Talking about the two sides of the coin, like both sides have the same amount of funds, political power and media influence is in itself insane. How can you compare some individuals and NPOs making some money from books and conferences with the whole profit and public funds that surround the nuclear industry?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 19:36.
My only point is that there is greed on both sides. So, I question
the motives of anyone who positions themselves as an expert and pushes
for *either* direction. So, it's very fair game to question Helen C's
accuracy and motives. Just as it's fair to question the same of the
nuclear industry.
Submitted by Angela (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 21:13.
Greed on both sides? People who dedicate their lives to preventing disasters like Chernobyl are not greedy. The corporations and political lackeys who profit to the tune of MILLIONS can be called greedy. Not someone who makes a few thousand dollars off book sales, and probably could make more money doing something else, but is choosing to fight for a cause she believes in. It's just like saying that environmental groups that lobby congress to protect the environment are as bad as corporations who lobby to eviscerate environmental proections so they can profit. It's a canard.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 19:46.
Greed and profit are one the main motors of human action, it would be surprising not to find them wherever you look. But at least the ones at "the other side of the coin" can just create some unnecessary anxiety with their actions as opposed to rendering large areas inhabitable or increasing the risk of having cancer for the populations exposed. Again, considering both "sides" as being somehow comparable is insane.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 21:43.
I'm not comparing. And I'm not emotionally invested in one side
or the other.
I'm just saying that I refuse to take an "any enemy of my enemy
is my friend" attitude. THAT is insane. In the search for information
(information that I will base my families lives on), I will question
the credentials, presentations and motives of anyone who positions
themselves as an expert. And I've seen many links posted to this forum
that were nothing but fear mongering. I've also seen the various govt.
agencies, companies and even the BRAWM team questioned and accused
of pretty serious things. Some of those accusations may be true. And
questioning the data is fair. In fact, it would be negligent to not
question/test their reports. I personally believe that the BRAWM team
is the most unbiased source of data we have. At least that I've seen.
But, all I'd ask is that those who make statements against the nuclear
power industry (which I'm no fan of btw) and claim they know the extent
of the impact of the Fukushima accident be questioned equally as much.
It is the only way we can ever come close to the real facts.
Swindlers come in all sizes. But, they are all still swindlers. I have
zero tolerance for any of them when it comes to serious matters.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 18:36.
Making blanket statements like "doctors know there is no safe dose of radiation" without any proof does not mean it is true.
What is the safe dose? The EPA and FDA says there is no safe dose. Instead of attacking Helen Caldicott why don't you tell us what is the safe dose of internal radiation, anonymous?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 20:00.
he cant say any thing once he realizes the stochastic effect, radiation has. any time u need to explain radiations dangers its all u need to know about radiation. the more u get the more likely u r to get sick period end of story its called stochastic effect...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 18:58.
Saying "doctors know there is no safe dose of radiation" is stating the
obvious and has no weight at all. I think we *all* know that there is
no safe dose. But, we also know that we are swimming in radiation every
day and there's nothing we can do about it. So, the science is in
determining how much risk an additional dose presents. That's where real
experts in the field (medical and nuclear sciences) add value. Not
general MDs with high level knowledge making high level statements.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 17:15.
I don't agree with the way Caldicott presents the information. But I agree with her on one thing. Why, as you say, are physicists the ones in charge of studying the effects of radiation on human health? Isn't that area a bit out of their field? Why don't we have independent organisms with physicians studying that? Why everything that has any relation at all with radiation and its consequences has to go through the same institutions in charge of promoting nuclear industry?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 17:28.
They are called health physicists, because that's the name given to them. It is not out of their field because that is what their field is exactly. For example, people who work in cancer reasearch and many medical fields are not MDs. They have PhDs in areas like biology. Many also will obtain an MD so they have a combo MD/PhD, but that is a lot of schooling. Helen has only a MD. MD's are not scientists, they are doctors. Now many MD's can be scientists if they work on scientific studies, but Helen Caldicott doesn't.
Physicists do not promote the nuclear industry. That is a general statement that just isn't true. Now many physicists are pro nuclear energy because of the scientific reasons that show its benefits. The only group that would be more likely to be pro nuclear is nuclear engineers. However, not all nuclear engineers work for the nuclear industry as you see it. Remember that nuclear engineering is a broad field. They can work on developing better MRI machines and PET scans. They can work in the area of medical isotopes, nuclear batteries for satellites. They also work on new detectors and on understanding how the sun works. Just because people are nuclear engineers, does't mean they will work for the nuclear power industry.
One thing is for sure. Dr.
One thing is for sure.
Dr. Caldicott has shown a lot of courage in raising awareness against a deeply entrenched nuclear society.
helen c
I totally agree with the Anonymous that is critical of Caldicott. I haven't seen any experts in the field support her statements. Personally, I need to see data, peer-reviewed literature, or agreement among experts. I will be skeptical of anything else.
People are not going to find
People are not going to find their truth-force or inner authority in listening to the military or industrial “experts,” but in listening to themselves. Every one of us is an expert on what it is like to live on an endangered planet.
We can break the mountains apart; we can drain the rivers and flood the valleys. We can turn the most luxuriant forests into throw-away paper products. We can tear apart the great grass cover of the western plains and pour toxic chemicals into the soil and pesticides onto the fields until the soil is dead and blows away in the wind. We can pollute the air with acids, the rivers with sewage, the seas with oil - all this in a kind of intoxication with our power for devastation at an order of magnitude beyond all reckoning.
Biologist Paul Ehrlich has declared that to look simply to technology for a solution would be a "lethal mistake," and that "scientific analysis points, curiously, toward a need for a quasi-religious transformation of contemporary cultures."
My estimate is that less than 20 percent of people in current Western and Westernized societies ever reach true adulthood. Although human development is no more urgent a need than the infrastructural changes discussed earlier, it is our most fundamental need. The cultivation of authentic adulthood and genuine elderhood goes far beyond any modifications in how we generate energy or conduct business, agriculture, and politics. We need contemporary cultural codings that allow our full humanity to once again blossom. We need new, widely adopted practices for parenting children, educating them to become full members of not only a family and culture, but, equally important, of the Earth community as it exists in their particular bioregion. We require new, much more effective ways of supporting teenagers to uncover and embody their most authentic selves and, when ready, to learn the arts of inscendence so that they might explore the mysteries of nature and psyche and eventually, with good fortune, receive a vision revealing their unique place, role, or niche in the Earth community.
Helen Caldicott IS an expert in this field, and many other
experts in these fields support her contentions and the data she reliees on.
I would cite the Radiation and Public Health Project as a primary resource:
www.radiation.org
Now I know the pronukers will attack RPHP too, but they have physicists, health physicists, MDs and epidemiologists who have done more than a decade of research and studies and peer reviewed articles which validate Dr. Caldicott's position.
Robert Alvarez ( http://www.ips-dc.org/staff/bob ) is on the RPHP board of directors and is one of the top nuclear experts in these fields of radiation and risk in the country.
Dr. Caldicott is herself a preeminent expert in the field of radiation risk and is a pediatrician whose specialty is genetic disorders.
I ANYONE is credible on the damage to the dna and our internal organs from radiation, especially in children, Dr. Caldicott is.
Her primary critic, George Monbiot, has no credentials whatsoever in ANY of these areas and is just a stooge and a mouthpiece for the energy industry.
The RPHP takes liberties
The RPHP takes liberties with it's statistical analysis of cancer clusters. Their results do not fall outside of normal statistical probability and they trumpet them as signs of "significant" illness.
They then align themselves with the ECRR which, in three attempts has yet to provide a widely believable model for risk, and with Ms Caldicott and the entire group in that camp.
Extreme claims require equally extreme proof. None of the studies by this group has even even come close to furnishing that proof with sources that are both verifiable and peer reviewed.
As for Ms. Caldicott, she desires political power above all else. Her resume of short stints here and there with an overall focus of eliminating nuclear weapons (first) then moving on to nuclear power shows someone who is ascending in clout to fight for her cause. She even says this in her recent Op-Ed where she laments that her group doesn't have enough political currency to get rid of nuclear energy. To me that's not how she should go about effecting change - through powerbrokers, and not sticking to a factual argument - and betrays her aspirations as seeking power over her cause. She is simply a very visible mouthpiece for an extreme view at this time.
How convenient to have totally unsourced opinions
What about the generally scientificly accepted facts that NO DOSE IS SAFE" and that every dose internally increases the risk of harm?
You provide no evidence or links to attack the RPHP who ARE experts in health physics, epidemiology, science and medicine (as were many of the mebers of the ECRR) and they HAVE produce peer reviewed studies which are available at their site:
I urge people to read these at www.radiation.org .
There is no extremism in the claim that the risk is uncertain but MAY be severe, especially in children and developing fetuses, in human beings and in all living things at VERY low doses.
ONE ray of hope here is that with the knowledge and technology we NOW have we can look MUCH more carefully at the consequences. ONE thing that the RPHP and ECRR have repeatedly urged is ongoing testing, sampling and studies to clarify and establish the risks and consequences UNLIKE the industry and nuclear shills and government who do NOT provide sufficient data, testing or honest information, neither do they provide what they do provide in an expedient way, for the public or even researchers to be fully aware of the crucial data.
I actually trust Dr. Caldicott and, at RPHP, Dr. Sherman and epidemiologist Joe Mangano, who are doing the very best they can with almost negligible resources to get the data and do the studies and presrnt them to the public.
You can rag on Dr. Caldicott and the RPHP and the ECRR all you want but unless you have the data to prove they are wrong, then it is wiser and more compassionate to say to hell with the nuclear industry and its lies and obfuscations and protect our citizens.
BTW, the Japanese Nuclear Agency today ADMIITTED (and APOLOGIZED) for HIDING information on the extent of nuclear contamination near Fukushima in the various prefectures in order to prevent panic and agreed to release this data on what contamination REALLY was occurring in the next few days.
The HEAD of the Japanese Nuclear Agency RESIGNED in protest this past weekend due to the Japanese government understating the risks and exposing children to levels of radiation as high as emergency levels for nuclear works by sending them back into contaminated schools and schoolyards!
So you can choose to support government and the nuclear industry lies and coverups of the risks and levels of contamination by denigrating those who are trying to expose and lay bare the risks and levels of contamination all you want.
I am grateful that with BRAWM we get hard data and with honest brokers like the RPHP we can get the studies done.
But unsourced ad hominem attacks on Caldicott or the folks at RPHP because they are telling us based on their years of study and expertise that this radiation, even at low levels, will KILL or seriously harm many of us, especially children, is just acting as mouthpiece for the industry's positions which, imho, are totally lacking in any credibility whatsoever.
The EXTREME proof necessary, if that is what is needed, is that nuclear power and low level radiation is NOT completely insane and dangerous and deadly. Fukushima and Chernobyl and the pandemic of cancer and thyroid disease speak the horrific truth to the lies of the industry. They CANNOT be made safe and harmless and they WILL kill people and other living things. Lots of living things. Caldicott is correct and honorable. The industry is a monster.
Anyone who has a political
Anyone who has a political agenda (pro-nuke or anti-nuke) will tend to skew science for their causes. This, in my mind is reprehensible and, if perpetrated by someone who is a known expert, completely removes scientific credentials. I try to remain agnostic on this issue (pro and against nuclear energy) and let the science and hard data (peer-reviewed) become paramount lest I let my own personal bias seep in. This is always hard for a scientist because we all have bias in one way or another. Those who are so obviously not skeptical of their own bias do not deserve to call themselves experts and the public should be wary of any and all of their claims. Scientists are not perfect, and we all have to fight against our own personal bias when interacting with the public. This is the only way to properly give justice to these very complicated issues.
*****
I think you can be very proud of the intellectual fairness and patience that the BRAWM team has shown throughout this 'experiment.'
>The HEAD of the Japanese
>The HEAD of the Japanese Nuclear Agency RESIGNED in protest this past weekend
I don't think the guy you're talking about was the HEAD of anything. Toshiso Kosako was an advisor to the prime minister. If you don't have enough reading comprehension to retain basic data from a newspaper article it would be a good idea to refrain from commenting on the state of the field when it comes to low dose radiation.
Her view is gaining
Her view is gaining popularity.
The more I see pro-nuke advocates attacking Dr. Caldicott, the more I know she's right on the mark.
Think what you want, that
Think what you want, that the Nuclear industry has hidden their data and lied by omission. On the other hand, the data coming out of Caldicott, et. al is pure conjecture based on flawed data. A lie to generate a political movement. This does nothing to provide an honest debate.
And, for Bill:
If you use the word shill in the future your post is logically bankrupt. Continuing to slander those that want an honest debat of the merits and risks of all future energy sources are not shills, and it's a crutch for your broken arguments.
The fraud of nuclear energy
The fraud of nuclear energy seeks to perpetuate the great myth of growth-progress rapidly devastating our planet, nuclear meltdowns or not.
She is not an expert in her
She is not an expert in her field, whatever her field is now. She hasn't been a practicing doctor since 1980 and she was never a scientist. She just lectures now writes books that contradict themselves. Just because someone is pro nuclear does not make them mouthpieces for the nuclear industry. If the nuclear industry is all powerful like many on this forum believe, you would think then that we would have been building nuclear power plants since 79.
"pronukers" statement
Just because someone questions her (or any other activist) doesn't
make them "pro-nuclear". Any reasonable and open minded person would
question whatever is presented. Regardless of what side of the nuclear
issue they are on. Otherwise they are nothing more than lemmings.
names
Why can't you "anonymouses" use a name when posting? it's very confusing when everyone is posting as Anonymous.
It's like I'm posting on
It's like I'm posting on 4chan! :)
I think BRAWM is a pretty cool guy. eh measures raditaion and doesn't afraid of anything
MFW I read that post = :)
MFW I read that post = :)
Helen Caldicott rules!!
Helen Caldicott rules!!
I cannot stand how people
I cannot stand how people listen to Helen Caldicott and think she is a nuclear expert. She is a pediatrician who has devoted her life to the elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. I don't have a problem with someone who is anti nuclear, but at least use facts and scientific analyses to justify your position. Making blanket statements like "doctors know there is no safe dose of radiation" without any proof does not mean it is true.
Doctors are not the experts when it comes to radiation and health. The experts are health physicists who spend their lives studying the effects. Doctors go to med school to learn how to treat people, not to run scientific experiments. She always brings up the NYAS report about a million deaths when that report was discredited since it used zero science to come up with that number. Her book about nuclear power is full of misinformation and even contradicts itself. All I want is her to justify her views and back them up with scientific data, which she never does.
Go look at the results of
Go look at the results of Chernobyl -- there are photos of children and animals with all kinds of mutations you can check out. We've messed to much with mother nature and now we are seeing the horrible results.
I think you are full of it.
I think you are full of it. Radiation is not good for people in any way shape or form. It mutates things. Too much sun radiation mutates our skin and causes cancer. You are probably a shill for the nuke industry--probably getting paid for it, too.
NYAS Report
The NYAS report was based on 5,000 scientific reports mostly in Slavic languages. One of the authors is a distinguished scientist, Dr. Alexey Yablokov , who was a member of the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences and the senior science adviser to President Yeltsin.
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2262-Remarks-by-Ralph-Nader-on-...
Remarks by Ralph Nader on the 25th anniversary of the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl, Ukraine.
The disaster at Chernobyl’s reactor on April 26, 1986 continues to expose humans, flora and fauna to radioactive lethality especially in, but not restricted to, Ukraine and Belarus. Western countries continue to reflect an under-estimation of casualties by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
IAEA’s figures top off at 4000 fatalities since 1986 that is highly questionable given IAEA’s conflict of interest between its role of promoting nuclear power and monitoring its safety. An agreement between the IAEA and the World Health Organization (WHO) provides for WHO’s deference to IAEA’s casualty figures which has compromised WHO’s priority of advancing health in the world. The United Nations naturally adopts the IAEA figures and the West’s nuclear regulatory agencies, similarly committed to promotional functions, ditto these under-estimations.
The position that the level of mortality and morbidity from Chernobyl over the past quarter century is much larger comes from a compendium of 5000 scientific studies, mostly in the Slavic languages edited by Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. (Read it online here) Dr. Yablokov, a biologist, is a member of the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences. The translated edition was published under the auspices of the New York Academy of Sciences.
At a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on March 25, 2011, attended by C-SPAN, CNN and independent media, but not the mainstream media, Dr. Yablokov summarized these studies and estimated the death toll over nearly twenty five years at about one million and mounting.
Because of the mainstream media, including the major newspapers, blackout on the Yablokov report since its translated edition came out in 2009, I asked Dr. Yablokov this question at the news conference:
“Dr. Yablokov, you are a distinguished scientist in your country, as reflected in your membership in the Russian Academy of Sciences, what has been the response to your report by corporate scientists, regulatory agency scientists and academic scientists in the West? Did they openly agree in whole or in part or did they disagree in whole or in part or were they just silent?”
Academician Yablokov replied that the compilation of these many reports has been met with silence. He added that science means critical engagement with the data and implied that silence was not an appropriate response from the scientific community.
Silence, of course, is not without its purpose. For to engage, whether to rebut, doubt or affirm, would give visibility to this compendium of scientific studies that upsets the fantasy modeling by the nuclear industry and its apologists regarding the worse case scenario damage of a level 7 or worse meltdown. It would require, for example, more epidemiological studies ranging into Western Europe, such as the current review of 330 hill farms in Wales. It would insistently invite more studies of the current health and casualty data involving the 800,000 liquidators—workers passing through since 1986 who have been exposed in and around the continuing emergency efforts at the very hot disabled Chernobyl reactor. And much more.
Public silence has not excluded a sub silentio oral campaign to delegitimize the Yablokov compendium. A quiet grapevine of general dismissals—unavailable for public comment or rebuttal—has cooled members of the press and other potential disseminators of its contents, including the National Academy of Sciences, the science advisers to the President and any other thinking scientists who decide that there isn’t enough time or invulnerability to justify getting into a contentious interaction over the Yablokov report.
The ability of corporate science and its regulatory apologists to inflict sanctions on dissenters is legion. There is a long history of censorship leading to self-censorship by those who otherwise might have applied Alfred North Whitehead’s characterization of science as “keeping open options for revision” to the ideology of atomic power.
I call for an open rigorous public scientific-medical debate on the findings and casualty estimates of the Yablokov report, to determine its usefulness for necessary programs of compensation, quarantine, accelerated protective entombment of the still dangerous reactor, and expanded studies of the past and continuing ravages issuing from this catastrophe and its recycling of radioactivity through the soil, air, water and food of the exposed regions. Such a public review is what the science adviser to the President and the National Academy of Sciences should have done already and should do now. The continuing expansion of the Fukishima disaster in Japan provides additional urgency for this open scientific review.
.
really
so all i have to read or cite to you should be these two things.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/stochastic-effects.html
Stochastic effects
Effects that occur by chance, generally occurring without a threshold level of dose, whose probability is proportional to the dose and whose severity is independent of the dose. In the context of radiation protection, the main stochastic effects are cancer and genetic effects.
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, April 28, 2011
HELLO IM NO DOCTOR BUT RADIATION IS NOT GOOD FOR U.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
Medicine
Stochastic effect, or "chance effect" is one classification of radiation effects that refers to the random, statistical nature of the damage. In contrast to the deterministic effect, severity is independent of dose. Only the probability of an effect increases with dose. Cancer is a stochastic effect.
The NRC uses conservative
The NRC uses conservative values in order to overestimate the damage from events. Radiation is stochastic at high levels. However, no one knows what it is at low levels. It is assumed to be stochastic, but there is no evidence to say that it is or isn't. The main difficulty is the ability to determine the effect of low doses of radiation on cancer risks. The effect will be drowned out in the noise of cancers that will occur from other sources.
44 percent cancer rate for
44 percent cancer rate for men(current usa) it will be hard top that but one day we will have a 51 percent rate meaning u will be special if u dont get cancer.i believe even BIERIV report said it was presumable a stochastic effect existed...
If you believe in the stohcastic effect
Then you'll want to avoid a lot of things.
Personally, I believe in the stochastic effect. In fact,
I think it's pretty obvious in the case of radiation. And
I don't like this situation any more than anyone else.
However, if you are truely concerned about the stochastic
effect, you would cease A LOT of activities. Medical
procedures, air travel (both the flight and the security
imaging), going out in the sun, granite counters, sitting
on a granite rock in the mountains, living in a house
(all houses have radon build up), using your pc, going
for hikes in the woods, and the list goes on and on. But,
we knowingly add to our exposure every day.
The real science is in determining how much additional
risk exists in each activity or event. And not blindly
believe that every exposure *significantly* increases
our risk.
Here's something to think about. Which is more of a risk?
1. Having a relatively small number of cells in your body
exposed to radioactive particles for the rest of your
life?
or
2. Having *every* cell (or a large percentage) in your
body exposed to radiation for a relatively short period
of time (air travel, airport body scans, CT scans, etc).
Given the description below, it appears that the stochastic
effect is more a game of chance than a certainty. Kinda
like buying tickets in the lottery. And it would seem that
#2 above buys a lot more tickets in that game than what
we are seeing in the US due to Fukushima. Again, I don't
deny that there's an increased risk due to this incident.
But, is it really a significant increase? Just a question.
I don't have the answer.
"Stochastic effects are those that occur by chance and consist primarily of cancer and genetic effects. Stochastic effects often show up years after exposure. As the dose to an individual increases, the probability that cancer or a genetic effect will occur also increases. However, at no time, even for high doses, is it certain that cancer or genetic damage will result. Similarly, for stochastic effects, there is no threshold dose below which it is relatively certain that an adverse effect cannot occur. In addition, because stochastic effects can occur in individuals that have not been exposed to radiation above background levels, it can never be determined for certain that an occurrence of cancer or genetic damage was due to a specific exposure."
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafet...
Two Sides Of The Coin
A lot has been posted on this forum about the evil folks involved
with and profiting from the nuclear industry. Some true and some
imagined. But, very little has been posted about the other side of
the coin. Which are the folks who try to further their existing
political and/or profit agendas by taking advantage of the panic
the Fukushima accident has created. This accident is a huge opportunity
for those who make a living out of anti-nuclear speaches, books,
interviews and web sites. In my opinion, both sides of the coin are
evil and can't be trusted. And they can be easily identified by the complete lack of balanced perspective being presented.
Just for the record, I don't see the BRAWM team on either side of
the coin. They are simply reporting their findings and giving at
least some idea of what to compare it with. Whether you believe that
comparsion or not is up to you.
Yah right--these people
Yah right--these people aren't making money off anity-nuke beliefs. Wow, what kind of human being are you???
Give me a break! "make a
Give me a break! "make a living out of anti-nuclear speeches, books, interviews and web sites" YEAH, RIGHT. There are just SO many people who thinkg "you know, I want to get really rich, so I'm going to become an anti-nuclear activist... that's the surest way to make a lot of money!" Please, spare us, OK? If you want to be pro-nuclear, fine, but to claim that those who dedicate their lives to ridding the planet of nuclear power are as "evil" as those like GE raking in billions peddling this cancer on us is beyond insulting.
While it's possible that activists who oppose nuclear may exaggerate or even bend the factual line in their zeal to advance their cause, but it's because they are passionate about trying to end something they see as incredibly damaging to the human race. To claim that there is a cadre of people out there conspiring to profit off being anti-nuclear activists is just absurd on its face.
Wow
Let's see, because I questioned an "activist":
1. I am "pro-nuclear"
2. I have put, not one, but *all* activists at the same level of
"evilness" as the nuclear industry
3. I have declared that there is a conspiracy on the part of activists
to profit off of bing ant-nuclear
You are wrong on all counts.
1. I'm more anti-nuclear power than ever. I think it's arrogant and
stupid for man to think they can work with it for the long term without
serious consequences.
2. I don't care about levels of evilness. I'm just looking for the facts.
And anyone that distorts the facts for whatever reason is evil.
And I don't paint all activists with a broad brush. In fact, I'm not
painting *any* activist with any brush. I'm just looking for all to be
questioned. And not accept what they say as accurate simply because
"they are passionate about trying to end something they see as incredibly
damaging to the human race". I get that they are passionate. But, their
passion doesn't help me make decisions. Accurate information does.
3. I don't think there is a conspiracy on the part of the activist. But,
I do believe that there are individuals out there that are capitalize on
this crisis for their own benefit. I've seen it. Sites with sensational
headlines that provide little context. And I wouldn't even classify them
as "activists". Many state no position on the subject of nuclear power
at all. They just want to get you to the site. Period.
Talking about the two sides
Talking about the two sides of the coin, like both sides have the same amount of funds, political power and media influence is in itself insane. How can you compare some individuals and NPOs making some money from books and conferences with the whole profit and public funds that surround the nuclear industry?
Both are biased
My only point is that there is greed on both sides. So, I question
the motives of anyone who positions themselves as an expert and pushes
for *either* direction. So, it's very fair game to question Helen C's
accuracy and motives. Just as it's fair to question the same of the
nuclear industry.
What's the matter with you?
What's the matter with you?
Greed on both sides? People
Greed on both sides? People who dedicate their lives to preventing disasters like Chernobyl are not greedy. The corporations and political lackeys who profit to the tune of MILLIONS can be called greedy. Not someone who makes a few thousand dollars off book sales, and probably could make more money doing something else, but is choosing to fight for a cause she believes in. It's just like saying that environmental groups that lobby congress to protect the environment are as bad as corporations who lobby to eviscerate environmental proections so they can profit. It's a canard.
It is correct to question
It is correct to question both sides. However, since science is based on objective data, the side that uses it should at least be more trusted.
Greed and profit are one the
Greed and profit are one the main motors of human action, it would be surprising not to find them wherever you look. But at least the ones at "the other side of the coin" can just create some unnecessary anxiety with their actions as opposed to rendering large areas inhabitable or increasing the risk of having cancer for the populations exposed. Again, considering both "sides" as being somehow comparable is insane.
Not comparing
I'm not comparing. And I'm not emotionally invested in one side
or the other.
I'm just saying that I refuse to take an "any enemy of my enemy
is my friend" attitude. THAT is insane. In the search for information
(information that I will base my families lives on), I will question
the credentials, presentations and motives of anyone who positions
themselves as an expert. And I've seen many links posted to this forum
that were nothing but fear mongering. I've also seen the various govt.
agencies, companies and even the BRAWM team questioned and accused
of pretty serious things. Some of those accusations may be true. And
questioning the data is fair. In fact, it would be negligent to not
question/test their reports. I personally believe that the BRAWM team
is the most unbiased source of data we have. At least that I've seen.
But, all I'd ask is that those who make statements against the nuclear
power industry (which I'm no fan of btw) and claim they know the extent
of the impact of the Fukushima accident be questioned equally as much.
It is the only way we can ever come close to the real facts.
Swindlers come in all sizes. But, they are all still swindlers. I have
zero tolerance for any of them when it comes to serious matters.
Making blanket statements
Making blanket statements like "doctors know there is no safe dose of radiation" without any proof does not mean it is true.
What is the safe dose? The EPA and FDA says there is no safe dose. Instead of attacking Helen Caldicott why don't you tell us what is the safe dose of internal radiation, anonymous?
st
he cant say any thing once he realizes the stochastic effect, radiation has. any time u need to explain radiations dangers its all u need to know about radiation. the more u get the more likely u r to get sick period end of story its called stochastic effect...
Stating the obvious
Saying "doctors know there is no safe dose of radiation" is stating the
obvious and has no weight at all. I think we *all* know that there is
no safe dose. But, we also know that we are swimming in radiation every
day and there's nothing we can do about it. So, the science is in
determining how much risk an additional dose presents. That's where real
experts in the field (medical and nuclear sciences) add value. Not
general MDs with high level knowledge making high level statements.
I don't agree with the way
I don't agree with the way Caldicott presents the information. But I agree with her on one thing. Why, as you say, are physicists the ones in charge of studying the effects of radiation on human health? Isn't that area a bit out of their field? Why don't we have independent organisms with physicians studying that? Why everything that has any relation at all with radiation and its consequences has to go through the same institutions in charge of promoting nuclear industry?
They are called health
They are called health physicists, because that's the name given to them. It is not out of their field because that is what their field is exactly. For example, people who work in cancer reasearch and many medical fields are not MDs. They have PhDs in areas like biology. Many also will obtain an MD so they have a combo MD/PhD, but that is a lot of schooling. Helen has only a MD. MD's are not scientists, they are doctors. Now many MD's can be scientists if they work on scientific studies, but Helen Caldicott doesn't.
Physicists do not promote the nuclear industry. That is a general statement that just isn't true. Now many physicists are pro nuclear energy because of the scientific reasons that show its benefits. The only group that would be more likely to be pro nuclear is nuclear engineers. However, not all nuclear engineers work for the nuclear industry as you see it. Remember that nuclear engineering is a broad field. They can work on developing better MRI machines and PET scans. They can work in the area of medical isotopes, nuclear batteries for satellites. They also work on new detectors and on understanding how the sun works. Just because people are nuclear engineers, does't mean they will work for the nuclear power industry.
Re: "Now many physicists are
Re: "Now many physicists are pro nuclear energy because of the scientific reasons that show its benefits."
I think it's time to change the narrative about the benefits of nuclear energy.
AMEN!
AMEN!