Comments on: The Left Abusing Nuclear Science: Monbiot vs Caldicott

By: Monbiot continues his nuclear debate | ikners.com

Monbiot continues his nuclear debate | ikners.com — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:42:16 +0000

[...] The Left Abusing Nuclear Science: Monbiot vs Caldicott | The Intersection (blogs.discovermagazine.com) [...]

By: New Point of Inquiry Episode: Nuclear Risk and Reason | The Intersection | Discover Magazine

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:29:35 +0000

[...] listen here. I learned a lot doing this one. I’ll say more on this, but 1) George Monbiot is going too far in his dismissal of low dose radiation risk (which doesn’t make Helen Caldicott right, [...]

By: Ben H.

Ben H. — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 08:07:56 +0000

Chris,
I think you need to read this very good article from Science-Based Medicine and focus on the discussion (and very recent research) regarding the claims about thyroid cancer in Chernobyl residents:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11636

By: tim gueguen

tim gueguen — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:58:33 +0000

In regards to Mr. Schmidt’s comment euguenics was popular across the political spectrum. It was not limited to the left, however one defines it. As for Lysenkoism did it find any traction outside the Stalin era Soviet Union and its allies?

By: Armand

Armand — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:12:35 +0000

It’s shocking that you would write an article about purporting to know about nuclear issues and you don’t even know the New York Academy of Sciences study of over 5000 articles and reports that state about 1 million people have died because of Chernobyl.

Monbiot (and you apparently) are satisfied with a UN “report” that looked at only 350 and of those articles.

Who’s cherry picking data?

Moreover, the WHO and IAEA have an agreement: “whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement…” WHO and the IAEA, May 28, 1959 at the 12th World Health Assembly, clause No. 12.40

It’s clear to any half-wit what the talking points are:
1) make this an issue between coal and nuclear; and
2) accuse responsible people of “cherry-picking”

Just read:

“The UN Would Never Lie to George Monbiot”

By JOE GIAMBRONE (http://www.counterpunch.com/giambrone04012011.html )

By: David Le Page

David Le Page — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:21:51 +0000

Wes, I had a look at the link you provide (“Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident”) last night. While its author, Chris Busby, attacks the credentials of other experts currently discussing the issues, his own polemical style, and (so far as I can see) lack of firm credentials, somewhat calls that report into question. I’m not saying it’s wrong – I just don’t know.

I too admire Monbiot – but don’t think that his finding fault with Caldicott justifies his generalisations about the whole anti-nuclear movement.

Even if the risks of nuclear radiation have been exaggerated, and even if they are substantially smaller than the current risks of coal, the problem of measuring radiation risk over the lifespan of existing waste remains.

Apparently UNEP considers the global lack of funding and expertise for the decommissioning of existing nuclear power stations to make it a key global environmental issue. Sorry, don’t have a reference for this – drawing on recent correspondence.

By: Radiation Risks: “It’s Complicated” | The Intersection | Discover Magazine

Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:56:07 +0000

[...] more about this issue. As a result, while I don’t agree with Helen Caldicott, I do feel George Monbiot is being a tad too strident, and probably should have used more [...]

By: Hugo Schmidt

Hugo Schmidt — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:44:52 +0000

I disagree. Left-wing antiscience is more subtle than right-wing, but it is also for that reason much more dangerous .

Remember Lysenkoism? Remember Eugenics? Heck, remember the “Population Bomb” nonsense and what its advocates called for, and in some cases achieved?

For that matter, take Global Warming. I take the highly unusual and radical approach of only bothering myself with the IPCC and what I read in topline journals (Nature & Science usually) and the sheer disconnect between what the science says and what people like Al Gore say staggers me.

By: Wes Rolley

Wes Rolley — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 04:58:38 +0000

While everyone will pick and choose the numbers they like, it you want to get closer to the truth of this matter, this source should be on everyone’s reading list.

“Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident” The first edition of the entire book is a free download. http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobylinformation.htm

Monbiot should have referenced this so that he might not have been so cavalier with his own version of the facts.

By: John Glover

John Glover — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:31:30 +0000

Another propaganda technique as old as the hills is for officials to state a wildly high figure, let everyone freak out for awhile and over react to the wildly high inaccurate figure, then announce ‘we made a mistake (we don’t proof read our own press releases, duh), it’s only a thousand times higher than the legal limit!

Well, phew, I for one am greatly relieved it’s only a thousand times, not 15 million over ‘the legal’ limit.

Wow, we really dodged a bullet with that one!

Propaganda masquerading as incompetence?

Or incompetence masquerading as Propaganda?

It’s your call.
.