[] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness




On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Chris de Morsella <>



[] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:43 PM

Subject: Re: Global warming silliness


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Chris de Morsella <>


> It is very hard to prove causality for cancer. 

That is absolutely true. A study on Fukushima was published in the May 20
2011 issue of the journal Science, it said:

>>" Radiation exposure levels for most people were elevated so minutely
above background that it may be impossible to tease out carcinogenic effects
from other risk factors, such as smoking or diet." 

Hard to reconcile that with this:

An estimated 900,000 terabecquerels of radioactive substances were released
into the atmosphere in March 2011 by the triple meltdowns at the Fukushima
No. 1 nuclear plant, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Thursday.

This places the Fukushima disaster - in terms of release so far - at about
one fifth the scale of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.  

Furthermore the reactors at Fukushima have not  been stabilized, except if
by "stabilized" you intend hanging from a cliff by your fingernails. Of
course this is not what the public relations departments of the pro nuclear
lobby would have us all believe.

You continue to speak of the Fukushima disaster in the past tense, when in
fact this is still very much an unfolding event. Units #1,2,3 are not under
control. The fuel rods in those cores have completely melted and the
containment structures are riddled with holes and cracks. The containment
structures of those units may well already have been breached. No one really
knows, the areas in the basement levels beneath are far too hot - not a good
sign that everything is still contained. At the #4 SFP unit they have had to
delay removing fuel rods, because many of them have become so badly damaged.

Furthermore the statement you quote is the historic BS half-truth metric
that the pro-nuclear lobby loves to trot out every time there is a nuclear
disaster. Exposure is not the whole story. Pretending that it is, in order
to cover the fact that there is another parallel, but orthogonal story going
on, is basically lying by omission.

Nuclear contamination is occurring and will continue to occur for as long as
these radionuclides remain radioactive and are circulating within the
biosphere. And that is going to be for a very long time. People, animals,
plants, are going to be feeling the effects of the long lived radionuclides
that have - and very much still have the potential of being released - for
many tens of thousands of years. You know the half-life figures for U-235 &
P-239. Do you have any idea how much of that stuff is in those melted cores
and containment structures that are leaking like sieves? Under control -
sure - only in the strange universe of the pro-nuclear lobby spin.

The intellectual dishonesty lies in speaking only of exposure, while
ignoring contamination; low levels of average exposure do not mean there is
no risk. The actual risk also depends on the effects from nuclear
contamination. Contamination is in fact a very different process from
exposure. Exposure levels can be very low, but if you are one of the unlucky
bio-organisms to become contaminated you get cancer, or one of the many
auto-immune and other chronic degenerative diseases that various types of
radionuclide contamination can cause, also depending on the organ or area
that has been contaminated. Proving that the cancer you got was caused by
the radionuclide you have lodged in your lungs, or kidneys (or any number of
internal clumping areas (plaques for example) - or that has become a part of
your own living tissue - is hard. It must be reconstructed through
statistical analysis of actuary data. As the previous struggle with Big
Tobacco has shown it is hard to prove causation.

>>We know from studies of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki  A-bomb survivers that
those who got 100 millisieverts of radiation had a 1.05 increased risk of
developing some form of cancer at some time during the next 70  years of
their life, but in Fukushima nobody except plant workers received more than
40 millisieverts, and only a few who lived very close to the plant got even
that much.


Once again - the exposure story is not the whole story. If you become
contaminated and die - how does it help you that the average exposure (above
background) is very small?


> you come across as Dr. Strangelove


>>The true Dr. Strangelove are environmentalists who claim they can keep the
7 billion people on this planet  alive even after abandoning nuclear power
and fossil fuel using nothing but hummingbirds and moonbeams and wishful

Where did you pull the hummingbirds and moonbeams out of. on second thought,
probably best if you keep that to yourself.

There is a huge -- 2,600 km2 --exclusion zone around Chernobyl - maybe you
could go live there - get away from all those hummingbirds and moonbeams and
be close to your cherished radionuclides. You could breathe them in, drink
them in your water, ingest them with your food and be guaranteed a glowing,
if rather shortened future. Perhaps you are too old for the cancers to take
effect and kill you; would you bring your grandkids to go live there? After
all - it is all just overblown BS by treehuggers.  Think of the benefits you
will be guaranteed to have no treehuggers there to bother your peace of
mind. Now fortunately there is more real estate for you to select from in
the newly created exclusion zones around Fukushima. And who knows where



  John K Clark  


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to