On 6/27/06, Jim Torson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 02:28 AM 6/27/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Actually there is the IAEA > >http://www.iaea.org/ > > > >It is like the IPCC an intergovernmental body within the UN system. > > It is a fantasy to think the IAEA is comparable to the IPCC: > > http://www.nirs.org/press/04-11-2006/1
There are presumably people who think nuclear power is fine and global warming is nonsense who would agree with your assessment that > It is a fantasy to think the IAEA is comparable to the IPCC: Following your link: QUOTE==> The study was commissioned by Rebecca Harms, a Green Party member of the European Parliament, on behalf of the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament and in conjunction with the April 23-25 Chernobyl+20: Remembrance for the Future conference in Kiev, Ukraine. The study, titled "TORCH" (The Other Report on Chernobyl) was prepared by two scientists from the United Kingdom, Dr. Ian Fairlie and Dr. David Sumner. <==END QUOTE This is clearly and unabashedly a study performed by an advocacy group. Advocacy groups exist which work backwards from their desired conclusion to the evidence that find the IPCC unreliable. Being all too familiar with this methodology, I am afraid the fact that the Green Party has come up with conclusions contrary to the IAEA offers the intelligent and undecided onlooker negligible information on the reliability of the IAEA. I am sure most of the Greens mean well, but I am also sure most members of the Cato Institute mean well too. As Paul Simon says, "a mean hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". The study is here: http://www.nirs.org/c20/torch.pdf The Wikipedia article on Chernobyl is a nice source. It tells us that a second independent study concludes as follows. ===> The Abstract of the April 2006 International Agency for Research on Cancer report Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident stated "It is unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates - other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions - that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident." [34] [35] However, while undetectable, they estimate, based on the linear no threshold model of cancer effects, that 16,000 excess cancer deaths could be expected from the effects of the Chernobyl accident up to 2065. Their estimates have very wide 95% confidence intervals from 6,700 deaths to 38,000 [36]. <=== The population of Europe being (I guess) about 500,000,000; this means that your odds of dying of cancer are increased by less than one part in ten thousand as a consequence of this event. Not that we should tolerate such events, but we should dispassionately put matters into perspective. What is the 100-year mortality due to a comparable Soviet-era coal plant *in normal operation* I wonder... mt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
