hum, the scientis who make the inquiry abou chernoby explained that they were meanced by local authorities an governement because they were redicing the drama , thus the prime they might ask to occident...
1million can be easily obtained by using the false linear no treshold law... some still use it in radioprotection, especially the green, or the one who want to get cash from europe , but everybody know it is false. todays theory of cancerogenesis is in 4 steps, for any aggressions (thermal, chemical, radiation, UV) : at very low aggression level the cell suicide cleanly (apoptosis) if there are many apoptosis around the thermal shock proteins start to call for perfect repair of DNA instead of suicide. if there are too many call for repair, new repair method is triggered, that dos quick and dirty repair if too much, the repair system let it go and don't repair anymore experience with nuclear bombing and chernobyl is that there is no induced risk transmited to kids by parents. 1Sv dose induce 32 to 37% rate of cancer typically 5Sv kill half of the people quickly (few weeks) but if surviving, cancer rate increase, but not massively. 8Sv kill everybody... 10-20% of the suicide firemen died only, yet they receive many Sv. maybe because of good treatment. recently a new treatent to avoid infection by intestine bacteria seems to be a breakthrough (in occident, maybe ussr have already similar drugs, having more experience). also they might mix the death toll of Chernobyl with the huge and awfull death toll of the fall of USSR heath system, and economy. the death have increased in all USSR , from east to west, independently of radiation. if the linear law would be true, there would be millions of dead because of flights, of ski, and some people in brasil or iran , and even in britany, would die in mass... we don't see that, on the opposite. in high radioactivity zone, it seems solid cancer a reduced,a nd immune system is slightly stronger in france there is a faked report that turn around the media about cancer in corsica after chernobyl... measures were extrapolated from the word of one doctor, and totally incoheren with others. this domain is full of fake and manipulation by pretending to be independent. like the report of high leukemia around sellafied, frauded highy, with leukemia cases counted 7 times... just recently in france a report turn around the media. it prentedn to show an increase of leukemia for kids around nuclear power plant, but only for a 5 year period. the average on all the period is normal, and note ther they don't talk about the complement period where leukemia would be lower than average (sign of dishonesty)... George Monbiot (the environmentalist at Guardian) make many article abou the green manipulation on nuke http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/13/why-this-matters/ there is not only lie on cold fusion, but on nuke too... this domain is political science like described by judith curry in that article http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/26/questions-on-research-integrity-and-scientific-responsibility-part-ii/ similar in immunization, (the affair of the fake link with autism, ), the antenna and wifi dangers (thousands of experiments show it is a psychiatric problem)... media is full of stupid pseudo-scientific information spread by lobbies, that have deep pocket, and no other busines, much more than industry can afford with their PR dept. moreover those blessed lobbies can use benevolent workforce and press to spread the lies, and when they buy a media like BBC, or push journalist to lie, nobody will blame them, unlike industry. cold fusion suffer from bias, having no friendly lobby to protect it, but is less political. hopefully. I am just afraid that the big lobbies try to block LENR because it is a risk for their agenda on renewable energy, and reduction of consumption . 2012/1/29 Mark Goldes <mgol...@chavaenergy.com> > Scott, > > You are on target. See 400 Chernobyls? at www.aesopinstitute.org > > The death toll from Chernobyl is now estimated at close to 1 million. This > is from a relatively recent study that includes extensive papers in Eastern > European languages little taken into account previously. The study has met > the same reaction from the nuclear community that cold fusion has > experienced from the physicists. > > Mark > > > ________________________________________ > From: Wm. Scott Smith [scott...@hotmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 3:38 PM > To: uniqueprodu...@comcast.net; vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: [Vo]:EMP & Standard N Reactors > > I am not opposed to nuclear power: I am opposed to building anything that > does not have an acceptable failure mode--a failure mode that is acceptable > despite any remotely conceivable human error or sabotage. > > If a Solar Flare Induced enough of a surge to burn telegraph wires in > 1859, that does not bode well for have a power system at all for many > months, probably years when history finally repeats itself. > > The US Nuclear Regulatory commission issued a report right after > Fukushima; it said that all of our nuclear power plants are fine in a power > failure, as long as outside power is restored to them within a day. This > assumes that the diesel generators function. ---But will any > instrumentation or control circuits be left? Have these plants and all > critical components been hardened against emp? We all "know" that they > "must be prepared!" but then . . . the Japanese thought they knew that > their reactors could withstand all possible earthquakes and tsunamis. > > Visualize every nuclear reactor on Earth "Going Fuku" at the same time!!! > > Scott > > ________________________________ > From: uniqueprodu...@comcast.net > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: FW: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective > Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:09:15 -0600 > > Agree. It is these unjustified upper limits on radiation and chemical > toxins that put huge undue costs on society. Cancer risks are lower with > hormetic levels of radiation, optimized at no less than 100 mSv/yr. 100 to > 1000 mSv spread over the year's time stimulates the immune and DNA repair > mechanisms, reduces neoplasms. Higher radon levels in house reduces (!) > lung cancer incidences. > http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf > http://radiationhormesis.vpinf.com/ has links > > Whether LENR turns out to be more economic than fission plants will be > seen. The small modular buried fission plants coming up are more costly per > KWh than traditional large fission plants, but can be located close to the > load in each city. These may have an important interim future (misguided > greens and reluctant regulators notwithstanding.) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alain Sepeda<mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 1:03 PM > Subject: Re: FW: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective > > where did you get that numbers. > probably bad usage of the false no threshold linear law, that green abuse > despite it is proved false since long. > > the estimated death toll, taking into account > - the fast response > - the facts that even the worst evacuated zone don't cause more tha > 30mSv/year and that small long term effect start from 200mSv fast dose for > adult, and 100mSv fast dose for kids > - the fact that only few workers get less than 1Sv (level where short > terme effet appears, better cured today that in the 50s), about 600mSv > - the fact that in tchernobyl the main health problem where family > violence, alcoolism, suicide, caused by stress of moving, and fear or > radiation, with a rate of 1000 suicide, plus violences... > - the fact that the main radiation death were 10-20% of the few hundred > suicide firemen that receive many Sv, yet survive (if you survive after 2 > month, the only risk then are cancer, but about 15%more cancer per sievert) > - then few of the thousands of kids with 131iode inudced thyroid cancer > (amplified by late evacuation, and malnutrition ) > is > 0 in the population because of radiation (no effect, even hormesis to be > expected) > 0.1 in the workers because of the cancer induced (1Sv induce 5% death by > cancer, 600mSv much less, few workers concerned) > many thousands of suicide because of traumatic syndrome, linked to > tsunami, death of all their family (28000 dead because of living near the > sea. we should shutdown the sea), forced evacuation and moving,loss of > their jobs and family history ans possesions... > many more thousands dead because alcoholism and family violence. > > maybe the death toll, of fukushima but much even more of the tsunami, > could be reduced by cleaning the zone, occupying the victims in that big > heroic mission, and then letting them settle back when they feel safe. > it seems to be what they are doing, cleaning , measuring dose, even > thinking about robotized farming in the tsunami washed zone. > when numbers will be published people will understand that the fear is > over... > > anyway nuke will be dead, because lenr is cheaper. > > sorry to be rough, but here we can talk of scientific data rejected by the > media, yet validated by peer review. > > > 2012/1/28 Mark Goldes <mgol...@chavaenergy.com<mailto: > mgol...@chavaenergy.com>> > > ________________________________________ > From: Mark Goldes > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 9:55 AM > To: Yamali Yamali > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective > > The eventual death toll from Fukushima is estimated to reach as high as > one million. The Northern Lights are particularly beautiful lately for a > little recognized reason. Here are some comments from the nuclear scientist > who publishes pissinontheroses.com<http://pissinontheroses.com> > > "The recent solar event will interact with high atomic weight fallout > (both radioactive and NON-radioactive) in the upper atmosphere and produce > a witches' brew of new radioactive fallout via nuclear spallation > processes.” > > "Experts" are starting to get a glimpse into how little they know about > the witches' brew coming out of Fukushima. Today's revelation is that > FukushimaUranium is forming Bucky Balls via the action of salt water. > > So what is so bad about Radioactive Uranium Bucky balls? Well, picture > some one throwing very fine, non caking, radioactive "talcum powder" into > the air; that in essence is the outcome of this finding. > > But it gets worse, imagine that radioactive "talcum powder" behaving and > dispersing the exact same way when thrown into the water. > > But it gets worse, notice in the picture above that the Buck Ball is > actually a cage, now picture plutonium atoms trapped inside that cage. > > But it gets worse, now picture how much greater a target these Bucky Balls > are for spallation in the upper atmosphere. > > What this finding means is that ALL the dispersion models are wrong, and > NOT in the good way. It also means that the internal impact and damage from > inhaling or consuming these particles is far greater than would otherwise > be expected. However, don't expect the "it's safe" mantra to change. > > If you want to even begin to have an idea how bad this situation is, > Google the medical effects of Nano Particles(and remember they are > discussing NON-Radioactive nano-particles) > > Mark > > ______________________________________ > From: Yamali Yamali [yamaliyam...@yahoo.de<mailto:yamaliyam...@yahoo.de>] > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 2:47 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Putting the nuclear debate into perspective > > Sorry - answered to the wrong mail at first. > > > the standby diesel generators depend upon the grid > > They don't. The whole point about diesel backup power is that the grid > might be unavailable. Fukujima happened because the diesels were damaged > (strange idea, in hindsight, to place them so close and relatively > unprotected to the waterline) and they shut down the nuclear reactors > rather than leaving them running to provide power for continuous operation. > But I see Jed's point about feasability in general. Human error will always > happen and can never be ruled out - so sooner or later something like this > is bound to happen again. It'll be slightly different, of course, and the > lessons learned will be different, but eventually it'll happen. > > The thing I don't like about the nuclear discussion is that its often > totally out of perspective. People talk about Fukujima (which, afaik, > didn't cause any deaths) and forget the earthquake itself. I got in a > discussion about nuclear energy recently with somebody who's major argument > was that "20.000 dead people in Japan are enough". She seriously thought > they were caused by radiation rather than water or fallen ceilings. > > Our government ordered a "stress test" on all our plants (in Germany > they're all along streams rather than the coast) in the aftermath of > Fukujima. One of the scenarios was the simulation of a quake causing a > broken dam upstream from a plant. They did fairly well in the simulation - > but the point is that the worst case scenario would still have caused more > than a million deaths. All from the tidal wave washing downstream through > narrow, densly populated valleys - none from radiation. Yet the conclusion > was to get rid of nukes as fast as possible and (counter intuitively) > subsidize alternatives like building more nice green and politically > correct dams and large pump hydro storage plants... oh well. > > >
