Those who, like me, have been increasingly frustrated by the prevailing flavour of reassurance, and the serious absence of facts, around the Fukushima story, may enjoy the response to George Monbiot from Helen Caldicott.
. Tweet
13 April 2011
Take that, George!
Those who, like me, have been increasingly frustrated by the prevailing flavour of reassurance, and the serious absence of facts, around the Fukushima story, may enjoy the response to George Monbiot from Helen Caldicott.
. Tweet
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Those who, like me, would rather these debates were based on hard science would like to suggest a read of this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/apr/13/anti-nuclear-lobby-interrogate-beliefs
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what George's article in the Guardian has to do with 'hard science'. Having worked in this field for ten years, I was most unimpressed by most of the papers come from the many scientists supported by the nuclear industry. The basic health model on which this 'hard science' is based pre-dates the discovery of DNA and has not been revised. In an area where truth is subject to so much political pressure it seems rather naive to rely on the unbiased nature of scientists. I saw them at work during a conference to assess the health effects from Chernobyl 15 years on, in Kiev in 2001. Apparently all excess cancers were caused by radiophobia. The scientists who are not paid by the nuclear industry have created their own model via the European Committee on Radiation Risk: http://www.euradcom.org/
ReplyDelete