Radiating fear

Be the 1st to vote.

I doubt this report is accurate in any way, but I do believe the premise. The only thing radiating from or Chernobyl is fear and the smoke from burning tax dollars. I vote nuclear (unclear) the most dangerous to emerge in the last 111 years.

The most current analysis estimates that, out of 10,929 people in the exposed population who have died of cancer, only 527 of those deaths were caused by radiation from the atomic bombs. For the entire population exposed, in many cases to extremely high levels of radiation, that’s an excess cancer mortality rate of about two-thirds of 1 percent.

via Fear vs. Radiation – The Mismatch – NYTimes.com.

h/t Johan Backes in chat.fakeologist.com

No tags for this post.

2 thoughts on “Radiating fear

  1. tsisageya

    I’m thinking that THEY have won. FEARFEARFEARFEARFEAR. We can’t even crawl under our school desks.

    Whatever will you MEN do? PanicPanicPanicPanic

  2. elbuggo

    Definitely, the scare is really dangerous, the radiation, not necessary so. One example from the Chernobyl scare:

    “In Greece, following the accident there was panic and false rumors which led to many obstetricians initially thinking it prudent to interrupt otherwise wanted pregnancies and/or were unable to resist requests from worried pregnant mothers over fears of radiation, within a few weeks misconceptions within the medical profession were largely cleared up, although worries persisted in the general population. Although it was determined that the effective dose to Greeks would not exceed 1 mSv (0.1 rem), a dose much lower than that which could induce embryonic abnormalities or other non-stochastic effects, there was an observed 2500 excess of otherwise wanted pregnancies being terminated, probably out of fear in the mother of some kind of perceived radiation risk”

    The root of this scare is the Linear No-Threshold model. Very important to understand how that idea was born:

    The linear no-threshold hypothesis was accepted in 1959 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) as a philosophical basis for radiological protection . This decision was based on the first report of the, then just established, UNSCEAR committee . Large part of this report was dedicated to a discussion of linearity and of the threshold dose for adverse radiation effects. UNSCEAR’s stand on this subject, more than forty years ago, was formed after an in-depth debate, not however without any influence of the political atmosphere and issues of the time. Soviet, Czechoslovakian and Egyptian delegations to UNSCEAR strongly supported the LNT assumption, using it as a basis for recommendation of an immediate cessation of nuclear test explosions. The then prevailing target theory and the then new results of genetic experiments with fruit flies irradiated with high doses and dose rates, strongly influenced this debate. In 1958 UNSCEAR stated that contamination of the environment by nuclear explosions increase radiation levels all over the world, posing new and unknown hazards for the present and future generations. These hazards cannot be controlled and “even the smallest amounts of radiation are liable to cause deleterious genetic, and perhaps also somatic, effects“. This sentence had an enormous impact in the next decades, being repeated in a plethora of publications, and taken even now as an article of faith by the public. However, throughout the whole 1958 report, the original UNSCEAR view on LNT remained ambivalent. At example, UNSCEAR accepted as a threshold for leukemia a dose of 4000 mSv (page 42), but at the same time the committee accepted the risk factor for leukemia of 0.52% per 1000 mSv, assuming LNT (page 115). Committee quite openly presented this difficulty, showing in one table (page 42) its consequences: continuation of nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere was estimated to cause 60,000 leukemia cases worldwide if no threshold is assumed, and zero leukemia cases if a threshold of 4000 mSv exists. In final conclusions the UNSCEAR pinpointed this situation:
    “Linearity has been assumed primarily for purposes of simplicity”,;
    and “There may or may not be a threshold dose. Two possibilities of threshold and no-threshold have been retained because of the very great differences they engender”.
    In the ICRP document of 1959 no such controversy appears, LNT was arbitrarily assumed, and serious epistemological problems related to impossibility of finding harmful effects at very low levels of radiation {later discussed by and } were ignored. Over the years the working assumption of ICRP of 1959 came to be regarded as a scientifically documented fact by mass media, public opinion and even many scientists. The LNT principle, however, belongs to the realm of administration and is not a scientific principle.

    VIDEO (example): Alex Cannara – Linear No-Threshold Radiation Lies: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB22cR…

    Lots of good stuff here on radiation and health by Zbigniew Jaworowski. Anyone that is suffering from Radiophobia should at least read this: www.21stcenturysciencetech.com…

    Health Nuts should maybe look into Radiation Hormesis. We CAN NOT rule out that effect – small doses may have positive health effects.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.