The single most articulate and passionate advocate of citizen action to remedy the nuclear and environmental crises, Dr Helen Caldicott, has devoted the last forty two years to an international campaign to educate the public about the medical hazards of the nuclear age and the necessary changes in human behaviour needed to stop environmental destruction.
Born in Melbourne, Australia in 1938, Dr. Caldicott received her medical degree from the University of Adelaide Medical School in 1961. She founded the Cystic Fibrosis Clinic at the Adelaide Children’s Hospital in 1975 and subsequently was an instructor in pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and on the staff of the Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Boston, Mass., until 1980 when she resigned to work full time on the prevention of nuclear war.
In 1971, Dr Caldicott played a major role in Australia’s opposition to French atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific; in 1975 she worked with the Australian trade unions to educate their members about the medical dangers of the nuclear fuel cycle, with particular reference to uranium mining.
Dr Caldicott has received many prizes and awards for her work, including the Lannan Foundation’s 2003 Prize for Cultural Freedom and twenty one honorary doctoral degrees. She was personally nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Linus Pauling – himself a Nobel Laureate. The Smithsonian has named Dr Caldicott as one of the most influential women of the 20th Century. She has written for numerous publications and has authored seven books. It’s undeniable, Caldicott knows what she’s talking about with regards to the nuclear crisis at hand.
The video is from 2011, and it showcases Caldicott’s dire warning about the Fukushima disaster. Her speech presents the crisis in clear light, giving no sugar-coating to the current rug-swept topic.
It’s time for us to stop denying our environmental and social responsibility. We cannot coin Fukushima information as “fear mongering” any longer. The message needs to get out to as many people as possible so that we can come together with a solution that, at the very least, slows any further damage from occurring.
Remember that we have the power to mitigate this situation. The first step to any great change is mass awareness.
[youtube id=”eMmaduq-5bw#t=16″]
Source:
http://www.helencaldicott.com/
Caldicott’s bread is buttered by the greens: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world
The sources mentioned that try to debunk Caldicott’s claims are pretty hard to trust…especially that branch of the UN. The fact that that one professor worked for Unscear during Chernobyl makes me question his conclusions even more…..I don’t think you can deny a cover up of information with regards to Fukushima, or an attempt to. They did it with Chernobyl, and this crisis was much much bigger….I would trust Caldicott over Unscear any day, but that’s just my opinion.
And… so what? You prefer to trust scientists whose cake is iced by the nuclear energy industry?
No Pelirrojo: i prefer to trust nuclear physics, data and the answers to logical questions. The biological effect of ionizing radiation is relative to the proximity, power, type and duration of exposure. type of radiation and half life of the isotope is also a concern. Fukashima is 5000 + miles away. Do the math. The Atmospheric testing the USA did in the Nevada and Utah deserts were 20x closer, yet nobody gets their panties in a twist over that.
Aftermath of the ‘Tests’ we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also closely studied, and the data is available to all. How is it that those cities and their people are thriving today when alarmists claim lesser events lead to worse outcomes?
Could it be that Japan’s lack of panic and urgency is because they have first-hand knowledge and experience with nuclear disasters?
Perhaps you could avail yourself to the PBS nature program “Radioactive Wolves” where the evacuated area around Chernobyl has become a natural wonderland for animals while ignoring that it is ‘too dangerous
for people. PBS camera crews excepted.
Google ‘Chernobyl wilderness’ for many lessons in irony.
It all leads one to believe Helen Caldicott makes it up as she goes. And we should be asking who is paying her to do so.
But who pays you, Willy? I believe Helen, she is not making anything up. The facts and the results of humans dabbling in nuclear energy is evident to any intelligent human who cares about other humans, to see. Open your eyes.
Mary: No-one pays me, I just dislike tiny bits of fact blown up into disaster stories like Helen’s. How do you explain the irony of the PBS show “Nuclear Wolves?” How do you explain the thriving cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in light of Helen’s claimed 600 years of doom and gloom? How do you explain the claim that Fukashima caused babies to have problems 5000 miles from the source when the best protection against radiation is distance?
There are just to many glaring inconsistencies to take here seriously except for her anti-war stance. War is up close and personal. But as far as methods of killing: I see no difference in dying from an atmospheric nuclear burst over Nagasaki vs firebombing like we did in Tokyo and Dresden GE. That said, nukes are cheap compared to the alternative.
Mary: Who pays you?
Why do yoiu believe Helen?
What proof do you have that Helen does not make it up?
The facts and results of humans dabbling in any area of technology, medicine, food preservation and storage, sanitation etc are evident to any intelligent human. Open your eyes: It’s all good!
Compared to medical malpractice, errors in food preservation and storage, car crashes, poor sanitation etc, where are the bodies associated with nuclear power?
You are creating your own monster under your bed. Get educated, stop scaring yourself and other uneducated people.
You are very kind. The tragedy of our civilization is that for most people, their god is Power, Pleasure and Money. They forget that only our noble actions will transcend in a positive way, and that that action will be the only ones able to accompany us after death. It would be very useful to spread the fact that only our noble actions will transcend with us forever. These messages are supported by all Sacred Books. It is very important for us to know the great contradictions in the Sacred books and mainly to understand and develop all the suggestion they give to us in order we may have a Life with really transcendent meaning, which will let us arrive to plenitude of being and existing forever in the Plenitude of “the One Who Gave us Life” more known as Jehovah, God or Alhah. Please, if you like this effort, send this site to everybody. Find this book free on: http://www.monografias.com/trabajos98/sacred-contradictions/sacred-contradictions.shtml Please know the unified suggestions all sacred books give us in order to arrive to Plenitude in God forever on http://t.co/f5SOSaHE3B I am 77 years old, I would like your company be the owner of my effort, so when I die my effort to help people does not stop. Sincerely I write as Paul Hertre
We need to be ready for the aftereffects of this fukushima melt down. Fortunately, there are still some things we can do locally to protect ourselves and our family, and maybe even help our oceans recover. We do need to stop using this dangerous energy source as soon as possible. Life on our planet depends on it! http://scienceray.com/biology/human-biology/nuclear-radiation-survival-guide/
Hugo: Is the link you provide yours? It’s a marketing site for anti-radiation berries and bark, which won’t work against external radiation sources.
Denial of the monster under your bed does not make the monster go away.
If nuclear alarmism is the monster under the bed; and If said monster is of your own creation/imagination; isn’t denial the perfect way to make it go away?
I have always felt that nuclear power was a ruse, after all when they first started to build these plants “the electricity would be too cheap to meter”. I believe they were built to provide a fuel source for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Although I can offer no proof of such a claim, I could never understand why they would use such a dangerous method to boil water to turn a turbine. Any thoughts?
Weapons grade plutonium is not derived from power plants – President Carter – the nuclear sub captain turned politician – saw to that by making breeder reactors illegal
Becky: What do you mean “A ruse?” Nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants have nothing in common except the name: Different fuels, different technologies, different uses.
Nuclear weapons are both efficient and effective, a unique combination. We pay the military to be effective and don’t usually care about efficiency, but nobody complains about saving money, lives and materiel. For example, at the beginning of WWII in Europe it often took over a thousand B-17 bomber sorties with seven man crews to destroy and pacify a target, and survival rates were often less than 50%. By the end of WWII it took two nuclear weapons to pacify Japan, and we never had to invade it. That’s a huge leap in efficiency. Since then we have never used a nuclear weapon in anger, tho the threat has been there, and stockpiling a few thousand nukes is far cheaper and safer than millions of men working with all manner of conventional explosives. how do you explain 70 years of no accidental or intentional use of nuclear weapons? We cannot say that about any other weapon. none.
Nuclear power plants have the potential to be incredibly efficient, but we shoot ourselves in the foot by listening to the wrong people like Caldicott. Then legislators listen to the chicken littles and insist on more safety measures that drive up cost and usually have nothing to do with safety. The French make us look like fools by generating 75% of their electricity with nukes. Belgium and Slovakia are a close second and third. When was the last time they had an incident? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country It’s really sad that today we export nuclear power technology and prohibit new plant construction in the USA out of baseless ignorance. So sad!
There are countless ways to harness energy. Nuclear energy is risky as we’ve seen. We shouldn’t be polluting our oceans, air, land, and food with radiation or carbon emissions (Fukushima, Chernobyl. BP Oil Spill). We need a mass re-working of our energy harnessing industries.
On Caldicott’s 15 Dec 13 Facebook page she claims the USA should be ready for the fallout from Fukashima to reach the West Coast of the USA and Canada by mid- 2014.
Yet, CE has a ‘study’ claiming that babies have apparently been exposed to Fukashima fallout for years because they already have hyperthyroidism ’caused’ by the Fukashima fallout http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/16/fukushima-fallout-damages-thyroid-glands-of-california-babies/ .
Which is it?
Both cannot be true.
she’s odiously a nut. Her figures are well off and “Don’t eat European food?” American food is much more carcinogenic than European food. There are much more regulations in the EU. What is she talking about? Anyway, it’s bunk science. Read the facts
I can’t believe that a bunch of supposed intelligent people are having a hard time in the truth. Helen is an expert on the subject. Why would she paint a doom and gloom scenario of untruth. What would be gained from that ? There is a huge cover up and there is plenty to be gained by that by the right people. She is only trying to enlighten. This “stuff” , radiation, plutonium, nuclear waste, doesn’t just disappear. Like she said ,the life time of this ‘stuff’ is incredibly long. The reason why Europe is worse then the United States is from all of the wars over that way, from years and years, she said that in this statement. If you weren’t listening I will spell it out for you…depleted uranium weapons. We have been using them over seas for years. The way the United States government operates is nothing short of draconian tactics. There is no heart or soul in anything we do as a nation. Wake the hell up ! Quit living in a fantasy or denial. This to the people who have made comments here to debunk. Please go get your heads out of the sand . . . besides it is probably full of radiation !!! The fall out from our Nevada test sights have caused a huge amount of cancer throughout the Midwest. Do the research. South West North Dakota, very very high cancer rate. Explain that. And go find out the truth about Chernobyl. Everything she said about the babies in Iraq and Afgahnistan is true as well. Don’t listen to the debunkers in these comments, they are absolutely trying to mislead you with their (dis) info.
Mason: Helen is an expert? What are her qualifications? I find none, other than she has an opinion.
What would she gain from making up scare stories? For the same reason almost all religions have devils: We like to rally around ‘evil.’ But take the devil’s point of view and you’ll see he’s been framed.
Sadly, you parrot Helen and don’t appear to really know much about the subject of radiation, ionizing sources, fissile materials etc. Here’s a primer: Google ‘background radiation’ for a lightweight lesson in how radioactive the world really is. The cosmos constantly bombard the Earth with cosmic rays; the earth gives off various forms (the core of the earth is molten due to the nuclear furnace at our feet, and it vents radon and other particles thru gas seepage, guysers, volcanos, water wells, springs and fumaroles). Uranium is a ‘natural’ element. So is plutonium, but it isn’t as common: We don’t have plutonium mines per se.
Correct the above to read: We all like to rally around saviors.
An entire panel of experts don’t share your opinion.
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Without-End-Consequences-Catastrophe/dp/1595589600/ref=sr_1_13?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390141384&sr=1-13&keywords=helen+caldicott+books
Evans said : “An entire panel of experts don’t share your opinion. ”
How do you know? The book hasn’t been released yet!
Who is on said ‘panel’, and what are their qualifications? Is it a stacked deck, or evenly divided between pro-, anti and independent thinkers? Is it a debate forum, or people with canned speeches?
Caldicott called the same fora at the same place after the Chernobyl disaster, claiming over a million deaths and billions more to come. Neither are true.
Caldicott called the same fora at the same place after the Three Mile Island leak, claiming thousands of imminent deaths and millions more to come. Neither are true.
The woman doth protest too much. But she makes an excellent living at it.
Evans, Please don’t be be a member of the “our minds are made up, we’ll make up the ‘facts’ as we go” crowd. Be a skeptic of all things and ask for data and fact, not opinion and what some magician predicts will happen.
Willy you’re not that out of it are you? There are MANY types of KILLER CANCER radiation other than “BACKGROUND”! Google: types of radiation and get INFORMED
Stew: Your just babbling. Your composition is bad too. What is a killer cancer radiation?
Do you mean there are cancers killed by radiation? If so, I agree, nuclear medicine is a lifesaving tool.
Do you mean there are many kinds of radiation that cause cancer? If so you are wrong, there are only a few: ALPHA, BETA, GAMMA AND X-rays. (I assume we are talking ionizing forms. Sunlight, radio and radar are non-ionizing forms of radiation that can also cause cancer, or cook a meal).
Follow your own advice and get informed, not propagandized.
It is true that some forms of radiation are used in the healthcare field. However, the people who use those tools are very well protected because they are exposed to their deadly effects every day.
What scares me is that people are either accident prone or stupid and they believe they actually have control over the vast numbers of nuclear facilities around the globe and believe nothing bad will ever happen. And mother Earth is going to trump all of that in spades.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=caldecott+books&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=31421675205&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3407353541484616721&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_1db3lb3c89_b#/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=helen+caldicott+books&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Ahelen+caldicott+books
the long list of books Helen has written on the subject. And why would she spread disinformation or incorrect information, when part of her livelihood depended on her accuracy. Do YOUR research, who
Mason: The ability to write books gives neither credibility nor knowledge. In fact it gives an outlet to those who cannot work under he scientific method and use real science to find the truth. Book writers can ignore needs for data, all they need is to be convincing. The scientific method demands data; agreement with laws of physics, chemistry and mathematics. It doesn’t hurt that she feeds people’s fear of the unknown, and few people understand nuclear anything. People fear nuclear anything because they don’t understand it. James Watt ran into the identical problem with fear that his steam engine was the work of the devil. Probably promoted by horsemen hauling freight and millers grinding grain with water wheels. The less people understand a technology, the more easily they can be made to fear it.
If being a prolific writer gives credibility, read a tome called Mein Kampf by a little known writer named Adolf Hitler, probably one of the best communicators ever. What was his message? Ditto Paul Ehrlich and Rachel Carson: They wrote books loved by millions. Never mind that all of their predictions and conclusions were 100% wrong: They write convincing arguments and people follow them like messiahs, ignoring their blatant lies and half truths. Helen Caldicott falls in the same category.
Go to the link you provided and read the customer feedback of three or less. Some are incredibly articulate and use Caldicott’s own data to show how she cooked the books to make her arguments. They conclude she’s a fraud. I do to.
How do you know that Helen ‘speaks ‘in’ the truth?’
What do heart and soul have to do with the topic?
The sand is radioactive because all of the earth is. Do you have a point, or just ramble?
Nevada test ‘sights’ – do you mean ‘site’? How did ‘test sight’ radiation cause cancer in SW ND and not the states in between? Radiation and fallout is always strongest near the source, as are associated medical problems: How much Nuke ‘sight’ testing was done in SW ND?
Have you seen the PBS show on Nuclear Wolves? How do you explain the natural wonderland created by evacuating an area ‘too dangerous’ for humans?” How do you explain the thriving cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We detonated real nuclear weapons there. The problems were acute, then went away. How do explain that?
What part of the term ‘depleted’ uranium confuses you?
Do you know what DU was used for, by whom, or why? You and Helen make it appear the countryside was dusted with the stuff. It wasn’t.
The deformed Fallujah baby issue is interesting, but blaming it on DU without considering other factors is to blind yourself to other possible answers. Could Saddam’s use of chemical weapons be a factor? How about the effect of the UN blockade against importing medicine, food, sanitation engineering companies etc, or cooking over camel-dung and tar from oil wells. You and Helen choose to ignore more mundane answers. Indeed, one might verify the rate of deformities against other time frames and regions.
Fallujah wasn’t the only place where DU was used: What’s so special about that region?
Some of the deformities, like spina bifida and cleft palate are very common, so I invite you to do your research too.
Indeed, do your research Mason. The data doesn’t match the claims of Helen, or you.
Mason: You reveal much by saying “This “stuff” , radiation, plutonium, nuclear waste, doesn’t just disappear. Like she said ,the life time of this ‘stuff’ is incredibly long.”
First – radiation is instant – like light from a flashlight. It’s on, then it’s off. If it didn’t disappear where is it?
Plutonium: It has a half-life, just like every other fissile material. We evenly distributed about 4 kg of the stuff over Nagasaki and Hiroshima each. How are they doing vs the nuclear free zone of say, Detroit MI?
“Nuclear waste” lacks specifics, which tells me you are simply parroting Helen, who also lacks specifics. The planet Earth is technically nuclear waste left over from it’s creation, and the molten core is due to that waste.
‘Nuclear waste’ is a political term, not a scientific one. The law simply demands it. It is nuclear waste because some liberal arts graduate turned politician passed a law . One would think that the term might pertain to stuff that actually has radioactive particles or hunks of plutonium in it. ‘Tain’t so. It is predominantly protective clothing worn by nuclear workers, or their tools. If you tour of a nuclear facility you will wear this stuff, and it becomes ‘nuclear waste’ when you remove it. Today, if you visit Grandpaw’s radium watch in the dresser where you hide it from the feds you are supposed to wear tyvek suits and rubber gloves http://www.vintagewatchstraps.com/luminous.htm . If you fear Tyvek suits and rubber gloves by all means be my guest, but it’ll hardly kill anyone, let alone cause harm, and it’s half life is based on tyvek and rubber, not the Alpha and Beta particles lodged in a seam.
Here’s an irony: Air venting out of the earth has both Radon and Radium particles in it. Oil and gas drillers put filter socks over well heads and in gas lines to capture the particles. The law says they have to. But (until recently) the law didn’t declare the socks nuclear waste, so after they served their purpose, it was perfectly legal to toss them in the trash or ditch, clean windshields with them etc. But, they really do have nuclear material in them, about like Grandpaw’s radium watch.
So much to fear, so little time!
Ms. Caldicott is very much opposed to nuclear power, and her book is about her objections to nuclear power. She is certainly entitled to her opinion and her opposition to nuclear power.
However, as the late United States Senator and Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: “Everyone is entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts”.
On the first page of the introduction is the statement: “As this book will show, no part of “efficiently, safely, and with no discharge of greenhouse gases or emission” is true.”
The issues of nuclear efficiency and safety are addressed below.
Efficiency – Cost: Addressing the efficiency issue, I will assume that cost is related to efficiency. The US Energy Information Agency has provided cost estimates for the future, for plants entering service in 2018. The cost estimates include the cost to build the plant, and to operate the facility. The following data comes from that source. In this table, only the columns on type system, plant capacity and total system levelized cost are given. Omitted for simplicity are: Levelized capital cost, Fixed O&M, Variable O&M (including fuel), and Transmission investment.
Table 1. Estimated levelized cost of new generation resources,
2018 U.S. average levelized costs (2011 $/megawatthour) for plants entering service in 2018
Dispatchable Technologies
Conventional Coal 85%, 100.1;
Advanced Coal 85% 123.0;
Advanced Coal with CC 85% 135.5;
Natural Gas:
Conventional Combined Cycle 87% 67.1:
Advanced Combined Cycle 87% 56.6;
Advanced CC with CCS 87% 93.4;
Conventional Combustion Turbine 30% 130.3;
Advanced Combustion Turbine 30% 104.6;
Advanced Nuclear 90% 108.4;
Geothermal 92% 89.6;
Biomass 83% 111.0;
Non-Dispatchable Technologies;
Wind 34% 86.6:
Wind – Offshore 37% 221.5;
Solar PV 25% 144.3;
Solar Thermal 20% 261.5;
Hydro 52% 90.3.
There is another article on the web by the Breakthrough Institute titled:
“Cost of German Solar four times Finnish Nuclear”
subtitled: “Olkiluoto Nuclear Plant, Plagued by Budget Overruns, Still Beats Germany’s Energiewende
“Germany’s solar program will generate electricity at quadruple the cost of one of the most expensive nuclear power plants in the world, according to a new Breakthrough Institute analysis, raising serious questions about a renewable energy strategy widely heralded as a global model.
“The findings challenge the idea that solar photovoltaic is a disruptive, scalable, “shelf-ready” technology with a cost advantage over nuclear. Energy analysts frequently point to Finland’s advanced nuclear project at Olkiluoto, which is seven years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget, and solar in Germany as indicative of future cost trends working against new nuclear technologies and in favor of solar.
“Proponents of Germany’s Energiewende, which now involves jettisoning the country’s nuclear fleet by 2023, argue that solar and wind can make up the difference in lost capacity. A straightforward cost comparison between the two programs over the same 20-year period, however, reveals the costs of this proposition.
“The Finnish European pressurized reactor (EPR), with an estimated total cost of $15 billion, will generate over half as much energy as the entire existing German solar program, which will run to roughly $130 billion. The total cost of electricity produced by German solar will be 32 cents per kilowatt-hour versus 7 cents per kilowatt-hour for the Areva-Siemens nuclear plant in Finland — a more than four-fold difference. Two such nuclear plants would generate slightly more than Germany’s solar panels, at less than a fourth the total cost.”
SAFETY: Addressing just the safety issue, one common way to address system safety is by looking at the number of deaths. I am assuming that we all wish to have electricity in our society, and thus looking at the death rates associated with the different methods of generation of electricity appears appropriate. There is an article by Willem Post on the web at a site called Next Big Future from March 13, 2011 Deaths per TWH (Terawatt Hour) by energy source: (—nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source…)
“It says: Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources
“I wrote this back in 2008 and with one new death that is somewhat nuclear energy related (a death at one of the japanese nuclear plants following the 8.9 earthquake) the statistics are not changed. Japan should have had sealed backup diesel generators or updated some of their designs. However, nuclear still compares very, very well to the other energy sources. The air pollution data is mainly from the World Health Organization and the european study Externe. The World Health Organization compiled peer reviewed health studies on air pollution from many institutions. Occupational health and safety statistics track the deaths of workers in the different industries.
“Correction on the coal deaths per TWH for China.
“Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED
Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
Coal electricity- China 90
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
Nuclear 0.04
An interesting and informative book is: “Before it’s Too Late A Scientist’s Case for Nuclear Energy by Bernard L. Cohen written in 1983 which provides a good deal of still relevant information. Dr. Cohen was a professor of Physics at Univ of Pittsburgh. He was Chairman of the American Physical Society Division of Nuclear Physics and Chairman of the American Nuclear Society Division of Environmental Sciences. He wrote over 200 papers and articles for popular journals such as Science Digest, Consumer’s Research, Scientific American etc. He wrote three books. He tried very hard to educate Americans about nuclear power and how it could be a great benefit, and why. He addressed all of the hazards. He worked to get the media to cover the topic and offered them all the assistance he and others in the community could provide. Unfortunately, the media was not really interested in educating the American people, but rather was interested in sensationalism. The anti nuclear community had all of the sensationalism, and did not really care if what they said was the truth, but only cared that it was widely publicized. Dr. Cohen’s efforts to get out the rather boring facts were not of interest to the media, as the facts did not make for sensational headlines. Thus, he finally quit giving talks and wrote this very informative book. If you have an open mind and really want to understand the issues, “Before it’s Too Late” will help you to understand.
I really have nothing to say to anyone who advocates nuclear anyting.
Except that thing that you just said, silly goose.
Mason: Perhaps you’ll be cleaning out your end of the gene pool. Some day you or a loved one might need nuclear medicine to survive, such as an MRI (originally called an NMRI, but they dropped ‘nuclear’ from the name to keep fools from objecting to saving their lives. Perhaps you’ll remember it involves ‘nuclear’ stuff and you’ll decline it when the time comes.
Or PET/CT scans. Same thing: Nuclear baddies.
Or injectable radionucides used for a HIDA scan – more nuclear stuff – to image a clogged bile duct or diseased gallbladder. Dying from a clogged bile duct is second in pain only to dying of bone cancer, but I expect you’ll decline such treatment because it involves ‘nuclear’ stuff.
Or pellets injected to treat cancerous growths from within- like prostate cancer. Dying of bone cancer from metastasized prostate cancer is probably the most painful way to die there is. But of course you’ll decline preventative treatment because it involves nuclear stuff.
It’s ironic that we use Iodine-131 to treat hyperthyroidism and thyroid cancer, while Caldicott makes it out to be such an evil demon. If you insist on remaining ignorant while worshiping Lord Helen, be my guest. Maybe society will be better for the purge.
Ditto.
Why does it seem as if there are “nuclear experts” all over these comment section ready to debunk anything related to anti-nuclear sentiment. Are you guys paid to screen the internet for this stuff? I’ve been educating myself (or trying to as it is a complex issue to someone like me) on both sides of the argument and it just seems as if this is a political battle between those for an those against nuclear power. Who am I to believe? Do either side even have “humans” best interest in mind or is it all self-centered. I will make my own informed decision as to who/what/how to go on withy life regarding this issue. I suggest you do to. And you “specialists” egotistic nuclear experts should just stop trying to ram your scientific knowledge down people throats and telling them they are stupid for not understanding and that everything will be ok should just stop, you can’t guarantee that. Same for you fear mongerers. But IMHO, I’d rather be prepared than unprepared for a worse case scenario.
RofLADS: WRT ‘who you should believe’ depends on how important it is. It isn’t very difficult to understand the basic physics and biology of the effects of nuclear radiation. So google the topic, steer clear of those sites with an agenda and get educated. Studies of the aftereffects of bombing Horoshima are public documents, as are the ‘radium girls’ and uranium miners,, and background radiation. There’s nothing like data to base decisions on. Then you can draw your own conclusions or debate it with someone.
I am not a scientist but I do have a common sense question and comment or two…
Who in their right mind would build nuclear facilities in an earthquake zone…more specifically the Ring of Fire in the Pacific???
We do know that there is great concern over the 40+ year old facilities in the U.S. with their deteriorating infrastructure. This is a fact. When the floods were occurring in North Dakota, that water was flowing south to Nebraska where there is a facility that was in danger of becoming flooded. Hello…! The Missouri and Red River Valley system is a flood plain. Why build a facility right there?
Now, my apology for a second-hand comment…my husband had an ex-girlfriend whose father was a nuclear engineer. His job was to inspect facilities all around the country and even HE said there is no such thing as a safe nuclear facility!
I would rather be wrong about nuclear being unsafe, than
wrong about it being safe.
What is the half life of plutionium…. 500,000 years?
What were we doing 500,000 years ago?
Extinction is forever.
If your thinking about the future of the children your thinking
about having, don’t have them.
Nuclear is forever.
Duane: Cute! But dumb. Cars are unsafe, so are planes, trains and tall buildings, leggy blonds and cute redheads. But we live with the relative risk. Making something bad by innuendo is silly. The actual risk from nuclear is microscopic – See below for a comparison
Activities that increase chance of premature death
by 1 in a million
smoke 1.4 cigarettes (not per day — total!)
spend 2 days NYC (from air pollution, 1976)
spend 3 hours in a coal mine (accident)
travel 10 miles by bicycle (accident)
travel 300 miles car (accident)
travel 1000 miles by jet airplane (accident)
travel 6000 miles by jet airplane (cancer from cosmic rays)
Live 2 months in Denver (cancer from high average radiation)
live 2 months in stone or brick building (cancer from high average radiation)
take 1 chest x-ray (not counting the benefit of catching a disease)
eat 40 tablespoons Peanut Butter (cancer from aflatoxin)
live 2 months with a smoker
eat 100 charcoal-broiled steaks
drink 1 yr Miami water (chloroform H2O)
30 cans sacharine soda
live 5 years at boundary of US nuclear power plant (cancer from radiation)
live 20 years near PVC plant (cancer from vinyl chloride)
live 150 years at 20 miles from a nuclear power plant
live 5 miles from nuclear plant for 50 years (nuclear accident)
Source: http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old%20physics%2010/physics%2010%20notes/Risk.html
I assume you mean Plutonium? What does the half-life have to do with anything? Unless you are sitting near some it’s harmless.
What does extinction have to do with nuclear power? That’s a red herring.
Yes I am dyselxic. Disleqak deliqick
Your right nuclear waste is not a problem.
What was I thinking?
When reactor 4’s fuel tank collapses, if
and when it does there’s noting to worry
about.
Well there you go
Hey: How we coming with that collapse?
Willy, why r u so emotional about this issue? Ur side is winning and the rest of the world maybe not, so just just relax about it, ok?
Please point to where I’ve made an emotional argument. I’ve provided links and discussed how Caldicott is appealing to emotion using innuendo and insinuation. Yours is innuendo and insinuation. Who’s emotional?
Have you read the Closed Captions? They are complete gibberish. Did no one proofread this? People who need to view this silently, or who are deaf, are completely cut off from any sense of what is being discussed. Please fix.