Not a single comment here RE this is the last day to comment to the NRC on the monsters who propose hormesis to replace LNT
DEADLINE IS TODAY
If you have already commented, let me know. Otherwise let me know if you are commenting today.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0086
There is no evidence its bad for you either. LNT is ludicrous because it basically says the only way to stay dry is to stay out of the rain metaphorically. However we know a little wet does no harm. Now we are exposed all the time to all kinds of sources and nuclear interactions just for living. They are calling my flight. This jet set nukist going to another stop. Follow the bouncing IP.
ReplyDeleteYo asshat, plenty of evidence that low dose causes cancers and other diseases.
DeleteLNT says "zero" so at what exposure does "non zero" as proven, begin?
DeleteLNT says "zero" so at what exposure does "non zero" as proven, begin?
DeleteSupralinear nukist, repeated attacks are often worse than 1 large attack.
DeleteNot proven either. Youre making the greater ckain so Hitchens Razor says the onus is on you.
DeleteIts about dose level, not about a fictitious single stray radioactive particle that is about 1e-25 gm that you cant even measure or even observe. Its about what you can observe, report, and repeat. Its called "the scientific method". Bad epidemiology doesnt equal good science. Think overall dose effect. No cancer patient was ever diagnosed with the cause as a single radioactive particle. Maybe 1e16 particles interacting aggregately, but not the single stray particle confirmed as the cause. Heck Gofman, Sternglass, Petkau never developed experiments isolating the presumed and confirned deletetious effects of the single stray radioactive atom. The "No safe dosers" can pound sand.
DeleteIts about dose level, not about a fictitious single stray radioactive particle that is about 1e-25 gm that you cant even measure or even observe. Its about what you can observe, report, and repeat. Its called "the scientific method". Bad epidemiology doesnt equal good science. Think overall dose effect. No cancer patient was ever diagnosed with the cause as a single radioactive particle. Maybe 1e16 particles interacting aggregately, but not the single stray particle confirmed as the cause. Heck Gofman, Sternglass, Petkau never developed experiments isolating the presumed and confirned deletetious effects of the single stray radioactive atom. The "No safe dosers" can pound sand.
DeleteAbsolutely no evidence. What are you defining as "low"? Be careful here and include uncertainty analysis.
ReplyDelete4mSV cumulative, asshat
DeleteYou're fucking retarded.
DeleteRat farmers that believe LNT and "no safe dose" are the real doofuses.
DeleteRat farmers that believe LNT and "no safe dose" are the real doofuses.
Delete4 mSv cumulative lol youre joking right? Name the single confirmed human being that was diagnosed with cancer as a direct result of this kess than average background cumulative dose and no other cause. No other cause. You cant because anyone diagnosed with cancer received this dose from their mothers before they were even born. And many lived to be 80, 90, over 100 yrs old. Stochastic risk even using the 5e-3/Sv-yr LNT would say over 50% of humanity succumbs to 4mSv as the cumulative dose of the average human is well over 1 Sv over their lifetime! Many millions of confounders and you seemed to isolate it. See you in Oslo as you pick up that Nobel Prize. Hilarious.
Delete4 mSv cumulative lol youre joking right? Name the single confirmed human being that was diagnosed with cancer as a direct result of this kess than average background cumulative dose and no other cause. No other cause. You cant because anyone diagnosed with cancer received this dose from their mothers before they were even born. And many lived to be 80, 90, over 100 yrs old. Stochastic risk even using the 5e-3/Sv-yr LNT would say over 50% of humanity succumbs to 4mSv as the cumulative dose of the average human is well over 1 Sv over their lifetime! Many millions of confounders and you seemed to isolate it. See you in Oslo as you pick up that Nobel Prize. Hilarious.
Delete4mSv isnt a deadly dose. You flunked radiation health effects. If 4mSv were deadly then no one would survive normal background or routine medical procedures. Not enough epidemiology confirms your assertion even when you neglect uncertainty. Bad form for someone who claims training ib engibeering albeit nit nuclear. You admit anything below 4mSv hasnt been confirmed. LNT disproved by your own admission. Bazinga!
ReplyDelete"4mSv isnt a deadly dose."
DeleteNobody claimed the opposite, but epidemiology shows that the risk of getting cancer increases.
"Name the single confirmed human being that was diagnosed with cancer as a direct result of this less than average background cumulative dose and no other cause."
You know full well that this direct proof is impossible, if only by the fact that the radiation energy doing the damage would be absorbed in the tissue and not get detected. Because everyone else knows that too, your request is plain nonsense. Instead, epidemiological studies involve a large number of people including control groups of various kinds to come up with statistical evidence.
If you continue to claim that radiation does not cause cancer, you should also expose yourself to any other carcinogen of your choice, because the carcinogenic effect of these toxins were studied in the same manner.
Selectively bashing cancer epidemiology with regard to ionizing radiation shows a great deal of cognitive dissonance or scientific dishonesty.
Marcel Leutenegger
Well said Marcel, cog dis is the best that could be said of the radiation promoting "entity"
DeleteThe statement "Radiation causes cancer" is nebulous. Im after the "how much", which you and all the other antis dont quantify. There is ideology and science. The two are mutually exclusive. When are you going to start talking commom sense and not ideology?
Delete4mSv isnt a deadly dose. You flunked radiation health effects. If 4mSv were deadly then no one would survive normal background or routine medical procedures. Not enough epidemiology confirms your assertion even when you neglect uncertainty. Bad form for someone who claims training ib engibeering albeit nit nuclear. You admit anything below 4mSv hasnt been confirmed. LNT disproved by your own admission. Bazinga!
ReplyDeleteLOL I feel so powerful, being able to disprove LNT by a single typed sentence, WOW, you nukist better take care, if I find you been creepin' round my backscatter.
DeleteBut in terms of the 4mSV showing statisictically significant increase in cancer, this study was done on 300,000 people. It is powerful.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/01/statistical-proof-that-low-dose.html
You really dont disprove LNT when you buy into the 4mSv threshold for risk. To disprove LNT you have to let go of your analysis that uses xx/Sv-yr to estimate stochastic risk, where the slope of the line is xx you use derived fron LNT.
DeleteBut you dont see the inconsistency or false logic. You cant have it both ways. By rejecting LNT you reject the millions of virtual deaths derived from the slope of the line using LNT.
You practically prove my point.
Its really not at all powerful because if it were, it would be adopted as policy. Here you are reiterating point. Statistics without uncertainty is no better than monkeys picking stocks to invest.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/4/720
You need to really consider the quality of your sources. "Peer review" just isnt enough. Ideas have to be vetted by those that really have the power. And buddy, sorry but thats not you or up to you to decide. Why do you think the ECRR squawks alot about ICRP?
Its like Rex Ryans post game interview last night on how the Buffalo Bills, who lost to the undefeated defending Super Bowl champs New England Patriots. Rex said "They are the best and we are not there".
Now the difference is that Rex knows his team isnt the same caliber.
Antinukes, biased epidemiologists, and the ECRR dont know that they dont know. And thats the sad reality of your position.
As much as you would like to believe it, and latch on to it, psychologically you know its a fatal flaw in your reasoning.
Else it would stand up to vetting by a formally trained discipline such ad mine.
The difference is that while I am paid for my high degree of expertise, you may cry foul. Yet I am paid because of my expertise, and not because I tow any company or industry line. I am all about worker and public safety. And I have a bar to judge what situations pose undue risk to the public. Fukushima and all past nuclear accidents are largely industrial mishaps and they dont rise to the massive virtual or stochastic casualties you assert.
Prof Wilson at Harvard agrees with my position. Yablokov has the ear of Caldicott and Gundersen and antinukes but thats about it.
Their message doesnt resonate past their own constituency.
Your claims of expertise are not valid here. Doxy yourself... give us your real creds... hmm then we will KNOW who we are listening too right? Why is your authority the highest... I also believe, wholeheartedly, that you cannot truly believe yourself to be "all about worker and public safety" and still remain in the camp you adhere to without being certifiable (insane). Those are irreconcilable positions...kinda like saying you will murder us for our safety...
ReplyDeleteIm not going to identify myself because there are people like Durnford and Blanch and others who would see harm to my family. I never said my authority is highest. That belongs to The One. I do believe my knowledge in this subject matter is superior to the "Toxic at the atomic level" and "no safe dose" ideologues. Im not here to debate your personal ideology. Just give me facts of explicit proven causal effects to a specific person from non lethal acute exposures which are clearly known and documented. Dont come at me with "babies born without brains" blaming it on nuclear. Because you make the higher claim, Hitchens Razor says its on you to prove. And its not what you believe that counts, its what you can prove, and defend to those that are more knowledgeable than I.
Delete