However today the government's Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (Comare) said there was no evidence that it was the nuclear power plants themselves which were behind the increase.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/30/childhood-leukaemia-probably-caused-by-mystery-virus-raising-hop/
Instead, they said it was more likely that the large influx of people who moved to areas to staff the plants had brought in viruses, which had triggered cancer in local populations.
stock here.....really, they said that in the article. About 600 workers man a typical nuke plant.
Does that happen around coal plants? Around gas fired plants?
Around Wal-Mart stores?
And then they unabashedly play the "vaccine" card. As if they don't even know of the general public's greatly increased knowledge of the dangers of vaccines?
They amazingly point out the reality....they both lie about the amount of radiation released AND have an incorrect "dose model".
Many people believe that since radiation causes cancer, then the cluster of cases surrounding the plant must be linked. But the emissions from the plant were too small to account for the cluster.
Then here is a pot shot at hormesis: They neglect the fact that nuke workers get paid a crapload of money.
In 2006 the committee said it had found increased clusters in wealthier areas, and suggested that the link could be caused because children brought up in cleaner environments have weaker immune systems.
This is how they handle nuclear waste in the UK--they didn't even bother to cleanup, they just walked away.
There is no reason or proof to blame nuclear. Just pot shot theories. Nothing more. Confounders. They are real, and you havent acknowledged othe, more plausible explanations.
ReplyDeleteThe classic lie "you can't prove it" even though it was proven.
DeleteIt wasnt proven. That's propaganda youre spouting.
ReplyDeleteLoose Nuke is so full of it. Science does show that children in vicinity of nuclear plants ARE prone to leukaemia: "For all leukaemia combined, there is a statistically significanttrend for 1/(distance in km)..." alfred-koerblein.de/cancer/downloads/Kaatsch P_IJC_2008.pdf
ReplyDeleteYou cant use cherry picking statistics ala Mangano. Lots of explanations. Cancer rates near high voltage transmission lines, chemical clusters from other industries. Lots of confounders. NRC dropped their study to NSF because it just wont be anywhere near conclusive. That German report is rubbish too. Go figure Germany. Bias.
DeleteRadiation effects outside a power plant are benign. The rad levels are too low for any statistical meaning. No study regarding any uncertainty has confirmed what you state. Only antinuke junk science.
DeleteIdiotic Germans.
DeleteThere is no question of increased rates of radiation linked diseases ...up to 20 fold in the vicinity of nuclear installations. This is undisputed. What is disputed by the nuclear industry is the cause. And yet the industry runs a Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases for its own workforce. Last year 30 workers wanted to be compensated for radiation linked diseases as a result of working in the industry. £Millions have been paid out to workers. Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteTY Marianne
Delete