Comments on Nuke Pro: LNT versus hormesis

Great comment. Fighting back against the lies o...

2015-07-14T08:45:35.900-07:00

Great comment. Fighting back against the lies of the nuclear cartel.

Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "The linear dose-respons...

2015-07-14T00:50:58.126-07:00

Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "The linear dose-response has been claimed to be correct for some fifty years. However, although they claim they believe it, nuclear scientists modify it for low dose and low dose rate (making it not really linear). For example, the Atomic bomb data would predict, by linear dose response, about 17 - 20 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sievert exposure to radiation. BEIR and UNSCEAR reduced this estimate by about 2 because of low dose effect, to about 10 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sievert. Then ICRP took the BEIR and UNSCEAR estimates and reduced them by 2 because of the slow dose rate, to 5 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sieverts, which is now used by the nuclear industry. This latter reduction is now 1.5 instead of 2, allowing for more deaths. In my opinion there is no scientific data on humans to support these two reductions from linear. There is some obscure lab data. Our studies showed the true curve to be supra(above) the linear."

Hormesis is a failed idea -- that a little bit of radiation is somehow a good thing. Failed idea that only gains any traction because the pro-nuclear folks would have you believe that radiation is 'not so lethal' all the time.

Herman J. Mueller, 1927 paper, 1946 Nobel, exposure to x rays causes breaks in the what we came to understand is DNA -- genetic mutations, in other words. Nothing good about genetic damage, is there?

"... there is no amount of radiation so small that it has no ill effects at all on anybody. There is actually no such thing as a minimum permissible dose. Perhaps we are talking about only a very small number of individual tragedies - the number of atomic age children with cancer, the new victims of leukemia, the damage to skin tissues here and reproductive systems there - perhaps these are too small to measure with statistics. But they nevertheless loom very large indeed in human and moral terms.

Radiation, in its simplest terms - figuratively, literally and chemically - is poison. Nuclear explosions in the atmosphere are slowly but progressively poisoning our air, our earth, our water and our food. And it falls, let us remember, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, on all peoples of all lands, regardless of their political ideology, their way of life, their religion or the color of their skin. Beneath this bombardment of radiation which man has created, all men are indeed equal."

~~~~~~~ John F. Kennedy (US President, Jan '61 – Nov '63) 1960

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/Milwaukee-WI_19600402-Wisconsin-Assoc-of-Student-Councils.aspx

2015 -- raising the levels of 'acceptable' exposure, trying to pass the idea that 100mSv is somehow safe or acceptable is nothing less than condoning premeditated murder. As Dr. John Gofman said:

“… If you pollute when you do know there is no safe dose with respect to causing extra cases of deadly cancers or heritable effects, you are committing premeditated random murder.”

– John W. Gofman, Ph.D., M.D. (1918-2007), associate director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1963-1969) — Comments on a Petition for Rulemaking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 21, 1994.”

Sheesh, the trolls really make it easy. Roll out...

2015-07-13T12:51:34.887-07:00

Sheesh, the trolls really make it easy. Roll out their whole lame playbook all at once.

wow that rattled the trolls cage a whole page of l...

2015-07-12T22:41:16.225-07:00

wow that rattled the trolls cage a whole page of lies

all docs for Comment to NRC LNT v Hormesis - last ...

2015-07-12T09:40:46.651-07:00

all docs for Comment to NRC LNT v Hormesis - last update afternoon 12 July https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7PbzAzkdGjNfjdCNUJnS1p2S29adVYzeUM4YTN5YlBXVjlhV2FMLTk3QmlVZWtGZi1QbUk Addendum A includes RadNet contractual information

At the end of the day, these are just models. No o...

2015-07-12T09:06:24.317-07:00

At the end of the day, these are just models. No one has published results of any effects just to the right hand side of zero. LNT is a hypothesis and the hypothesis has never been tested to the first instance of a recognized non zero dose level because the bar is arbitrary. We know from atom bomb victim data, now some 70+ years old, that there is a linear relationship for data down to an established 0.1 Sv acute level for deterministic consequences. We know acute is much more harmful than chronic. What we dont know is that as the exposure moves closer and closer to zero, that uncertainty and sensitivity becomes murky. There are literally trillions of confounder attributes that go unexamined. Most people who misuse LNT think of the old adage "the only way not to get wet is to stay our of the rain". The rest try to cobble lots of references to look for the smoking gun. Either way; LNT isnt science and makes for comparative risk policy. It will remainl a hypothesis that will never make the leap to fact because the actual number just to the right of zero will never be agreed upon. The "No Safe Dose" crowd will never admit to prove their claim, that life on this planet is tied to our natural radioactive makeup. You are either energy, matter, or in between at any one time. Jump into a whole body cpunter to see for yourself. We as organic beings are always wrestling with our radioactive selves. When you understand that, you will understand LNT is just a canard. You can erase this message, but it wont make LNT come true. You still have to live with your own radioactive make up. Your life clock has already been established by your very make up. It doesn't matter if you walk around in a lead bubble or eat organic, which is not zero radioactive. You cant get your exposure while on this planet to zero. The rain never stops.

Sweet, thank you, stock!!

2015-07-12T03:42:48.882-07:00

Sweet, thank you, stock!!