Comments on Nuke Pro: The Nuclear Cartel Lies, Always, And Here is One Of the Great Basic Lies

Lets be clear, you havent shown us your lic creds....

2016-03-17T13:23:18.824-07:00

Lets be clear, you havent shown us your lic creds. I believe you are shite. A fuckin pinhead using proxies.

Lets be clear, you havent shown us your lic creds....

2016-03-17T13:23:06.171-07:00

Lets be clear, you havent shown us your lic creds. I believe you are shite. A fuckin pinhead using proxies.

You go to med school to learn properly how to prac...

2016-03-07T21:07:13.440-08:00

You go to med school to learn properly how to practice medicine. There are imitators with less training, may even reading blogs and WebMD. Same,with lawyers. Professions such as nuclear engineering is no different. Often copied, never equalled. You think I was taught wrong? Take it up with ABET.

You go to med school to learn properly how to prac...

2016-03-07T21:06:48.461-08:00

2016-03-02T14:00:25.067-08:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

Post your joust to the rat farm and they ate it up...

2016-03-02T14:00:15.172-08:00

Post your joust to the rat farm and they ate it up. Blind leading blind.

2016-03-02T12:58:10.778-08:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

I didn't state a safe level. I stated a high l...

2016-03-02T12:57:53.735-08:00

I didn't state a safe level. I stated a high level, which by itself may or may not be dangerous by your own admission.

I can tell you don't have much experience in nuclear or radiation effects. You couldn't make a living off your knowledgel. Thus not really a valid pro.

2016-03-02T12:55:36.064-08:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

Since an operating fossil plant puts out more radi...

2016-03-02T12:54:43.360-08:00

Since an operating fossil plant puts out more radiation than an operating nuclear plant on a per kw/hr basis (as uranium and thorium are liberated when coal and other fossil is burned) then by your own admission, those responsible for fossil growth in this country are murderers. Since Zimmer was to be a nuclear plant, and antinukes had it converted to coal, that would make antinukes actually decreased facto nukists, and by your own definition, murderers.

By your definition anyone that put radiation in the environment a murderer. Since by your own admission you willfully threw away dinner plates that contained uranium in their material in the trash, you made,a human dump your trash to a landfill. This by your own admission makes you a murderer. Lol!

Also since you give out false information to people and they might mishandle a radiological source in their zeal to be citizen scientists, you would be a murderer there as well by your own admisdion.

You have probably indirectly caused the deaths of many people who handled toxic chemicals from fabricating and installing solar panels. The deaths/Tw are surprisingly larger for solar than nuclear. Thus that males you a serial murderer as well.

You history can't help there is blood on your hands.

Your first fig says about 10 rad acute is a high d...

2016-03-02T12:44:25.443-08:00

Your first fig says about 10 rad acute is a high dose. I would opine 100 rad is a high dose, the onset of some physical effects.

Of course target reactions to the same dose are different. I have you talking about dose, which is energy deposition. I think I won this argument.

Who did I murder? No one.

People are alive on earth because they survived a high radiation environment at the onset - From their mothers while in the womb.

No one murdered anyone with Fukushima radiation.

No one. Unless you believe tatal is true, which you said you dont.

0.1 Sv isn't a high dose compared to the onset of radiation effects at 1 Sv.

1 Sv acute is a high dose relative to the effect on a human and only those very close to a source get that. So they are either at a work site or getting a med treatment.

added Because there are large individual differenc...

2016-03-02T11:30:24.105-08:00

added
Because there are large individual differences in reaction to radiation, it cannot be said that what is good for the gander is good for any particular goose. What one particular individual, probably healthy, may tolerate quite well, may be a painful and costly death sentence for another person.

Having the arrogance to then state what is a safe level of radiation, is really just the willingness to be a murderer. Nukists are murderers.

In stating 9) you seem to want to bring credence t...

2016-03-02T10:43:35.530-08:00

In stating 9) you seem to want to bring credence to LNT and TATAL, which contradicts your earlier posts. You realize its the uncertainty that sinks your argument. You like to,shift the axis to allign with your belirfs, but its not a straight line. Its a probability distribution with first, second and higher moments. Maybe you should also look up the difference between TEDE and TED while you are at it and the evolution of those terms and how they are/are not to be applied in dose assessment methods. It seems you are at odds with the ICRP, and their work, not surprising since you have Busby hero worship. The ICRP approach allows for balances between risk and benefit to be ascertained and it is also conservative to maybe 3-4 orders of magnitude. You and others flinch when limits are raised yet those limits are absurdly low to begin.

Energy deposition doesn't ignore specific factors as you claim. Those are subsequent considerations. On the contrary, it's the starting point whereby source strengths are evaluated. You confuse source and target issues. Without the source, there is no target. Do you follow? The source strength of Fukushima to the ocean and it's chitin-bearing inhabitants is too low to consider target factors. It's about 1 millionth the strength of whats all ready there. It's like you having one dollar to my million and saying the addition of your dollar to my stack makes a difference. Do you get it? The source is too low to get worked up over, or are you reversing your stance on tatal?

If energy deposition were not important then there would be no need for time, distance, and shielding, the basics of radiation protection practice.

So go back to those links I provided and rework your numbers with realism. You can also use rules of thumb like C=6*En. You can find that on the Internet as well. You can also find many organizations dependent radiation weighting factors that have been validated to cancer risk metrics.

All this has been done for you, so that you or anyone can understand the relative risks for any particular energy deposition, or radiation doses model.

Bioaccumulation is also about energy deposition t...

2016-03-02T10:22:20.930-08:00

Bioaccumulation is also about energy deposition that propagates up a food chain or bio cycle. We learn about bioaccumulation early on in our studies, and how to predict it's effects over time , space, and many factors. Some nuclear professionals specialize in this area and environmental effects. You seem to want to lecture however what you state is very pedestrian in content. I'll file it under the "we all know that already can we get to the adult table now?"

I do dog you because you pass yourself off as an authority without validation. How does anyone know what you or other antinuke says is even valid? Statistics? Chitin? A billion chickens? Puhleeze. Give it a rest. It just further distances you from serious people who have devoted their lives in these matters and are themselves, validated.

It's arrogance on your part that you think yourself, Durnford, or any citizen "scientist" equal or better than Cullen, or Buesseler or anyone else for that matter. Data gathering isn't the end all as you seem to believe. Even Mangano and Busby pervert data to agree with their models. That's not science. More like science fiction.

You seem to want to list a litany of causal effect...

2016-03-02T10:10:23.447-08:00

You seem to want to list a litany of causal effects that in essence, is dependent on energy deposition as the initial precursor as I have maintained. Let me point out several things of importance so you don't go all half cooked down a path that is just subsequent to what I state from the get go. The primary understanding of radiation interactions with matter, whether that matter is animate or inanimate, or the very nature of the source, is immaterial to this discussion. For example, in #1 you intimate that somehow natural radiation is different than man made radiation. Everything man makes, also occurs in nature. The difference is in concentration and delivery frequency of energy packets or quanta of energy we call "radiation". The fact that Marie Curie received a very large doses from rocks she kept in her pocket is telling. You somehow want to suggest the gamma ray emitted from K40 in a banana is different than the gamma ray emitted from K40 in our bones. This is a fallacy as both sources emit the same strength gamma ray at the same frequency or rate of occurance. One of the great fallacies of antinuclear understanding of radiation interaction with matter is that they think one gamma ray from one isotope is different in characteristics than the same gamma emitted from another source. The error in their logic stems from giving naturally occurring radiation a free pass while demonizing man made radiation of the same type. Take plutonium for example. How many times have we heard that old tired meme that "plutonium is the most dangerous of all substances known to man and one micrograms will kill you". Well there is more than one micrograms in some pacemakers and the mere fact of its regularity in decay results in a very reliable power source to keep a person alive. Also, every isotope does occur in nature. It's just that man has devised machines and systems that concentrate that energy deposition.

I will contend, without energy deposition, all this bluster you put out is just that. Even the organ effect is about energy deposition. When you dive deep into a subject for nearly half a century, some fundamental truths are evident.

There is no damage without energy deposition. The degree of damage depends on many factors as you have only a cursory understanding. YET remove the fact that energy deposition, or the interaction of radiation with matter is of any consequence, and anything you state is moot.

People that work in nuclear are not doing a bad thing or "abusing atoms" as you put it just because they are involved in this activity. The very nature of the atom, and the energy deposition potential as noted by Einstein's pervasive E=mc^2 makes it all possible. We understand very well the risks associated with radiation interactions with matter. What you write about shows a fundamental lack of knowledge and appreciation for the good it brings to mankind. The application of the atom has saved countless billions of lives. It pretty much made world wars a thing of the past. It's enabled man to explore under sea and the furthest heavens.

Your beef with the application of the atom is no different than a beef with man's dalliance with fire, or chemistry.

In the end it's actually a beef against nature and God, if you believe in a Diety. So why are you angry nature is inherently radioactive?

The illogic of antinuclear understanding of radiation interaction with matter stems from a psychology no different than those prosecuting the Salem witch trials. In the end it is all about fear. And fear and ignorance seem to go together in many circles not just nuclear.

So what really are you afraid of?

Go for it Lucy Kuke

2016-03-02T08:38:55.535-08:00

Go for it Lucy Kuke

It's all about energy deposition. Without ener...

2016-03-02T08:16:57.845-08:00

It's all about energy deposition. Without energy deposition all your suppositions really don't matter. I can refute and embarrass you on each of your claims.