Comments on Nuke Pro: The EPA standing up for Citizens Health, Slaps Back at the Absurd NRC Proposal to Increase Our Radiation 100 Times

Loose Kook is emblematic of the pro-nuclear gangst...

2015-11-15T07:23:04.455-08:00

Loose Kook is emblematic of the pro-nuclear gangsters, who make a good salary polluting the environment and causing illness and death via nuclear energy and nuclear pollution.

Do you think Loose Kook signed this Petition :)

https://www.change.org/p/united-states-nuclear-regulatory-commission-protect-children-from-radiation-exposure

Loose Kook also loves to criticize ENENEWS and "stock" but can't seem to stay away from either of them, even though he embarrasses his beloved pro-nuclear- platform with his comments.

2015-11-13T12:41:49.560-08:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

Say what you want to say. I never said radiation b...

2015-11-13T12:41:08.043-08:00

Say what you want to say. I never said radiation below 0.1 Sv acute carried zero risk. The NRC was obliged to consider the petition in the sane vein they would consider Beyond Nuclears petitions. Talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars. They should charge Beyond Nuclear their going man-hour rate for even considering their positions. Now you know that the NRC or EPA wont use LNT to establish death estimates since that was never the intent if the hypothesis. And it remains a hypothesis because you can never really prove it. People drew the extrapolation based on a need to apply practical regulation. We know that low low accumulated dose is not cumulative in its effect just by the differences in cancer rates in high background cities that are counter intuitive. All you rat farmers have is your fringe site. The cult of the antunuke even justifies Dana's actions. Now thats the real kook.

Ya Loose Kook is really the poster boy for the fai...

2015-11-13T09:13:29.896-08:00

Ya Loose Kook is really the poster boy for the failing Nuke Industry. An ignorant savage spewing lies.

"Loose Kook" said: "NRC really had...

2015-11-12T18:04:01.005-08:00

"Loose Kook" said:

"NRC really had no intent to go against LNT as regulatory model. Thus this whole exercise was meant to bring the "no safe dosers" to their knees"

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. The NRC wouldn't have taken the Petitions on hormesis if they weren't serious about them; and they've wasted a lot of tax dollars in doing so.

The EPA showed exceptional common sense when they said:

"The EPA cannot endorse basing radiation protection on poorly supported and highly speculative proposals for dose thresholds or doubtful notions concerning protective effects from low-level ionizing radiation."

Repeat: "poorly supportive" "highly speculative" "doubtful notions"

Wasn't Loose Kook one of those who claimed there's no damage seen under 100 mSv .... even though a quick search over at the National Institute of Health website brings up hundreds of studies showing deleterious effects UNDER 100 mSv.

Loose Kook also said there are 100 plants being built worldwide. That's an exaggeration. The amount is around 70, but we'll see how many are cancelled due to exorbitant costs and delays.

Loose Kook also said he is trying to bring "real understanding to the masses" yet he hasn't even updated his knowledge on how dangerous radiation UNDER 100 mSv is.

OK you failed, go find a different venue.

2015-11-12T13:13:46.529-08:00

OK you failed, go find a different venue.

None of your stuff makes sense. Ive tried and trie...

2015-11-12T11:55:30.989-08:00

None of your stuff makes sense. Ive tried and tried to educate you in nuclear but you seem to go down your own rabbit hole, seeking your own "tipping point". I cannot assuage your irrational fear campaign. Im coming from the background of seasoned experience in these matters. Gundersen doesnt hold a candle to what I know or can do. I am continually updating my skill set. You know there is no short cut to subject mastery than real professional practice. You are a professional blogger I'll give you that. Im a professional nuclear engineer. There is a difference.

EPA say LNT for regulatory purposes and regulators are not in the business of determining or predicting deaths. You know this to be true. You also know the NRC really had no intent to go against LNT as regulatory model. Thus this whole exercise was meant to bring the "no safe dosers" to their knees. You are also aware thay there are over 100 new nuclear plants under construction world wide.

Thats the real tipping point. You cant stop it either. I can come back 5,10, 20 years if I am still on the planet and it will be the same song. I represent state of the art in nuclear and you are locked in antinuclear paradigms that although valid for their initial inquiry viz rad health, waste, safety, are no longer valid and seen as somewhat pedestrian. I tried to help you comprehend the bigger picture of it all but it seems you are trapped in minutae. As an engineer, I feel somewhat sorry for your loss of humanity or the desire to solve challenges rather than shout at the rain and target those of us that are actually doing something to bring real understanding to the masses.

Your shite that makes no sense, the stuff that mak...

2015-11-12T10:34:34.738-08:00

Your shite that makes no sense, the stuff that makes no sense will be eliminated, and eventually you will be banned. Either contribute, but these stupid 10 seconds of non applicable pot shots pretending to be a post are not worth anyone's time.

There is no difference in a K40 atom whether it co...

2015-11-11T15:46:35.650-08:00

There is no difference in a K40 atom whether it comes from within your body or from a nuclear reaction. It still emits a highly energetic photon.

Asshat, you have lost your humanity if you ever ha...

2015-11-11T13:40:36.312-08:00

Asshat, you have lost your humanity if you ever had any. The regulatory does not go "counters" to death estimates, they are simply different matters.

Lies like "only 40 deaths" will get you 3 strikes toward hell on the scorecard.

stock out.

Their comment "LNT for regulatory purposes&qu...

2015-11-11T11:39:36.680-08:00

Their comment "LNT for regulatory purposes" goes counter to antinuclear use of LNT to estimate virtual deaths. This is an important distinction that people like you convieniently skirt. If you accept EPA then you have to accept LNTs limitations that fall short of antinuke misapplication. Maybe the dialog helps people distinguish that LNT isnt to be used to estimate deaths afterall. Then Yablokov, Gundersen, Caldicott, Busby, Mangano, Sherman, and any antinuclear "scientist" will take heed. Even your million chickens which doesnt even apply will be seen as foolhardy attempts to demonize radiation and nuclear. At the end of the day only 40 deaths have been attributed to nuclear and it will be seen as another industrial and not widespread hazard.