(UPDATE 2) Further pondering on Dr. Allison's reply, I think Dr. Allison may be confusing the "science" with "natural phenomenon" such as radiation.
Science is a systematic organization of knowledge gained from hypothesizing, speculating, observing, testing. Science is not free of non-scientific intrusion or intervention, and is limited by available technologies to observe and test at any given time in history. The earth going around the sun was a natural phenomenon from the beginning of time, but it was not part of the accepted science, and the proponent was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. That the earth's crust is made up of plates is a fact, but it was not at all part of the accepted Earth science until mid 1960s.
-------------------
(UPDATED with Dr. Allison's reply, at the bottom. 10/15/2013)
===================
That's in my humble opinion, but yet another nuclear expert tells me I'm mistaken.
Probably after seeing the post about the South African nuclear physicist, Dr. Wade Allison, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Oxford, kindly sent me links to support their position, which I thought I might share with you readers:
...not even a significant casualty from radiation. This was expected as soon as figures for the scale of the radiation released became apparent, www.bbc.co.uk/news/
world-12860842 Much suffering and death would have been avoided if the evacuees had gone home within two weeks. http://www. radiationandreason.com/ uploads//enc_ RadiationScienceandSocietyOct2 013.pdf
an international scientific view http://www.radiationandreason.com/ uploads//enc_SPUR-1.pdf with unfiltered public comment overwhelmingly supportive http://www. radiationandreason.com/index. php?SPUR-RnR See also other links at www.radiationandreason.comWade Allison
Wade Allison, MA DPhil
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Oxford, UK OX1 3PG
"Radiation and Reason" http://www.radiationandreason.com (Oct 09) ISBN 9780956275615
In Japanese http://goo.gl/9lL5u (July 2011) ISBN 978-4198632182"Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging" http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-920389-X (Oct 06)
Here's my quick email back to Dr. Allison, though it is highly likely we simply talk past each other:
Dr. Allison, I do not think nuclear technology exists in vacuum. In case of Japan, as in other countries, building nuclear power plants has been the national government's policy. It's been heavily subsidized by the government, with plant builders, operators, and municipalities showered with enormous amount of money and preferential treatment. Regulatory agencies collaborated and colluded with the plant operators to mask technical problems, for decades. Nuclear scientists have been enlisted to "educate" the populace how safe the nuclear power plants are. The populace have been encouraged to use more and more electricity even where cheaper alternatives exist, which in turn has justified more nuclear power plants. Particularly in Japan, nuclear power plants have been made possible only by cheap, subcontracted labor force who operates and maintains the plants, with hardly any medical supervision and with faked cumulative dose. Most people turned the blind eye to that fact, until this accident.
When the shit hit the fan in Fukushima, it was not just the matter of whether anyone died of acute radiation sickness that defined the accident as "nuclear". It was the failure of the national and local government on responding to a rapidly unfolding nuclear accident at Fukushima I NPP. It was the failure of the plant operator TEPCO who couldn't do what it took to contain the accident, as they were more concerned with pleasing the national government and the nuclear regulator. It was the failure of the nuclear regulatory and safety agencies (the latter staffed with nuclear scientists from top universities) to even adequately assess the progress of core melt and the release (intended and unintended) of radioactive materials from the plant that contaminated the wide areas in Tohoku and Kanto and inform the populace intelligently. It was the failure of academia who not only failed to give actionable information to the citizens but ended up exposing the citizens to totally unnecessary, avoidable radiation; Dr. Yamashita gathered Fukushima residents to tell them not to worry, while a fresh batch of dense radioactive plume was descending in Fukushima between March 20 and 23, 2011.
The jury is still out on the long-term effect of low-dose radiation exposure. The plant workers have been exposed to moderate to high dose of radiation over the past two and a half years, and you cannot compare this exposure to a targeted, medically supervised high-radiation treatment.
It was, and is a nuclear disaster politically, socially, academically, psychologically, and for many, personally. To claim Fukushima was not a nuclear disaster just because no one died of acute radiation exposure is nothing but sophistry.
Regards
10/15/2013 Dr. Wade Allison's reply, saying I have a nuclear fear from Cold War (I doubt it, but) and the science is impervious to any political, social, and other types of consideration. In other words, we do talk past each other:
As the story of King Canute demonstrated many years ago, the forces of science (physics/biology/medicine) are uninfluenced by man's intrigues which you describe. These are irrelevant when radiation meets living tissue -- about which almost all is now known. Radiation as a danger is irrelevant to the survival of man, but population, food, water, economic and political stability, and climate stability are not. Of course if nobody can trust anybody else, as you suggest, the population that the world can support would be tiny. That would be destructive for no reason and would result in widespread conflict.
You are still in the grip of the nuclear fear that was Cold War propaganda for which there is no scientific basis. I agree that you are not alone, but scientific reality is not settled by a vote. Science is impervious to questions of shit and fan.
Regards
Wade
Well Dr. Allison, the lesson, if any, from Fukushima nuclear accident is that "the forces of science (physics/biology/medicine)" were and are indeed influenced by man's intrigues. Declaring they are uninfluenced doesn't make it true. So many scientists in nuclear physics, engineering, biology, and medicine have rushed to speak words designed specifically to tell the populace that everything was OK, and their words had nothing to do with hard science. The government scientists conducted the medical survey of the residents in the affected areas in Fukushima, not because they wanted to collect scientific information but because they wanted to calm down the residents.
Instead of scientifically and rationally explain what's been going on, nuclear scientists and their followers on the side of Dr. Allison, label people, like me who raises questions on both sides, as being gripped with irrational nuclear fear. And of course those experts and their followers on the other side label people like me as "nuclear shill". Can't win either way.
30-Day free trial by following the link.
Tokyo Time
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
47 comments:
AREVAMIRPAL::LAPRIMAVERA, kudos to your patience for "civil discourse" on such a topic. Unfortunately, claiming "no disaster" because it is too difficult to measure non-acute radiation damage (“so let’s assume it does not exist”) is exactly what you would expect from Dr. Allison and his ilk. Historically, this type of oversimplification caused excessive and needless suffering to tobacco users (first hand and second hand) and asbestos victims. It also was the source of the idiotic simplified model assumptions that caused the financial crisis. The burden of proof is on Dr. Allison to show that, outside of acute exposure, no other risks result from radioactive contamination. Unfortunately, his adeptness at the oversimplification of things leaves him grossly unprepared for a coherent attempt to assess the possible range of risks resulting from the ongoing Fukushima Dai-ichi crisis. This is not a physics problem but a risk management problem. I am afraid that Dr. Allison will leave behind a legacy of the pre-modern doctor, whose few successes in understanding simple problems resulted in a dangerous overconfidence that resulted in countless acts of cruelty.
Oh my god...... she's insane. That is the same hubris that got us into this situation in the first place.
laprimavera: great email!
How many radiation deaths exactly does it take according to these scientists until the word disaster is appropriate? Is one sufficient or does it have to be in the 100s or more? What's the magical number?
In any case, I wonder if those scientists would have the same opinion if it were their lives being turned upside down or even totally destroyed, if it were their children's radiation exposure they'd have to worry about, if it were their mother or father who suffered a stress-induced death. Would it still not be a disaster?
Death is by no means the only disastrous consequence of a nuclear accident. One just needs to have at least an ounce of compassion for those affected and a little appreciation for the environment to understand that.
*mscharisma*
You are a rock star, Ultraman!
It seems that something like faith is polluting this kind of very difficult and badly documented problems, with excentrics on both or every side.
The long practice of nuclear tests.
Tchernobyl.
Twin towers and WTC 7.
Climate change, man made.
Financial crisis.
New forms of colonization.
Geneticaly modified crops.
Fracking.
Etc.
Since there are always huge interest at stake, including murky ones, and since we all have the experience of beeing fooled, lied at and driven by the leash like pets, the shit hits the fan as you say, and we're stuck in a mess.
The infamous Pr Pierre Pellerin died before beeing properly tried, but was cleared after harsh delaying tactics by the justice.
In France again, we also have Claude Allègre - a real and rewarded scientist who campaigned against the idea of a climate change.
On the other side Mrs Haldicot bangs on the table and asserts : don't eat food from Europe. I would advise to settle in Australia or N.Z. BEFORE the SFP 4 takes fire.
Ship of fools, anyone ?
Wade Allison of Oxford, yet another example of the English Civil War Gone Wrong
We can relate Allison to the recent reported poll of Britons who think their security state is good enough for them while the remainder of the world views them as almost ideal concretizations of Big Brotherism.
Radiation Like An Angel's Smile From A British Distance or Your Chestnuts In The Fire, Too
Caldicott, sorry.
Great example of an Oxford grad who fails, in general, at reasoning,, and, in particular, at risk assessment. He can be lumped into the category of infamous internet laughing stocks the likes of Josef Oehmen, Monboit, Kemm...etc. Wade to go, dude.
The jury is not still out on "the long-term effect of low-dose radiation exposure."
The reality is that there is no safe dose of radiation exposure from nuclear plant releases, these are not 'naturally occurring' isotopes by any means.
If one ingests them they can only increase the likelihood of organ-specific diseases, cancer, and numerous yet-unknown maladies, and since little to no study is being or potentially even can be done on this with any reasonable degree of accuracy, the only reasonable approach is to minimize exposure to nuclear-accident related radionuclides of all sorts.
This, however, is a policy that has only been partially enacted and often contra-indicated by the actions and advice to the citizens of the 'officials' and 'experts' since the 3.11 disaster, so it would be nothing short of a fantasy to claim that 3.11 was not a 'nuclear disaster' but not also a disaster of all the systems of modern civilization working in synchronicity.
They know the effects of low and high dose radiation. How many guinea pigs do you need to study? Bikini Atoll, New Mexico are two examples of humans being used to further research into the effects and consequences of iononizing radiation on human cell structure . We are collateral damage we are disposable, we are part of the final solution . Nobody can stop, the race is still on, they cannot have enough plutonium or uranium. The deaths from atmospheric testing of bombs, the deaths from general emissions of NPP, all with no comeback on the powers that be. The more you think about it the worse it gets, Doctors saying radiation is good for you! It takes a great mind to work out what is actually happening, the end of the Human race is teetering on the edge of total annihilation.
Wade Allison promotes new safety limits as high as 100mSv for a single dose or as a monthly maximum, and 5000mSv as a lifetime exposure.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/british-physicist-wade-allison-calls-for-radical-increase-in-radiation-exposure-limits/story-e6frg6so-1226159573330
According to him, there's no cancer risk below this limit.
He doesn't mention at all internal intake risks. The worst consequences of Fukushima will be these caused by internal intake...
Decontamination has not been too successful ( to put it gently); food control can be doubted; people are encouraged or gently forced to return to environments that still pose a high risk - internal and in many cases even external.
Studies in Belarus show that even in low-contaminated places, children are contaminated by food, to a more or less degree.
http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/children-radiation-maps-2/
Some more material from Belarus:
"We compare the situation before
and after Chernobyl in the two regions. The over-all cancer morbidity rate in all organs including colon, urinary bladder and thyroid, was significantly higher in the Gomel region than in Vitebsk" (Gomel has been higly contaminated, Vitebsk area not)
http://www.smw.ch/docs/pdf200x/2004/43/smw-10221.pdf
Another example of long-term consequences:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0035223
Wade Allison - open your eyes and start to observe contaminated places longer than 2 weeks....
Viola
The Dr. obviously stands for "Deranged".
I've met many delusional people who constantly deny simple facts of reality, but congratulations, Wade Allison, you easily make the top ten.
Ladies and gentlemen, our dear friend "Dr." Allison appears unaware of basic facts such as that humans are subjective in nature, and that scientific research is only possible with funding, which is also subjective in nature.
Nice touch with the "fear from the Cold War" strawman. Very typical of shills and self-important ignoramuses. I'm amazed that the "doctor" can manage basic body functions with a brain the size of a grain of salt. I suppose their paper qualifications serve as an energy source to keep that tiny brain fueled.
I think we can assume that those with the most qualifications tend to be the most self-deluded of their personal worth. It is clear that "Dr." Allison spends a great deal of time petting their ego by spreading lies that all related aspects of their occupation are infallible and impervious.
Wade, it is not us who "fear the Cold War".
It is you who fears that your gig is up.
You can deny facts, but that won't make lies into truths.
It's only a matter of time until everyone realizes they can no longer turn a blissfully ignorant blind eye to facts of reality.
At that time, you will regret that you dismissed our valid concerns, but it will be far too late. The shoulder of responsibility will be on you for failing at your chosen occupation, not us.
Enjoy!
That the "cold war" was even brought up at all suggests that Allison is a stubborn senile old hack who refuses to accept new information. Those kinds of people don't want to admit that the world they know is different from their understanding. They fear that.
I suppose he uses the same reason to dismiss any other concerns.
"You believe smoking damages your lungs? You fear the Cold War!"
This nonsense reminds me of that science teacher I had, whose only proof that everything he stated was factually correct was "because he knew so".
People who rely on their place of study to add weight to their statements are truly pathetic. I don't care where you're from, where you studied, or whether you're the President of the United States or not. A lie is a lie. Facts are facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Allison
Sounds like he's just trying to promote his book. What a shock.
Listen, Wade. It's obvious you've built your career around studying the fear of radiation, but I think you should focus on taking your claims to those with more money and less brainpower. We don't want to play your games.
From the above article about raising radiation limits:
"Professor Allison said he supported nuclear energy as part of the solution to climate change but was not part of the industry and had never accepted work or money from it."
Says the guy who is selling a book about the fears of radiation:
http://www.amazon.com/Radiation-Reason-Impact-Science-Culture/dp/0956275613
Is that not a price for purchasing the book? Is that not money? Is the book itself not considered work?
Wade seems to be stuck in the mindset that worrying about radioactive contamination and waste is pointless when we're faced with climate change and economic instability.
To this end, his efforts focus entirely on alleviating any fear of radiation for the purpose of focusing on the issues he personally feels are more important.
His view is fundamentally incorrect because he is using one issue to justify ignoring the others. Anyone with a brain should be concerned about ALL the issues, not just one or two.
Maybe it's just me, but the description for his book also sounds offensive:
"Straightforward questions should have simple answers, and the simplest answer is No. Explaining and exploring the question and this answer in accessible terms is the subject of this book."
"Accessible terms", in other words, "for dummies". Must be easy lying to people who don't know any better.
Also, straightforward questions SHOULD NOT have simple answers. That's one of the biggest problems with communication of knowledge. You can't just sum everything up with a yes or no. It's more important for people to understand the reasons and details behind anything, than to give them a simple answer.
Something else I noticed from the article about raising radiation limits:
'"The chance that any worker dies as a result of radiation exposure at Fukushima is less than 25 per cent," he said.'
25% is 1 in 4. That's not a real risk, Wade?
I thought mathematics was an important part of physics.
At least, it was when I studied it.
The bottom line here is, less or no radiation is better than any radiation. That cannot be denied. Whether it's the best option we currently have is irrelevant. Fear of radiation is also irrelevant.
Wade should be spending his time looking for better energy alternatives than desperately attempting to justify what he personally believes to be the only viable option. His entire argument is a straw man.
One more thing... with this statement:
'"The chance that any worker dies as a result of radiation exposure at Fukushima is less than 25 per cent," he said.'
That isn't even taking into consideration how much radiation or what kind of radiation they're being exposed to. So much information omitted or generalized. You can't just slap a number on that and call it a day.
Like I said, it's straw-manning, and it's offensive to people who have a brain to think for themselves.
Imagine if I said, "Road accidents aren't a real risk because the chance of brakes failing is only 25%".
That statement doesn't account for road accidents caused by other car faults, or drunk driving, or human errors. Not to mention that 25% is still 1 in 4. I didn't cite any sources, either. That's because I made it up.
Hi everyone,
I made a long comment earlier, but it seems to have been flagged as spam. Oh well.
There are 2 things I'm saying :
- Radioactive waste lasts for thousands of centuries. Mankind is not even that old and there's no proof the human race will last that long.
- Nuclear power amounts for less than 15% of the whole world energy production. Why bother ? quit it already.
Allison must feel it's ok to drain the reactors into the Pacific and by extension ok to eat fish from nuclear dumping grounds off the European coast.
All I can say is that you don't get anyone who is truely concerned about the evils of the nuke industry working for them. No one in the upper echelons of Big Tobacco or Big Pharma ever gave a shit. Guilt by association. Dr. Allison is no different, except he is not upper echelon material and only tries to filter the industry's trickling nuclear diarrhea for a living.
@ anon 11:08pm,
Some translation of the offerings of the defenders of the status quo is in order.
The "defenders" are asking us to OK their "senile old hack" methods of attributing resistance to their plans as evidence of "commie sensibilities", that anti-spying sentiment is to be viewed as hysteria. Is this not what that maddened fairy-queen J. Edgar Hoover did in response to resistance?
Everyone became a commie and Everyone was wiretapped. While engaging in corruption and what was legally defined as deviance in his time. Seriously, did J. Edgar NOT think he would be found out in time?
see "Official and Confidential" by Anthony Summers.
They don't dare prop up an "authoritarian" figure because none will have it.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, of which Allison is affiliated with, claims that "History has shown that the environment is best protected when humans prosper. Nature suffers when people suffer. Any environmentalist policy that would drive up the cost of energy, food, or other essential needs in the name of protecting nature must be rejected. Instead, we must pursue constructive policies of political and economic freedom .."
And CFACT's funders are the very status quo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow
CFACT's anti-hysteria as the Businessman of Action's Mysticism
" Allison appears unaware of basic facts such as that humans are subjective in nature, and that scientific research is only possible with funding, which is also subjective in nature."
Well said.
The whole idea that Fukushima has "caused no deaths" is nuclear-industry misinformation. We know that at the levels released, any illness or deaths from exposure (outside of on-site workers) will likely be occurring in the years to come.
Of course to prove the case the medical community will have to be looking for radiation as a suspect in cancer/immune system/heart disease cases, and you can be sure that all sorts of pressure is being applied to make sure that doesn't happen. The government will then declare happily "no deaths from Fukushima". We should remember that the LDP-led Japanese government also sold AIDS-tainted blood to hemophiliacs rather than take a financial loss in the '80s, has allowed the continued use of asbestos in construction with un-enforced standards for its removal during demolition of buildings, and it took 12 years after the discovery of Minamata disease in the '60s -- caused by, guess what, uncontrolled industrial release of pollutants, mercury in this case, into the ocean -- for the government to recognise it as an illness, while lawsuits are still in the courts today over government inaction and poor compensation. And yet Wade Allsion would have us trust such a government to provide proper "scientific" analysis of the health effects of Fukushima? The same government that is actively trying to increase exports of Japan-made nuclear technology and that would find any damaging revelations from Fukushima bad for business? Just today P.M. Abe was saying Fuku-Daiichi is "completely under control", the very same day that the NRA was calling TEPCO's lack of control over water emissions "pathetic".
What they should be saying is "no deaths have been officially linked", not "no deaths have occurred". I'm sure SOMEONE has died, and we just don't know about it. There are a hell of a lot of people in this world.
Deaths from radioactive contamination are vague as hell. They can just write it off as any other cause, especially if they pay to manipulate information.
Anyone with a brain should know this by now.
It is extremely simpleminded to believe that an incident isn't a disaster based on number of deaths, when it has affected and continues to affect us indirectly, inconclusively and over an indefinite amount of time.
One more thing that is obvious to me...
If standards are based entirely on likelihood of immediate fatalities, it is inevitable to eventually cross a line where fatalities will occur. By then, it will be way too late.
Why are these things acceptable as long as nobody suddenly dies? It shouldn't even get anywhere near that point. Why are we playing chicken with the reaper? It's ridiculous.
To me, it is far more logical and intelligent to simply avoid risks entirely than to try and find a sweet spot. "Better safe than sorry", "prevention is better than cure", and all that.
It's not fear-mongering to be cautious instead of foolhardy and arrogant.
LOL
This is the most crazy post I've read for long.
A gem.
Wade Allison, Cold War anti-hysteria warrior
The Very Look of Bats in the Belfry, about as credible as the naivete of Jay Stanley of the ACLU,
" .. good policy often emerges only when politicians and other policymakers start to feel personally threatened by its violation. Maybe as members of Congress and others start to live their lives under the cloud of (even theoretically possible) NSA surveillance, will we see the strong response that is needed."
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/prospect-blackmail-nsa
"theoretically possible", ok Jay Stanley.
Btw, Allison, nature doesn't "provide" radiation protections like some benevolent, in-the-moment giftgiver,
"I am a grandfather who knows about nuclear and is driven by the hope that his grandchildren will enjoy the benefits of living with nuclear technology without which their future looks grim."
"Grim"? All life was grim before the advent of nuclear technology? Clues to your illness are forming, Mr. Allison.
A gem of crazy is to be found in this essay by Allison where the word "provide" occurs 5 times. Perhaps that word is the clue. 40 years of mis-allocated obfuscation provision, he even chides Chernobyl women for abortions!,
http://nuclearliteracy.org/you-can-appreciate-nuclear-safety/
Anon at 2:39 AM here,
in case it would be needed, I mean congrats, Laprimavera, this correspondence with Dr Wade brings the problem in full light.
Wade Allison, you are hereby ORDERED to go to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and confess, in toto, to your crimes against humanity.
You have been "found out" as they say in the trade.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-only-way-to-restore-trust-in-the-nsa/279314/
I'd rather suffer the Finnish troll's foaming-at -the-mouth hare brained rants than have to read Wade Allison's inane nuke speak about how nobody died.
Mr. Allison is not confusing "science" with "natural phenomenon", he is trying to trade science as a religion, a pure bearer of absolute truth.
As Primavera-san already pointed out, science brings about partial truth and doubt and change, rather than absolute truth.
On top of that, individual scientists bring about even less truth. I still recall vividly a "scientist" who, in the aftermath of the nuclear crisis, was explaining on TV that there was not much to fear because radiation intensity decreases with the square of the distance from the source. Scientifically true, however he did not mention that the source might end up in your lungs or your bones...
Beppe
It's because of idiots like Allison that Fukushima even occurred to begin with.
The "nothing to worry about" mentality he preaches goes hand-in-hand with inevitable disaster. That he doesn't see that is beyond appalling.
If he'd spent his time in 2009 writing a book about the dangers of slacking off on nuclear reactor maintenance instead of a book to convince everyone that nuclear energy is "safe", maybe the Fukushima disaster wouldn't be this bad.
On the "slackard",
he's telling us in his essay on the nuclear literacy .org site that he has no other concerns than being "provided" by the industry. He'd like us to believe it's for his grandchildren. Mutated children of Chernobyl be damned. Because their mothers failed to control their fear.
An utter asshat.
Imagine this type of "soot" floating in the air above the raging fires of Chernobyl,
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=96e_1381890499
Anti-fear, smiles, and "providings" prevent those from killing you.
You forgot the /sarc, Allison.
Utter asshat is putting it mildly.
It's easy to say anything when it's not your land and not your home that had to be evacuated, ot your business that had to be abandoned, not your children that had to go to contaminated school grounds and had to eat contaminated cheap beef lunches. Have any of these shameless people like Wade Allison who trumpet nuclear blessings ever been in the thick of it? NO! of course not. The "no one died from radiation" shtick is getting really old, besides being supremely moronic. Shut the fuck up already.
wade allison, you really think that nuke energy is going to solve the problems facing an overpopulated earth? come on, man, be serious, nuke is not going to save your offspring from lack of food, lack of clean water, viral and bacterial diseases, chemical pollution, warming global temperature its consequences, global financial fiascos and possible government collapses ...? so according to your reasoning, we should build more reactors in such a global milieu, because as time goes on and things get more desperate everywhere, there will miracuously be a fund without limit to upkeep operations, maintenence and safety of all things nuclear. WTF, and you have a degree from oxford?
Anyone can get a degree from anything if they have money and connections.
It undermines the few who truly deserve the credentials; makes it all meaningless.
I lose some respect for Oxford University.
So nuclear fear is being fueled by Cold War propaganda?
"Dr" Wade Allison is true face of nuclear power. He is personification of all shameful things industry is standing for today such as lies, obfuscation, corner cutting, cover ups, minimalisation of risk, double talk and inability to recylcle dangerous waste.
Please "Dr", take vacation trip to Ukraine, particularly areas closest to Chernobyl accident and tell people to relax because according to your science they are living in Cold War fear of radiation. I suggest you arm yourself with raincoat or another impermiable to shield from getting spit at, or worse. This is where your "shit" will hit "fan" and you will find out if your science is impervient, or you use wrong word and it is impertinant.
I wonder how many people realize that credentials don't mean much anymore?
It's not hard for industries to use their cash and connections to "create" experts. You'd be surprised what people would do for a pile of cash.
For example, imagine if someone showed up on your doorstep, offering to pay you an easy path through college with a guaranteed cozy job. All you'd have to do is speak out in support of them. Who'd refuse an offer like that?
I don't have any proof that this is actually occurring, but it's what I expect from everything I've known and experienced. It's completely possible.
Most humans will quickly betray everyone else if it means achieving happiness for themselves.
There was another Emeritus Professor of Physics who posted the same "no one died" mindless industry blather on the Physics Forums' nuclear engineering subforum. I remember he did not fair so well even in that mostly pro-nuke environment.
Like Wade Allison, the guy was a retired old fart. I looked him up and found that he had written some memoirs about the evils of communism that nobody cared for and he ended up giving them away in e-book form.
So..... he realized the corrupt and destructive ways of communism but because nuclear physics is/was his bread and butter, he is blind to the latter's borderline criminal misconduct.
Sad. You too, Wade Allison. Sad. SAD. SAD.
Wade Allison, oh do post your thoughts about the Fukushima disaster on the Physics Forums. I dare you. Grow a pair and do it.
A review of "Radiation and Reason" by Wade Allison.
http://www.kbaverstock.org/Book%20review%20Final.pdf
Conclusion: If you encounter it at a bookshop, keep walking.
I suspect Wade Allison's book will also go the way of the free ebook sooner than later.
Laprimavera, you've showcased this guy twice now in your articles and as a result he must have sold one book which is clearly not enough to further fund his boating hobby but nevertheless that pittence could have gone elsewhere and done something good like helped to buy much needed cat litter for an animal shelter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507590/Were-weeding-rich-thickos-got-places-past-boasts-Oxford-admissions-chief.html
I guess Wade is feeling lucky right about now.
fcesfed
Post a Comment