Skip to main content

View Diary: Status Report of the Ontario Coal Phase Out. (194 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have mentioned my disgust before (0+ / 0-)

    about this appalling abuse of birth defect children pictures by the antinukes, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

    And - again - you're talking about the military.

    •  It might be more appropriate to (0+ / 0-)

      be disgusted by the cause of the defects. Oh, I understand that the pro-nuke crowd wants to deny the cause. A lot of the people suffering the effects of nuclear waste contamination disagree with you.

      In 1997, federal medical researchers at the Naval Health Research Center and the CDC determined that babies born to Gulf War veterans were more likely to suffer from certain birth defects including malformations of the eyes, jaw, and spine.

      Much as you would like to stuff various aspects of the nuke industry into neat little boxes, and ignore half the science, nuke waste is nuke waste, and it's harmful. And it's not just the waste. Pro nuclear people would have us believe that there is nothing coming out of the stacks.

      According to credible physicists such as Joseph Mangano, national coordinator of the Radiation and Public Health Project, nuclear reactors release more than 100 chemicals into the air. These chemicals are created only in nuclear weapons and reactors. They are radioactive and cause cancer by damaging cells. Each chemical enters the body through breathing and food and affects the body in a different way. For example, Iodine-131 attacks the thyroid gland, Strontium-90 seeks out bone and Cesium-137 disperses through the soft tissue. The fetus and infant with rapidly dividing cells are most affected. Studies of reactor communities have shown increased deaths in babies and increases in childhood cancers...snip

      Totten also ignores the connection of nuclear power to nuclear weapons proliferation. This issue is extremely well presented in the 2005 book published by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a well-respected scientific think tank headed by Arjun Makhijani. Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change by Brice Smith addresses the historic connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons from its inception in the forties with the Manhattan Project. This important connection should not be ignored.

      •  Mangano and Makhijani have been debunked (0+ / 0-)

        Even conservative radiation-protection scientists do not accept their shabby research and bogus claims.

        No nuclear weapon has ever been made from a civilian nuclear plant supplying electricity.  The plutonium is the wrong kind.

        You cannot compare the dirty business of the former USSR in handling nuclear materials with commercial nuclear power in the U.S.  That would be the same as saying that steel is sometimes used to kill people (in bullets) or has accidentally killed people, so we should not permit the manufacture and use of steel.

        Spontaneous birth defects occur in the Chernobyl region at the same rate they always have.  Eleven international agencies, like WHO, have conducted intensive studies and analysis of data and have found no increase of birth defects in the region.

        Chemical pollution has been associated with birth defects, and it is widespread in industrial areas in E. Europe.

        The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

        by Plan9 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:21:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  sure, (0+ / 0-)
        and all the gulf war vets are oncologists, which means they can be absolutely sure that their cancer is caused by DU and not exposure to traces of chemical warfare agents used in Iraq.

        (Besides, DU isn't really a byproduct of the nuclear power industry.  It's a byproduct of Jimmy Carter's stupidity.)

        •  don't engage in the argument on DU projectiles (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Plan9, emmasnacker, Joffan

          Whether or not DU weapons are causing ill effects is totally irrelevant in the discussion on nuclear power.

          If it wasn't for the demand of U235, the projectiles would just be natural uranium.

          And if it wasn't for the use of oil, the war would have never been fought.

      •  Look I can see you are convinced (0+ / 0-)

        but this is not evidence. Nowhere near the evidence required for such extraordinary claims. The Gulf War veterans were exposed to a range of complex chemicals and the extreme stress of the battlefield; blaming everything on DU is not only unfounded, it runs counter to the physics of the element and most importantly distracts from the search for the true source of their problems.

        Your quote from Hattie Nestel (who?) does nothing to convince me that Mangano is anything other than propagandist who picks natural fluctuations in illness to pretend that something is going on that is not. His alarmist claims has been assessed by numerous state medical authorities and have been found baseless on all occasions that I know of.

        The nuclear power industry has a safety record it can be proud of. Your gut opposition to nuclear power is forced to rely on bullshit for want of real arguments. Please try to separate military use of nuclear materials from civilian. The military uses would exist without any nuclear power sector.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site