Skip to main content

Photobucket

Field testing by Greenpeace radiation monitoring teams has been consistently recording unacceptably high levels of contamination on gardens and crops outside of the present exclusion zone declared by the Japanese government.

Recently, in Minamisoma, residents say they have received no information about radiation levels, nor any warnings about potential hazards, despite reports of government testing in the area.

Yet in several parts of Minamisoma, measurements by Greenpeace were up to 4.5 microSievert per hour on garden spinach, unacceptable for human consumption, compared to the reading reported by the only official government monitoring location, of .07, which might be considered relatively "safe".

Photobucket

In discussing this with the mayor of the city, he expressed frustration with both TEPCO and the government, for not keeping people more informed about the situation in general, ever since the crisis began.  He says it took 11 days for the government to even speak to local officials about the nuclear accident, and they have never conveyed any clear, understandable information, only vague and nebulous technobabble assuring them of "no serious risk".

In the village of Tsushima, outside the 30km voluntary evacuation zone, contamination levels of up to 47 microSieverts per hour were recorded, compared to the 32.7 reported by authorities,  

At such levels, residents receive a full year's dose of radiation in under 24 hours.

Since March 10, Greenpeace has been urging the government to extend the evacuation zones, increase it's monitoring, and provide more public health information and protection, especially for infants and pregnant women surrounding the area.  

This input has seemingly been ignored, even after the US government ordered it's own troops and other personnel in Japan to move further away from the nukes.

Greenpeace has further questioned what little info has been released by the government:

The government has reported monitoring information on the external radioactive dose rates measured at different locations. However, people are also exposed to risks of internal radiation exposure by inhalation and ingestion of radioactive particles. What information does the government have on the total radiation dose for the population? Further, what air contamination monitoring data does the government have? 

Greenpeace Report

Yesterday, there was a dkos diary by a nuclear power advocate, asserting that the disaster in Fukushima is "proof" that nukes are safe, because, by his calculations, "only" about 500 people are likely to die from the radiation, far less, he says, than might be expected from coal-fired plant pollution.

(As If any of us are advocating coal, as an "alternative" to nukes)

The diary, titled "Bottom Line", in terms of casualties, takes a rather callous bean-counter's approach, equating deaths and cancers to an "objective" cost/benefit budget analysis.  

He backs up his assertions about dosages received, and the effects, with a lot of  technical data indecipherable to the lay person, supposedly "proving" the veracity of his claims, and in closing seeks to preempt any critique of his "findings" as craven subjective sensationalism.

Out of well over 100 comments to that diary, only 7 rec'd it, all the same individuals who consistently post pro-nuke diaries and comments, including some of the rudest, most subjective and abusive participants on dkos, sounding exactly like what you'd expect to hear from a paid Chamber of Commerce hack, slagging environmentalists with ad hominem, including accusing people of "wanting to see more deaths" to validate opposition to nukes.

For the geeky tech wonks, the Union of Concerned Scientists offers some alternative perspectives on these issues, with their report on the effects of Chernobyl, indicating that far beyond "official" estimates of 4,000 cancer deaths from that 1986 disaster, a more reasonable estimate would be 34,000 and 70,000, in terms of cancer deaths and excess cancers.

A UN report that UCS cites, "confirms" the 4,000 deaths "officially" estimated among those in the immediate area of Chernobyl, but seeks to dismiss the wider range of "low" dose contamination across portions of northern Europe, stating:

Among the 5 million persons residing in other ‘contaminated’ areas, the doses are much lower and any projected increases are more speculative, but are expected to make a difference of less than one per cent in cancer mortality.

UCS, however extrapolates that date further, for a more "sensationalist" (objective and accurate) analysis:

Roughly 20% of people die of cancer, so we would expect a million fatal cancers in a population of 5 million. A one percent increase would translate into 10,000 additional cancer deaths, so according to this report, there would be fewer than 10,000 excess cancer deaths among those in the contaminated areas.

These deaths would be in addition to the 4,000 fatal cancers among evacuees, liquidators (clean-up workers), and those in the most contaminated areas.

Because of this report, people frequently cite “4,000” as the number of eventual excess cancer fatalities. However, by limiting its analysis to people with the greatest exposure to released radiation, the report seriously underestimates the number of cancers and cancer deaths attributable to Chernobyl.

The effects of the radiation were not limited to the “contaminated” areas but would be felt in Europe and beyond.

The current understanding of the relationship of cancer to radiation is that the risk of cancer increases linearly with dose and that there is no safe amount of radiation. This understanding is represented by the “Linear No-Threshold” (LNT) model of cancer.

Keep in mind, Fukushima has 6 nukes, rather than the one at Chernobyl, and 20-30 times as much nuclear fuels, over 100 tons.  

And it's not over yet.

How Many Chernobyl Cancers and Deaths?

The Linear No-Threshold model, which is "controversial" and "unproven", according to the Defense Department and nuclear industry, is nevertheless recognized by most scientists, and basically poses that there is no "safe" level of "low" radiation:

...risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. The LNT model therefore predicts higher risks than the threshold model, which assumes that very small exposures are negligible.

The LNT model for radiation damage may be too conservative according to recent work showing that there was a larger than expected reduction in IQ at very low doses from the fallout from Chernobyl, in children who were then fetuses of between 8 and 25 weeks gestation.[6] Neurological damage has a different biology than cancer, and for cancer rates there are conflicting studies.

No Threshold

Interesting to note, that some scientists are claiming that very low doses of radiation, above natural background level, but below a toxic level, can actually trigger beneficial biological response, to improve immunity to radiation, cancer and disease.  This is called hormesis.

While it appears there may be some (laboratory, only) evidence that this may be conceivably possible, to some extent, it has not been embraced by the scientific community, which prefers the LNT model for practical applications, pending further, much more definitive research and evidence.

More interesting to note, one of our resident nuke advocates was recently pimping hormesis concepts in a diary, as "proven" fact, which it is not, by a long shot.

Consensus reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) have upheld that insufficient human data on radiation hormesis exists to supplant the Linear no-threshold model (LNT). Therefore, the LNT continues to be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure.

Photobucket

This graph purports to show negative effects of low-dose radiation, calculated by different statistical methods.  While a downward bump is shown at the very low levels (indicating postive effects?), please note that the negative effects still rise precipitously, after that...and it's not clear exactly what actual low dose radiation levels are represented there.  These "findings" were gleaned from lab studies with petri dishes and microbes, as I understand it, and have not been tested nor confirmed with humans or animals.

Hormesis

For info and updates on Fukushima, and a lot of other interesting stuff, check out the Union of Concerned Scientists home page:

Union of Concerned Scientists

There, you will also find a link to their "bottom line" analysis on nuclear power, which, personally, I tend to concur with:

.

..the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:

1.  Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

2.  Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.

4.  A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.

5.  Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants—from accidents and acts of terrorism—are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.

6.  An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal.

Personally, I think we should take R&D for nuclear power off-planet, until we can figure out how to really make it "safe".

See my previous diary on this topic:

Greenpeace: Evacuate!

Also, see my first diary on Fukushima, which was one of the first on this topic to be posted on dkos:

Fukushima Could Melt Down

(please note the many naysayers in Comments there, so adamantly insisting that it was "impossible" for a meltdown to occur at Fukushima)

Poll

Who Do You Trust More?

74%23 votes
19%6 votes
6%2 votes

| 31 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (21+ / 0-)

    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

    by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 01:47:19 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the Greenpeace coverage (4+ / 0-)

    but did you intend to make such a lengthy comment thread part of the diary text, or was that an editing error?

    •  just pointing out the non-veracity of nay-sayers (5+ / 0-)

      Who have tended to so adamantly assert that meltdown was "impossible" throughout early reporting on the event

      ...often expressed with a full gamut of ad hominem dismissal of any contrary opinion in particular, and environmentalists in general.

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

      by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 02:46:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hear you Radical def, but I think I agree with (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        forgore, RWood, bythesea, Andhakari

        bythesea, apparrent concern.

        After an excellent, diary, making some rigtht on points about the need for a broader evacuation zone, expectable cancers, and the Linear No-Threshhold model, the very long replay of stupid comments from people in the past distracts attention from you more important points.

        Perhaps, you should make it a different diary.

        When most folks see reprints of several pages of comment streams, they tend to suspect that the author is "one of those people with lots of issues."    And, that you are trying to replay battles that you think you lost in the past.  I can see that's not the case here, but predict you would get, at least, five times as many recs without the long comment reprints.   May 10 times as many.

        On a separate minor note, I'm  concerned about a possible math error, detracting from your really important points.   Forgive me if I am wrong, from a quick read, but something looks funny here.

        In the village of Tsushima, outside the 30km voluntary evacuation zone, contamination levels of up to 47 microSieverts per hour were recorded, compared to the 32.7 reported by authorities,  

        At such levels, residents receive a full year's dose of radiation in under 24 hours.

        The annual residential dosage limit in Japan is 100 millisieverts I believe.  

        47 micro Sieverts (1 milliionth) * 24 = 1128 microsieverts, or 1.1 millisieverts.  So it would take these folks 100 days, to exceed their annual limit.

        They should still be evacuated.  Especially, pregnant women, and infants.  Infants, and fetuses are about 15 times more likely to absort radiation due to their developmental growth rates.

        About, a week and a half ago, the UCS reported radiation measurements of 1 millisievert in soil between 30 and 40 miles from the plant.

        A frequently displayed Japanese map of radiation levels only displayed the geographic band down to 100 millisieverts per 3 month period.  Several areas extend beyond the current evacuation zones.

        Those maps should include the 25 millisiervert radius, as well as the areas where infants would excede their annual limits.

        Keep up the good work.  My comment about the comments was intended to be helpful.

        The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

        by HoundDog on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 04:35:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Will check link, correct numbers if appropriate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HoundDog

          right away.

          But just off the cuff, maybe Greenpeace uses a more cautious standard than the government?

          As to including the old comment thread, I guess that is a somewhat subjective "point" to make, of how totally wrong (and subjective) the naysayers have been, about the potential for meltdown, contamination, etc.

          I wouldn't mind deleting that part of the diary, if others think that would make it...better...but it does seem relevant to me.

          Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

          by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 05:21:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not saying to delete it, just consider (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radical def

            dmaking it  a different diary.

            Anyone paying attention, knows, a whole lot of folks, including experts, have incorrectly assurred us that nothing like Fukushima could happen, and even if it did, it would be no  big deal.

            So, in this  diary, it is not the headline, which is that the evacuation should be expanded, and a second really good point about the LNT dose-response curve.

            My guess is that 90% of your readers will rec these kinds of well documented and argued insights.

            But, when you get into comment disputes with so many of the community names involved few will wish to get involved, even if they agree with your point.

            I strongly believe we need to get these first points accross, as they are critical, but I didn't rec your  dairy, the first time around, just cuz I don't like getting involved in call out, and pie fights.

            But, try an experiment.   Tally up what you get here, then do an experiment breaking it up.  Do a diary just on the Linear, No-Threshold model, and evacuation perimeter, and I'll bet you get 5 to 10 times to recs.

            Then wait a few days, and do a diary,  on all the commenters who were totally wrong.  I'll wager you get almost none.  And, it will not be because people don't agree with you.

            :-)

            The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by HoundDog on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:49:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, make it TWO diaries. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radical def, HoundDog, bythesea

          Separate 'em.  Though you can link 'em

          Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

          by neroden on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:16:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  kk...will delete (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HoundDog, bythesea, Andhakari

            But can you comment on the issue of the numbers, as mentioned by HoundDog upthread?

            Math was never my best subject, heh.

            I did check the link, and confirmed the numbers cited by Greenpeace, but have no basis for judging HoundDogs remarks, except that i trust Greenpeace (even if they may not be perfect, and may even occasionally make inadvertent errors, heh)

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

            by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:36:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  i loved the Denials of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radical def

        KBMan who swore there was no breach
        in primary containment.

        hes become very silent now.

        large radiation spikes, low pressures,,,,

        George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

        by nathguy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:18:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Please note... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie

    I make no claims to any scientific expertise.

    But, I can read, and use Bing (which I'm testing out, as an alternative to Google), to find info about a given topic.

    And I know who I trust for accurate information, as opposed to monopoly corporate commercial mass media spin, or Chamber of Commerce and nuke industry hacks...

    Dkos seems a little hinky today, which has put a crimp in my editing abilities on this diary...will try to clean it up a bit, formatting-wise, now that it's published.

    The summary of Comments from previous diary includes some snips, which are not always noted, but I think the gist is clear, and familiar enough to anyone who follows this topic.

     

    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

    by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 02:40:31 PM PDT

    •  Not to mention those hacks at NASA ... (0+ / 0-)
      I make no claims to any scientific expertise.

      But, I can read, and use Bing (which I'm testing out, as an alternative to Google), to find info about a given topic.

      And I know who I trust for accurate information, as opposed to monopoly corporate commercial mass media spin, or Chamber of Commerce and nuke industry hacks...

      ... who think that solar power can't power a probe just because it's 9 AU from the sun.

      •  Well, maybe not, back when Cassini was launched (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OHdog, neroden, Andhakari

        ...when was that?  Like, at least 10 years ago?

        Not sure what prospects might be now, with more advanced solar tech. Or, a bit further down the road, perhaps?

        Do you?

        We discussed this before, and you do seem awfully hung up on the Cassini thing, as if this somehow "proves" that Greenpeace is absolutely untrustworthy.

        Greenpeace took a principled, well documented position on not wanting to see the risk, as small as it might be projected to be, of a Plutonium fueled nuclear reactor being launched into space, to potentially contaminate earth if it blew up or fell back to earth and disintegrated before it reached orbit.

        Greenpeace would, correctly, I think, prefer to err on the side of caution, in response to the usual industry line that "nothing will happen".

        Again I say, as interesting as the lakes of Titan may be, I don't really see that mission as being a real high priority, presently, when millions of people on earth are still suffering and dying prematurely from lack of clean drinking water, food, health care, education, etc. and could really use a good terrestrial solar power rig for lighting, etc.

        Personally, I think NASA should establish a base on the moon, mars, or some asteroid, maybe, for R&D on nuclear power, solar cells, and so many other things, and also to more efficiently launch deep space probes, for that matter.

        Who knows what amazing advances might be made, in zero gravity, virtually absolute vacuum, and such extremes of heat and cold?  

        I'm no freakin' Luddite, nor will going green mean going back to the stone age, lol, as you previously seemed to insinuate.

        Our exchange of comments on that topic is in my last diary about Greenpeace monitoring in Japan.

        I did some research, and responded to your comments on that, as best I could...

        I have nothing new to add to that, really.  Do you?

        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

        by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:23:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, that was kind of my point. (0+ / 0-)
          I did some research, and responded to your comments on that, as best I could...

          Your best isn't that good.

          •  lol...why do I get the impression... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive

            that nothing short of complete agreement with your perspective would be "good"?

            I actually responded in some detail and depth to this issue previously, and would invite you, and others to review that in the previous diary.

            I notice that you neglect to acknowledge or respond in any way to any of the points I have made here, or there, except with these terse assertions that Greenpeace, and thus I, for citing them, are sooo "wrong".

            Not a very convincing argument.

            For example, can you explain why you are so freakin' subjective about Cassini?

            Why do you ignore my position that maybe we should take care of unfinished business here on earth, before rushing off into deep space?

            Do you see no feasibility or desirability for establishing manufacturing and R&D facilities off-planet, to pursue such dangerous technologies as nuclear power?

             

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

            by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 04:22:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What I would like to see ... (0+ / 0-)
               lol...why do I get the impression... (0+ / 0-)
              that nothing short of complete agreement with your perspective would be "good"?

              ... is some acknowledgment from you that NASA might actually know a bit more about deep space exploration than you.

              Do you see no feasibility or desirability for establishing manufacturing and R&D facilities off-planet, to pursue such dangerous technologies as nuclear power?

              No, I do not.
              •  NASA is about aeronautics and space, mainly (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden, Andhakari

                So, while I might trust them on the space science, more or less, maybe not so much in terms of terrestrial environmental or social issues?

                I think this is a totally vaccuous and disingenuous argument from you, thus far.

                As you display in your own subjectivity toward Cassini, I would not be surprised if some of them think their projects are the most important thing in the whole world, and might strongly resent any challenge, in regard to "other" priorities, like making sure everyone on earth has clean drinking water, first.

                Their sponsors and contractors in big industry seem to have no qualms about forging ahead with all kinds of heinous money-making schemes, public interest be damned.

                And major elements of their administration are closely tied to big industry (huge money), and the pressures that brings, as well as having to compete, and maybe even weasel, for increasingly tenuous funding, which may render their "science" decisions and considerations somewhat less objective and...comprehensive, in terms of abstract things like, say, millions of humans unnecessarily dying, horribly, on earth?

                After all, even rocket scientists have to make their mortgage and truck payments, right?

                As to the technical feasibility of solar cells then, over 10 years ago, or now, or in the future, at such distances from the sun, I'll admit I don't know the answer to that, and will leave it to you to research and reference, if you wish to pursue that angle, if you think that's going to prove some point.

                But I don't really think that was the issue.  Greenpeace never insisted that they "must" use non-viable solar cells, and neither do I.

                They simply objected to shooting nukes up in rockets, and made a point of stating that they do not necessarily  object to exploratory missions, per se.

                If Cassini is not feasible with the available safe tech, then, oh well, maybe we should just wait on such missions, until it's more feasible.  

                What's your big freakin' problem with that?

                The nuclear power industry, like other big business, has foisted off their nukes on us against the popular democratic will or the public interest, and could obviously give a flying fuck about anything except "making" huge money, for themselves.

                And Indeed, despite the objections of Greenpeace and others, Cassini was launched, with it's little nuke, and so have numerous other such vehicles, as I understand it...

                So, wtf are you bitching about?  Greenpeace is obviously no threat to your obsessive pet project.

                Meanwhile, millions of people still don't have clean drinking water, either.  How do you feel about that, anyway?

                I hope we see substantial re-prioritization, going forward, after 2012...not to shut down NASA, but perhaps to re-task them somewhat, for more urgent terrestrial priorities, for a time, like how the hell are we going to stop the ice caps from melting, without killing all life on earth with radioactive contamination?

                Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:11:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I can't call that a nuke. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Radical def

                  Greenpeace really didn't call it that either.  They specifically complained about a launch of plutonium, and worried about toxic fallout should the rocket explode during launch.

                  A reasonable worry.  They should probably be using less toxic substances for their "RTG"s.

                  Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                  by neroden on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:23:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Or maybe ... (0+ / 0-)
                  And major elements of their administration are closely tied to big industry (huge money), and the pressures that brings, as well as having to compete, and maybe even weasel, for increasingly tenuous funding, which may render their "science" decisions and considerations somewhat less objective and...comprehensive, in terms of abstract things like, say, millions of humans unnecessarily dying, horribly, on earth?

                  After all, even rocket scientists have to make their mortgage and truck payments, right?

                  ... they actually know what they're talking about.

                  And Indeed, despite the objections of Greenpeace and others, Cassini was launched, with it's little nuke, and so have numerous other such vehicles, as I understand it...

                  So, wtf are you bitching about?  Greenpeace is obviously no threat to your obsessive pet project.

                  Oh, they aren't. They're not even opposing RTGs for space missions any more. The Cassini protests seem to have been a bit of a brainfart. I never heard them say anything about New Horizons, for example, even though it uses essentially the same system.

                  •  LOL...well that beats all, doesn't it? (0+ / 0-)

                    If Greenpeace has changed their position, wouldn't that seem to indicate that maybe they are more reasonable and objective than you seem to assert?

                    I don't get where you are coming from, about NASA knowing whether they could do the mission with solar power, or not.

                    I never disputed that.  

                    The only issue was whether it was worth the risk, to put 72 pounds of Plutonium on top of a rocket, and shoot it up in the air.  

                    The tiniest little particle of that shit is enough to kill you if you breath it, so it seems a reasonable concern, about the possibility of raining a bunch of it down on earth if the rocket exploded or fell back to earth and disintegrated on re-entry.

                    Perhaps Greenpeace finally became convinced that it wasn't such a big threat after all, upon studying the issue further?

                    Or, maybe more likely, they recognized that they weren't going to be able to prevail on that issue, so they turned to other, more viable issues?    

                    The other question I had, that you still have not addressed, is WHY was launching Cassini sooo goddamn important, that we "had" to take the risk?

                    As far as I know, that has nothing to do with whether solar cells would have sufficed for the mission, or not.  Why do you keep harping on that?

                    While I would trust NASA to know whether solar cells would work for a particular mission... Trusting monopoly corporate fascist big business and industry to make the right decisions and do the right thing with NASA, or anything else, NOT.

                    just like they are lying their asses off now, insisting that we "need" nukes, to stop global warming, of all things, which they have caused in the first place, and have consistently refused to seriously address, but spent millions of dollars loudly denying it's even true...but now, they want to tell us that they care, and are sooo green, and that nukes are sooo clean?

                    I don't think so.

                    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                    by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 10:10:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Aside from nukes, I don't have any big problems (0+ / 0-)

                      with Greenpeace. What I have been taking issue with is your political paranoia.

                      I don't get where you are coming from, about NASA knowing whether they could do the mission with solar power, or not.

                      I never disputed that.

                      Yes, you did:

                      The main reason NASA chose the RTG's over solar panels was that it would have taken too large an array, given the tech at that time.  Since then, more advanced and efficient solar cells have been developed.

                      So, the natural question that arises is what's the big freakin' rush, that we absolutely "must' risk the entire population of earth, "right now", rather than wait a few years for safer tech?  

          •  you can do flybys on battery (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radical def

            but outer planet orbiters are hard to do with
            out a nuke.

            Mars yes, Jupiter, yeah, barely.

            Saturn is hard to pull off,  not on solar.

            George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

            by nathguy on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:27:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Aren't they working on devices now (0+ / 0-)

              that generate electricity from relative temperature differences?

              Like, say, warmth on the sun side, and cold on the shaded side?

              Just a thought.  

              A diversionary "issue" anyway, I think, in that it does not really address any supposed urgent necessity for Cassini, or the other deep space probes, as interesting as their findings may be.

              Even if impossible without the Plutonium, that does not "prove" that we therefore "must" go ahead and launch them despite the risk of dangerous earthside contamination.

              And hardly relevant, really, as to whether we should deploy nuclear power on Earth, or whether Greenpeace can be trusted.

              Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

              by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 09:14:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Two points (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Radical def

                Thermo electric still needs something warm.

                Or thermo dynamic same way.

                At Saturn, everything is cold.

                Remember it's a planet where the moons have methane raining down.

                now at Jupiter it might be possible to harvest electricity from the planets magnetic field...... Saturn I don't know

                Now why do it?

                Why go to saturn?

                Because its there.  Because it tells us how our planet was created.  Because we are curious monkeys...

                Now I believe Fukushima is a mess.
                I think we have real trouble there and the apologists spent a week undermining the problem

                I think we need a real walk back on nuclear electric.

                George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

                by nathguy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 07:35:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  It wasn't a nuclear REACTOR. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radical def

          Cassini, like the other spacecraft, uses "trickle power" from radioactive decay.

          http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/...

          No fission, no chance of fission.

          The stuff's still toxic and poisonous, but that's a HELL of a lot safer than the mass quantities of fissionable materials used in nuclear REACTORS. It's also a great deal less material.

          Basically, it's just using the heat from radioactive decay.  As you know well, that can't go into a "runaway" reaction, doesn't need to be actively cooled, etc.

          I'm not terribly bothered by the spacecraft nuclear trickle power.  Solar is generally preferred for spacecraft, though, due to the fact that they get really good sunlight and it can be converted directly to electricity (theoretically you could do this with beta decay but apparently it's not done).

          Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

          by neroden on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:21:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Would you happen to know... (0+ / 0-)

            if solar cell tech is now more feasible for such a long distance mission?

            According to Recall, they didn't have solar cells that would work well enough back then, that far away from the sun, when Cassini was launched.

            What about now, i wonder?

            Although that might be a mute point, as far as Cassini is concerned, since if I remember correctly, they had a fairly tight window for launch, to take advantage of optimal orbital distances between Saturn and Earth, which if missed, would mean waiting a long time for them to come back around into optimal position again....whenever that might be.

            And otherwise, the distance would be far greater to travel, taking way longer, and the craft's rondevouz with Saturn would have been too far away for effective telemetry, maybe?... or something like that?
             

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

            by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 07:09:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I think Cassini was cesium fueled. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radical def

          Which, if anything, was more dangerous.
          Plutonium's decay rate is a bit to slow to produce the heat they needed.

          "I almost died for the international monetary system; what the hell is that?" ~ The In-laws

          by Andhakari on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 11:21:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  or maybe not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radical def

            sorry, I was remembering discussions from time past - perhaps incorrectly.

            "I almost died for the international monetary system; what the hell is that?" ~ The In-laws

            by Andhakari on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 11:28:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  oh, whatever...but pretty sure it was Plutonium (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Andhakari

            Yeah, it's Pu-238, mainly.

            What is a RTG?

            I'm getting pretty tired of this particular thread, heh...

            Recall, the dude who keeps obsessing on Cassini, is just giving me a hard time, I think.  

            He's just got a bug up his ass, about Greenpeace.

            At this point, I'll be glad when this diary scrolls off the front page, and I can go to sleep, lol.

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

            by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm just getting up. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Radical def

              I live in Norway now.
              Go to bed. I've never thought that diarists needed to hang around and defend their posts.

              "I almost died for the international monetary system; what the hell is that?" ~ The In-laws

              by Andhakari on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:18:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  oh, just kidding...I get a big kick out of it (0+ / 0-)

                But this one has stayed on the first page for nearly 12 hours now, and I am getting a tad bit burned out, heh.

                Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:43:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Can I put a nuke plant in your back yard? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radical def, HoundDog, neroden, nathguy

    I'm willing to invest in nukes, there is good money in it and as long as it is in your back yard I don't give a shit!

    No, seriously I was starting to get lulled into a quiet acceptability of nuke plants until this came along and woke me up.  I hope this closes the chapter on nuke energy for sometime.
    Thanks for posting.

    ....at a table with 12 cookies. The CEO takes 11 and says to the Tea Partier: "Keep an eye on that union guy, he wants your cookie." Ari Paul 'The US: Waking up to class politics' Al Jazeera

    by weltshmertz on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:34:13 PM PDT

    •  oww...right? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weltshmertz

      I would love to have nukes, believe me...if only it were safe.

      I'm not against continued R&D, toward that end.  But neither do I think we should experiment, risking millions of lives in the process, with the kind of proliferation that has ensued thus far, nor as is being projected by industry as so "necessary", which, in fact, is simply is not.

      I don't see it as such a good investment, either, heh, not only due to the present situation with Fukushima, but long before that.

      Appropriate green alternatives have been shown to be viable, and can be deployed immediately, as opposed to someday, maybe...and they are a HELL of a lot cheaper, any way you look at it.

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

      by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:47:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, it is a good investment (0+ / 0-)

        in that the corporate sponsors, the stock holders, will not be personally liable due to the corporate veil. as a stock holder you can have your investments fuck up the world all you want and you get to walk away with all your money while the rest of us get stuck with the costs of cleaning up the mess because as you well know the corporations and those who own them instead of paying taxes they rather collect subsidies.  

        ....at a table with 12 cookies. The CEO takes 11 and says to the Tea Partier: "Keep an eye on that union guy, he wants your cookie." Ari Paul 'The US: Waking up to class politics' Al Jazeera

        by weltshmertz on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:46:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Is it still called the linear "hypothesis"? (3+ / 0-)

    I'm probably showing my age by asking that.

    Would there be any sense in encouraging people to avoid high natural background regions of the country? Not as much effect individually perhaps as remedying high-radon problems but from a public health standpoint it might make sense, since a small dose change x a large number of people would amount to the same harm as a large dose change x a small number of people. I wouldn't go that far myself but I just wondered how you might feel about it.

    Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

    by billmosby on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 03:45:40 PM PDT

    •  It's accepted as a "confirmed" hypothesis... (3+ / 0-)

      ...by most scientists and virtually all regulatory agencies, as I understand it, that even "low" dose radiation does seem to be cumulatively harmful.

      With the fairly extreme proliferation of various kinds of cancer, which have risen very precipitously in recent times, from any number of sources, it seems wise to avoid unnecessarily piling straws on the camel's back, I think.

      Naturally occurring radon is indeed perhaps the most prevalent kind of harmful radiation, which emanates as a gas from some kinds of geological formations, and has been found seeping into people's basements in some areas of the US, to harmful effect.

      In fact, this has prompted government recommendations that people should test for radon gas, and even put detectors in their basements, in some areas.

      There are areas on earth where it is deemed unsafe to live, due to radon and other such natural radiation sources...I forget where, exactly, but do recall seeing reference to that in one of the linked references in this diary.

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

      by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 04:05:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the linear non threshold model appears to be (4+ / 0-)

      the  current scientific concensus.  

      Which means yes, if you had a totally free choice, and were not already locked in, and no other constrainsts or preferences you should move to lower background regions of the countries.

      If you already live in one of these areas, have a job, relatives etc, you would have to do a cost benefit analysis, and most experts would tell you your differential expectation of cancer, is probably not worth the moving expenses.

      But, up here in Mass, all homes with stone foundations, require radon testing, to sell.  And, many such homes install filters.

      I have several adenomas that are so far "benign."  

      Every couple of years my doctors and I have "cost-benefit" discussions, on whether I am more likely to die of an unexpected growth spurt, in one of these nodules, or whether or not the CATSCAN is more likely to turn them malignent, or start some other growth.

      I've had about 3 so far and expect to get another soon.

      But, I  follow the advice to avoid any unnecessary exposure to radiation if you can.

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 04:44:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I really meant (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HoundDog, Radical def, OtherDoug

        more of from a public health point of view. I assumed that the cancer rate per person would be quite small, but multiplied by millions it might be pretty significant.

        Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

        by billmosby on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 04:47:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dude! That's gnarly! I'd be out of there... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        billmosby

        How the heck do you "filter" your basement?

        As I understand it, beyond, or in addition to, the effects of various kinds of exposure, there may also be some degrees of individual genetic propensity for cancers.

        Not to make you feel bad, but surely you have considered that you may be somewhat more succeptable?

        Dang, it almost seems rude to pursue it, but you did bring it up....Can't help but wonder why you would take such a chance, even for a good job, or proximity to family.

        It would seem your vulnerability goes beyond mere remote risk, into the realm of very likely probability.  

        How can your doctor even speak in terms of weighing the risks, rather than just telling you to get the hell out of there?  

        How much money does he stand to "make", keeping you around as a patient?  

        Owww...that sounds harsh.  Maybe i should apologize in advance, for talking off the top of my head?

        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

        by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 05:03:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One unusual radon anecdote- (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radical def, RWood, HoundDog, OtherDoug

          I used to work for Argonne National Lab-West, in Idaho. That site is located in some old lava flows, and there are lots of fairly large lava tubes there. One particularly large, straight one was often used by boy scouts for a camping shelter. In fact they would camp as much as 1/4 mile into it just for the adventure of it. One day one of our HP techs got the idea to do some radon measurements back in there and found a lot of radon. I don't remember the specifics now, but I remember being told that if you had a house with that kind of radon level in it you would have to remediate it (that's done by intercepting it with vents at the low point and essentially piping it outside before it gets into the living space).

          On snowy days at the lab we would avoid stepping into snow at all costs because it traps radon daughters and then transfers them to your shoes and if you went into a rad area the monitoring systems would keep you there for a half hour or so until the radon daughters decayed away or until you could get an HP tech to bless it as natural rather than some of the other stuff they were actually monitoring for.

          Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

          by billmosby on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 05:30:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My youngest brother visited a nuclear plant on a (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            billmosby, Radical def, OtherDoug

            school trip, and set off the radiation detectors.  After, they learned he grew up in a stone house, they said the mystery was solved.

            The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by HoundDog on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:36:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We had a visitor to Argonne-West.. (0+ / 0-)

              who had toured a uranium mine (in Canada, if I remember correctly) and had a small piece of ore stick to the bottom of one of his souvenir cowboy boots, which he also wore to our facility. We discovered it, and he had to give up the boots. However, the management bought him another pair which he took back to Japan when he went back home.

              Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

              by billmosby on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 07:54:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OtherDoug, Mcrab

      It is still a "hypothesis" without any clear evidence to back it up.

      Since it has been a hypothesis so long, it's usually referred to as the "LNT model" these days, to emphasize that it is just one of several models that could be used.

      The only thing that is certain and that all scientists agree on is that there are clear indications that the effect of low-level ionizing radiation is no worse than what is predicted by the LNT model.

      Even advocates of the LNT model for regulatory use warn against abusing the LNT model as Greenpeace has done.

      An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
      -- H. L. Mencken

      by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:39:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have to challenge that... (0+ / 0-)

        First of all, the reason that it's called a "confirmed" hypothesis is that there is, in fact, substantial evidence indicating it's probably true.  That's why the regulatory agencies use it, even though it's not absolutely proven exactly how much it's true, under what circumstances.

        As to "warnings" about using it "as Greenpeace has done", either put up some credible links to substantiate that claim, or be considered a lying troll.  

        And by credible, I don't mean some nuke advocate industry hack.

        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

        by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:29:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Greenpeace trying to use scientific... (2+ / 5-)
    Recommended by:
    bryfry, Mcrab
    Hidden by:
    Radical def, nathguy, Andhakari, HamdenRice, Agathena

    ...instrumentation is rather like Pope Ratzinger giving advice on birth control.

    You can't get into Greenpeace if you know any science, and if you know science, you wouldn't want to be in that cult.

    They simply hate the science they know nothing about, nuclear science.

    They can't stand it that - while ignoring all the world's coal plants and gas plants - a 14 meter tsunami and a 9.0 earthquake hit 6 nuclear plants without causing widespread death.

    The radiation suits - like their clown suits - are especially stupid.

    While the fuckers were flying to Japan in their radiation suits in a dangerous fossil fuel powered aircraft (assuming a 12 hour flight) about 2000 -2500 hundred people died from air pollution.

    What a bunch of mindless asses the Greenpeace people are.

    •  Nice HR by the diarist . . . (0+ / 0-)
    •  Uprating for HR Abuse (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indycam

      I don't agree with the poster's views about nuclear power, but I don't see any violation of DK's rules in his post. If someone can show me the rule he violated, I will withdraw my uprating.

      •  How about... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jake Johnson, Agathena

        Lying his ass off, about Greenpeace being a "cult", where science isn't allowed, and that they "ignore" coal and gas plant pollution, because they are "mindless asses"?

        And implying that they "can't stand it" that there hasn't been "widespread death" from the nukes (yet).

        I could let the "stupid...clown suits" slide, except that they are in a contaminated area, for several days, going around measuring radiation, especially in places where they suspect it may be relatively strong, and I doubt very much that they wore them on the airplane, assuming they didn't come in by sea...and to imply that because they are trying to deal with this nuke disaster, they are somehow therefore ignoring or allowing, or even responsible for thousands of people dying of air pollution...which they also ardently fight against, as well.

        i have no idea who Pope Ratzinger is, but that almost sounds offensive enough to HR, all by it self, lol.

        Actually, I HR'd the fool on sight, because he's a notorious, known troll, who brings this kind of shit all the time, and also because he advocates nukes, against all reason, with the most heinous ad hominem slurs and insults, and no desire whatsoever for rational, civil discussion.

        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

        by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 10:32:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Look, I Don't Agree With Him Either (0+ / 0-)

          I've been HR'd for much milder statements here about the nukesters. I think HR abuse is one of the worst flaws of DK. The answer to free speech is generally more free speech. HR-ing the post for other posts you don't like? Sorry, I'm too much of a free-speech guy to go for it.

          •  Please note, i haven't HR'd anyone else here (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jake Johnson

            And I would ask you, how far would you go, in your defense of "free speech"?

            Like, if some nazi was on here, saying all Jews and "N"s are inferior, would you refrain from HRing their jive ass, because they have a "right" to their "opinion", even if you "disagree"?

            The fact that you have been unjustly HR'd by the nuke advocates seems a...strange...justification, for uprating this person's insipid remarks.

            Oh well, whatever.  

            Since there's no longer any moderation on dkos, and neither mojo nor HR's seem to have any real meaning or impact any more, except as a symbolic expression of offense over egregious remarks, I don't see any point of making a big deal about it.

            It's the wild wild west, anymore, so it doesn't really matter.

            btw...regardless of whatever other posts this fool has made, this one qualifies, in and of itself, as deliberate trolling.

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

            by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 11:10:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Last Reply (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Radical def, billmosby

              I'm not uprating hate speech or random wingnut trollery. Look at the ratings I've handed out. They've included HRs.

              As for "it's the Wild West, what does it matter," well, I've been participating here for a relatively short time and have been baffled and irritated by this aspect of the site. There is a big "junior high school" element here, and I'm trying to counter it.

              Perhaps fighting useless battle, but that's what being a liberal has always been about.

              •  Being a Liberal has always been about... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jake Johnson, Radical def

                Many things... including in this case questioning what is "established" as facts.

                There is no doubt that there has and continues to be a lack of information surrounding this incident, which includes even consistent data regarding radiation levels being provided to all concerned and effected.

                Yet, when a group, considered liberal, attempts to add to this data, on what could be considered a liberal blog no less, they are attacked ad hominem, which serves no purpose other than to distract from their efforts to provide additional facts to all concerned.

                The implication of this is the only facts that are acceptable are those "established" by who the commenter above accepts facts from.  Any other fact is dismissed, not on the basis of the fact, but on the basis of who provided it.

                And you, by uprating the commenter's screed above, likewise agree, which is the issue being raised here, and which has nothing to do with whether this forum is at a "junior high school level" to which we require your guidance to determine which facts are or are not acceptable to consider.

                The "Tea" - a toxic mixture of faith and fear brewed to convince people to give away their country all the while shouting that they are here to take it back.

                by herenow on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:17:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'll Respond to You ... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... because you're a different commenter in this subthread. The following is too long, but that's because it reflects my consideable frustration in the short time I've been here.

                  For starters, I take a very dim view of NNadir's comments. I noticed a while back that he was linked on a sit by Rod Adams, a nukester denialist who, among other things, runs a business that aims to pull portable nuclear reactors.

                  Some might ask, then why don't you reply to his ridiculous posts? My answer is that my recent experiences with a different pro-nuke commenter brought me a lot closer than I ever want to get to just losing it over the crappin' around on the DK with its ridiculously arcane HR practices. For the time being, I'm staying out of the nuclear threads.

                  But I do check the HR'd comments in all threads to see which ones have been unreasonably HR'd. In most cases I think the HRs are fine, and sometimes I'll add my own HR to the pile. But sometimes they are not okay. Given the rule that says parties to an argument aren't supposed to hand out HRs, I think it's a worthwhile thing for people to do what I'm doing. More DKers should be doing it, and coming to the defense of progressive dissenters here.

                  Back to NNadir and the comment in question. I can see both sides of it. His comments are slashing and sarcastic, and they do come close to the line. You really have to read them carefully to figure it out. I uprated two for HR abuse, and wound up withdrawing one uprate when someone made a good case for the legitimacy of his HR.

                  But not this uprate. I think the HR'd comment was, its tone aside, thoughtful and detailed. It wasn't a snark or a screed, but a formidable attack. People should respond to stuff like that with facts and reason, not censorship. It is far too easy,  and far too common everywhere on the Internet to label effective dissenters as "trolls."

                  One last point. It's more of a general one; whether it specifically applies to NNadir I can't say. When people are given a perjorative label ("troll") and then ganged up on, junior high school style, the result is destructive. You wind up producing the behavior you were claiming to codemn, but were actually hoping to generate as a means of excluding disagreement. This is why the most effective dissenters are likeliest to be labeled "trolls."

                  "First you call them crazy, then you drive them crazy." It is a very insidious game. Hardly unique to DK, yet rampant here just as it is on the wingnut sites. People ought to be more careful before declaring people "trolls" and HRing their comments.

            •  That's because some of us (0+ / 0-)

              adhere to the proper script for communicating with you.

              Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

              by billmosby on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:02:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You should pull your HR , (0+ / 0-)

              it is against the rules to HR someone / anyone in your own diary .

              "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

              by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:27:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  with all due respect... (0+ / 0-)

                Fuck nnadir, I'd ban his jive ass, if I could.

                HR's mean nothing, absolutely nothing, anymore.

                I heard someone got over 120 HR's the other day, and still didn't lose their TU status.

                Rules?  Who is following the rules, anymore?

                There is no moderation.  This is the wild west, here.

                The site is absolutely swamped with trolls who could give a flying fuck about the rules.

                They have lied their ass off in clicking "Yes" on the TOS, just to gain access to the venue and troll us, mercilessly, ruthlessly, 24/7.

                I am fairly conservative in my use of HR's, but nnadir is a prime candidate, whom I will HR on sight, unless he changes his practice, just because I can.  

                Big freakin' deal?   I don't think so.

                Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:38:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  #2 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radical def

            http://www.dkosopedia.com/...

            it is considered a violation of site policy to uprate a comment with an insult in it.
            What a bunch of mindless asses the Greenpeace people are.
            Is this an insult ?
            Do you think calling other site users "mindless asses" is acceptable discourse that rates an uprate ?

            http://www.dkosopedia.com/...

            Any and all insults are HRable.

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:28:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Sigh (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          billmosby
          i have no idea who Pope Ratzinger is, but that almost sounds offensive enough to HR, all by it self, lol.

          Uh ... he's the current pope. Duh.

          Pope Benedict XVI (that's the current pope, BTW), was born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger.

          Greenpeace ... knowledge ... somehow the two just don't go together, lol.

          An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
          -- H. L. Mencken

          by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:46:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radical def

            http://www.greenpeace.org/...
            "Paul Johnston - Unit Head PhD
            David Santillo - David obtained a degree in marine and freshwater biology in 1989, and a PhD in marine microbial ecology in 1993, both from the University of London, before continuing with postdoctoral research into nutrient pollution in the Adriatic Sea.
            Iryna Labunska
            Iryna graduated from Kiev State University in 1980 with a Masters degree in chemistry. In 1991, following research into chemical reaction kinetics at the Ukrainian Academy of Science, Iryna began work with the Kiev Laboratory of Greenpeace.
            Kevin Brigden
            Kevin gained a degree in chemistry from the University of Sheffield, followed by a PhD in synthetic organic chemistry from the University of Sydney in 1996.
            Janet Cotter
            Janet was awarded a degree in geology and geochemistry from Manchester University in 1987 and a PhD in soil science from Imperial College, University of London, in 1991.
            Reyes Tirado
            Reyes graduated from Seville University (Spain) in 1997, and did her Ph.D. research on plant ecology in the Estación Experimental de Zonas Áridas (CSIC) in Almería (Spain), getting her doctorate in 2003.
            Michelle Allsopp
            Michelle obtained a degree in Genetics in 1985 from University of Swansea followed by a PhD in Biomedicine from University of Exeter in 1992."

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:41:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, I agree (0+ / 0-)

              The ratio of the number of years spent in school to the amount of knowledge attained is quite depressing, isn't it?

              So you've posted a roster of mediocre academics, who can't get a better job than working for Greenpeace.  Well, I suppose it pays better than working for Starbucks.  But so what?

              An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
              -- H. L. Mencken

              by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:58:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK (0+ / 0-)
                mediocre academics
                What did you get your PhD in ?

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:10:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Me? (0+ / 0-)

                  Engineering Physics.  That's what it says on the piece of paper.

                  Satisfied?

                  An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                  -- H. L. Mencken

                  by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:22:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you are just another mediocre academic ? (0+ / 0-)

                    How is your job at starbucks going ?

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:47:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, not exactly (0+ / 0-)

                      I guarantee that I'm paid much better than those Greenpeace ... er ... employees.

                      I actually know something.

                      An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                      -- H. L. Mencken

                      by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:51:21 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So a person is a "mediocre academic" (0+ / 0-)

                        based on what they are paid ? They got their PhDs but are "mediocre academics" because of what they are paid ? Interesting logic !
                        So if someone were to get a PhD and then get a job that paid more that yours , they would be a better academic than you ? When push comes to shove , the person with the bigger paycheck wins ?

                        I actually know something.
                        And they got their PhDs based on not knowing ?

                        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                        by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:00:25 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Are you an employe ? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Radical def
                        employees.
                        Do you look down on "employees" ?

                        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                        by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:03:16 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  PS (0+ / 0-)

                      Your scientific credentials are what?

                      Please remind me.

                      An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                      -- H. L. Mencken

                      by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:52:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  This "credentials" fetish... (0+ / 0-)

                        and your remarks just prove that even "smart" people can be stupid, lol.

                        If pay level indicates one's worth, then obviously Donald Trump is "better" than you...how does that make you feel?

                        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                        by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:49:19 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Hey (0+ / 0-)

                          "Dr." Indycam started all of this nonsense. HR him/her/it if it makes you feel any better.

                          By "Dr." Indycam's rules, I should be HR'ing you. You insulted me. Now I must go cry ... or whatever Indycam does in his/her/its private time.

                          An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                          -- H. L. Mencken

                          by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:49:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  So...do you think that's going to cut you slack.. (0+ / 0-)

                    for crimes against humanity, in advocating nukes?

                    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                    by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:50:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh my! (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm guilty of "crimes against humanity"?!!

                      That's over the top! I should HR you. "Dr." Indycam's rules say that I should. You have insulted me.

                      Maybe "Dr." Indycam will be a standup guy and HR you for me, since I don't play those childish games.

                      An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                      -- H. L. Mencken

                      by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:50:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  PS (0+ / 0-)

                  What's your PhD in?

                  Certainly not in English.

                  An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                  -- H. L. Mencken

                  by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:44:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Something people like you can't understand... (0+ / 0-)

                is that some people are more altruistic than to put a higher priority on their income than they do on their principles, the public interest, and saving the planet.

                They could make a lot more, working for industry, but they choose not to.  What does that make you, except a freakin' whore?

                If you really had anything of material relevance to bring, you would presumably spit it out...but you don't, so you bring this kind of jive, instead, to just spew slander and insults.

                Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:58:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yawn (0+ / 0-)

                  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, join a propaganda farm.

                  An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                  -- H. L. Mencken

                  by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:47:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I forgot (0+ / 0-)

                    Those who can't do any of the above parrot nonsense from a propaganda farm, and thus, diaries such as this are born.

                    Have a nice day.

                    An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                    -- H. L. Mencken

                    by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 12:54:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know, or care about the freakin' pope. (0+ / 0-)

            But something tells me that using his real last name like that is probably not considered polite, but probably meant more to demean.

            I am not Greenpeace, nor even a "member", just someone who respects their work.

            Not that knowing the arcane last name of the freakin' pope has anything to do with whether we should go green or not.

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

            by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:19:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The rule , (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radical def, HamdenRice, Agathena

        "simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie."
        He states

        while ignoring all the world's coal plants and gas plants
        While the truth is the oposite and it's been pointed out to him before .
        http://www.greenpeace.org/...
        Coal fired power plants are the biggest source of man made CO2 emissions. This makes coal energy the single greatest threat facing our climate.

        http://www.greenpeace.org/...

        "Climate change is the greatest threat to the planet and todeveloping countries like Thailand, yet companies like BLCP continuebuilding dirty coal plants.  This is a scandal that must beexposed and must be stopped.  The lives of millions are at risk,"said Tara Buakamsri of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

        http://www.acorn-online.com/...

        Five Greenpeace activists arrested after climbing coal elevator at Bridgeport Coal Plant

        http://www.wwaytv3.com/...

        WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) -- The Port City sees many ships come and go, but one that arrived today hopes to leave a lasting impression.

        Greenpeace activists and supporters want a coal-free future. That's why the Arctic Sunrise is here in Wilmington, starting its east coast ship tour urging companies like the L.V. Sutton Plant to quit coal now

        http://blogs.wsj.com/...

        Radford: New Greenpeace Boss on Climate Change, Coal, and Nuclear Power

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:14:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just went to the greenpeace website (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry, OtherDoug, Mcrab

          Of the five banners you can scroll through on the main page, one is a scary picture with updates on the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster, and one is a petition to get the president to invest in renewable energy and not nuclear.  I don't see coal plants on the front page, or fossil fuels of any sort for that matter.

          I'm sure they are also opposed to coal, but it seems they're focusing more on nuclear energy to me.  When I compare the two technologies, nuclear wins hands down by a wide margin over coal.  As NNadir likes to point out, air pollution from burning fossil fuels kills millions of people every year; as many as 5000 people a day.  

          My opinion is that when we've stopped burning fossil fuels, we can start to talk about phasing out nuclear energy, though I'm not at all convinced that it will be either possible  or wise to do so.  Until that time, all of the energy and effort taken to campaign and protest against nuclear power is a distraction from what I believe should be a much more important and immediate goal of ending our reliance on fossil fuel.  

          •  The claim was (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radical def
            while ignoring all the world's coal plants and gas plants

            If you wish to talk about what is and what is not first seen when going to a Greenpeace website , that fine with me , but it is of little or no interest to me .

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:57:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This is an absolutely false, straw man argument (0+ / 0-)

            Greenpeace opposes ALL polluting industries and power sources, and wants to go green, all the way, immediately.

            And that also happens to be the national popular democratic will, by a large margin.

            Trying to make this an issue of nukes OR coal, OR gas, is just unmitigated bullshit, aimed at slagging Greenpeace, and defending your subjective interest in nukes.

            And the same goes for anyone else who takes this kind of jive line, of whom there are several here on dkos, trolling every diary on the topic, slinging adhominem insults, lies and disinformation, just like Chamber of Commerce sock puppets.

            You can posture all you want, about how freakin' green you are, but if you slag Greenpeace, then I know you, and nnadir, and everyone who takes your line, are craven liars, with no principles and no credibility.

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

            by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:13:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh please (0+ / 0-)

          If the rule is "simply a lie," I could justifiably HR half of the anti-nuclear comments on this site, including quite a few of yours.

          When was the last time that Greenpeace protested a natural gas plant?

          An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
          -- H. L. Mencken

          by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:52:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But mommy , Billy did it too ... (0+ / 0-)
            including quite a few of yours.
            Go for it !
            Post my lies for everyone to see !
            Put up !
            I dare you !

            Remember the bet you would not take ?

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:01:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)
              Post my lies for everyone to see

              Why should I do that? You have already posted them yourself. If you're asking me to republish your incorrect nonsense, then bugger off. I've got better things to do.

              We've been through this exercise over and over. You apparently enjoy this game. I do not.

              Why do you think that anyone cares what you say? You're more annoying than anything else. Hell, you haven't even learned how to punctuate your sentences correctly!

              An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
              -- H. L. Mencken

              by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:09:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh so you will not back up your words (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Radical def

                with action . You are all bluster .
                You have been challenged to put up and you failed .

                vs

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:14:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Please (0+ / 0-)

                  Refresh my memory.

                  You assume that most of the people here take you seriously. Perhaps you haven't considered that they do not.

                  So as concerns the issue that you bring up, I have no idea what you're talking about.

                  Perhaps if you could provide a link to the pissing contest that you refer to, it might jog my memory of the times that I have wasted dealing with simple-minded people such as you.

                  Thank you in advance.
                  bryfry

                  An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                  -- H. L. Mencken

                  by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:26:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You can't hold up your end (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Radical def
                    simple-minded people such as you.
                    without insults .

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:39:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You are welcome (0+ / 0-)

                      to prove me wrong at any time.

                      Your poor performance, thus far, does not encourage me that you will pull it off, however.

                      An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                      -- H. L. Mencken

                      by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:58:57 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Golly , you don't hold me in high regard , (0+ / 0-)

                        oh boo hoo .
                        I don't value your opinion .
                        You have shown yourself again and again .

                        Here is a little clue for you ,
                        if you want to use that argument ,
                        the other person must care for your good opinion .
                        If the other person cares not for your good opinion ...

                        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                        by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:20:28 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  ... (0+ / 0-)
                    You assume that most of the people here take you seriously. Perhaps you haven't considered that they do not.
                    And you would know what most people on this site think ?

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:42:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Radical def
                WASHINGTON _ A large environmental group is slinging mud at an industry campaign to portray natural gas as a clean alternative to oil.

                "Natural gas is essentially just as dirty and destructive as oil," said Fred Munson, an energy analyst for Greenpeace, a group known for combining headline-grabbing tactics with research and lobbying.

                Greenpeace is clearly swimming against the political tide in its assault on natural gas.

                VIENNA (AFP) — Environmental group Greenpeace blasted the signing in Ankara Monday of a deal on the Nabucco gas pipeline, urging countries instead to invest in cheaper and cleaner energy.

                http://www2.ic.edu/...

                "Natural gas drillers can't claim to represent any notion of 'clean energy' when they're dumping toxic pollution into waterways, contaminating drinking water and getting a lobbying boost from the American Petroleum Institute against clean water protections," said Kyle Ash, Greenpeace senior legislative representative.
                Police last night vowed to arrest environmental campaigners who have halted drilling on a Scottish oil rig off the coast of Greenland.

                Kuupik Kleist, the country’s Prime Minister, criticised Greenpeace activists for “an illegal attack on Greenland’s constitutional rights” after four protesters scaled the sides of Cairn Energy’s rig and secured themselves in makeshift tents.

                Activists used inflatable speedboats to evade Danish navy units and access the rig, which has been the centre of a global storm since the Scottish firm announced the discovery of natural gas – and potentially oil – last week.

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:36:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  When Greenpeace members (0+ / 0-)

                  try to actually shut down a natural gas plant, then get back to me.

                  Have you ever heard of "posturing"?

                  An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                  -- H. L. Mencken

                  by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:48:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  When you get a natural gas plant shut down (0+ / 0-)

                    you get back to me ! Link to a newspaper report that shows you personally have succeeded .

                    Have you ever heard of "posturing"?
                    Ask a silly question ...

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:09:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                      Why is this about me? I thought that this was about Greenpeace.

                      They try to shut down coal plants and nuclear plants all the time. Don't they even protest natural gas plants?

                      An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                      -- H. L. Mencken

                      by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:12:50 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  What...they should blow it up? (0+ / 0-)

                    So you can call them terrorists?

                    They put their lives on the line, risking arrest.

                    They lobby and campaign, and work hard at what they do.

                    And their success, such as it is, is measured by whether and how much the general public, and thus government, and even industry, respond to the information and actions they generate.

                    On the one hand, they have failed to stop Cassini, or the deployment of nuclear power plants, coal and gas, or to compel the nation to go green....on the actual government policy and industrial side.

                    On the other hand, they have succeeded, in conjunction with other advocates, in convincing a large majority of the population that we should, in fact, go green, and drop the rest of the polluting energy sources.

                    As a result, even big industry and the government are, in fact, compelled to at least pretend that they, too, want to go green, and to more or less change their practice in some regards, at least in public, of slagging environmentalists so ruthlessly.

                    I'd say they are making headway, and the only thing standing in the way of going green, anymore, remains the absolute intransigence of industry and government, in terms of actual policy and implementation, to submit to the popular democratic will.  Hopefully that will change, after 2012.

                    So, its not over yet, and the struggle continues, but Greenpeace has met substantial success in advancing that struggle.

                    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                    by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:04:21 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  I'd Say You Made the Case (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          indycam

          Uprate withdrawn.

          I don't think very highly of Greenpeace either, but on further reflection and re-reading of the comment, I can see the justification for the HR.

  •  There is no way the Japanese government (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radical def

    will listen to Greenpeace about anything. They are convinced that Greenpeace is responsible for the lack of cheap whale burgers as free lunch in their schools. Arguably Sea Shepard is more responsible for that but Greenpeace has better PR even without the TV show.

    I don't dislike all conservatives... mainly just the ones that vote Republican.

    by OHdog on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 06:33:36 PM PDT

  •  Radon is not a problem if you vent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OtherDoug

    your basement. Generally...don't sleep in down there...however, you are more likely to die in your basement from 'black damp' (CO2) or CO poisoning than developing cancer from it.

    Secondly, what IS disputed is that at those low levels, the LNT is always washed out be other environmental inputs, like, coal dust, smoke, insecticides, particulate from diesel and tons of other stuff far more dangerous and likely to cause cancer.

    Thirdly, there is zero evidence that living in areas of higher background have ever been unhealthy. The generally healthier climate at higher altitudes washes away any problems with increase in radiation, assuming there is even a problem. This is why the LNT often doesn't hold up to real world experience.

    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

    by davidwalters on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 07:58:49 PM PDT

    •  Who disputes LNT? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andhakari

      My understanding is that LNT is pretty widely accepted as a "confirmed" hypothesis, in that there is substantial evidence that it's probably true, and no better method for regulatory standards has been determined...which is why all the regulatory agencies use it.

      Saying that it's "always" washed out by other factors, or that it "often" doesn't hold up seems...unlikely.  Do you have some reference for such claims?

      (let me guess...the nuke industry?)

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

      by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:33:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Its accepted, but not really confirmed (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bryfry, OtherDoug, Mcrab

        It is the simplest and most conservative rule for dealing with low dose radiation.

        The problem is that, at least with humans, there is no real way of testing whether it actually represents reality.  The French scientific societies for one don't support the LNT model for exactly this reason.

        In work in mice and other laboratory animals, there is significant support (and also evidence against) a hormetic effect of low dose radiation.

        •  Care to document your position? (0+ / 0-)

          My understanding is that hormetic has not even been tested on animals, let alone humans, but only in the petri dish, and that, in fact, it does NOT enjoy "significant" support, except maybe by nuke advocates, who want to convince us that radiation is "good" for us.  

          The term used for LNT is, in fact, "confirmed" as the most viable hypothesis available, in terms of actual evidence, which is substantial, and the obligation to prevent harm to the public, which is why principal regulatory agencies use it.

          If the French use a different standard, I'd assume it's a more stringent one, rather than going in the direction of hormetics.

          Easy to cast dispersions, but without some documentation I can only conclude, in the context of your remarks, that rather than contribute to discussion, you just want to slag Greenpeace.

          Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

          by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:45:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OtherDoug, Mcrab

            First, if you're interested you can read the last diary I wrote exactly on this subject, the gist is that the LNT model is based on deterministic effects at high doses that are then extrapolated down in a linear fashion to 0.  They are extrapolated based on essentially no epidemiological data, because that data is simply too difficult to come by - we will likely never have enough statistical power to measure the effects of low dose radiation ever.

            The French agencies have said essentially exactly this - we don't know, and basing policy and medical decisions on the LNT model may do more harm than it does good.  They don't support hormesis but rather a threshold model (and I'll point out that I am also not arguing for the LNT model, a threshold model, or a hormetic model - I am just pointing out that we simply don't know the actual effects of low dose radiation, and any of the models are as equally plausible as the other).

            Hormesis has been tested extensively in animals ranging from fruit flies to mice.
            Here for example is one of the most recent studies I've seen, where they demonstrate a hormetic effect of radiation in fruit flies, and then use various mutants to try and determine the molecular mechanisms involved.

            Here is a paper showing a hormetic response in the immune system of mice.
            Here is one showing a hormetic response in cell proliferation and cell survival, with the acknowledgement that this data could be applied to human radiation treatments.
            Here is one showing that low doses of radiation (low dose meaning 50x background!) increased the lifespan of a population of 600 female mice by over 22% compared to the control population.

            There are also significant numbers of epidemiological studies, and the review here has a nice summary of both these studies as well as the history of hormesis in general.  If you're interested, there are a ton of links there that you can peruse.

            It is a fairly well documented, poorly understood, and controversial area of research.

          •  And I checked the French Academy Statement as well (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OtherDoug, Mcrab
            Hormesis has been reported in 40% of the animal experiments [79], moreover, the biological bases of hormesis now seems to be understood [87], and its existence is beyond question [50].

            From Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation(pdf!)
            •  OK, thanks for the links... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              raoul78

              ...which have given me pause to reconsider, somewhat.

              I'm definitely in over my head, in trying to evaluate the studies cited.  My initial source, a mere wiki, seems to have been outdated, incorrect, or misunderstood by me, to some extent, and as initially stated, i'm not a scientist.

              Most significantly it seems, evidently there have, in fact been animal studies, and attempts to extrapolate hormesis data from human studies of atomic bomb survivors.

              My impression is that some, but not all, strictly controlled animal studies do seem to produce some indications of hormesis, while those broader, real world human case studies do not seem to indicate any measurable hormesis effect.

              While it does seem there may be some fairly substantial evidence, from some isolated lab research data, that there may be some hormesis effect from very low doses of radiation, as has also been shown with exposure to other forms of chemical toxicity...a more or less immunizing, higher tolerance effect, so to speak...this has not been definitively proven, nor accepted as a viable guideline for public protection from radiation and other contamination exposures, it would appear.

              The main prospective application for this phenomenon, to the extent that it may seem to exist, seems to be potential increased safety and efficacy for higher dose radiation treatments of cancer, by preparing the patient with very low dose (and strictly controlled) exposures, prior to beginning the actual treatment with higher doses, to kill off cancers.

              I'm not at all clear on the dosage levels, and how they relate to real-world experience from various sources, kinds, and degrees of contamination, including escalated background radiation for the general population, from nuclear testing, accidents, etc. which do not occur in the strictly controlled dose and time-frame parameters of the laboratory, and how that adds up with other rising exposure to other toxic substances in the environment.

              Many uncontrolled factors of variance in dose and time frame, including nature and source of contamination, wind and weather patterns, diet, age, genetic predisposition, and other environmental factors seem to render the hormetics factor...nebulous, at best, in terms of applicable efficacy in predicting, preventing, or protecting from over-dose.

              What these links you have provided do seem to show is that there is substantially stronger evidence for LNT than for hormetics, and that while LNT may seem to not precisely extrapolate for very low doses, it nevertheless does tend to remain very consistent and accurate, for relatively low doses, and higher doses.

              As I say, it's not at all clear to me how this relates to real world exposure kinds, dosages, etc....lots of math involved, which is not my strong suit.

              Here's some admittedly selective snips that caught my eye, from the hormetics links you provided:

              ionizing radiation and aging:

              More recently, radiation has become associated with a much wider spectrum of age-related diseases, including cardiovascular disease;
              Some animal studies suggest low dose radiation may even demonstrate hormesis health benefits. Regardless, there is virtually no support for a life span extending hypothesis for A-bomb survivors and other exposed subjects.
              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

              low dose risk in relation to the LNT model

              The available data on biological mechanisms do not provide general support for the idea of a low dose threshold or hormesis. This large body of evidence does not suggest, indeed is not statistically compatible with, any very large threshold in dose for cancer, or with possible hormetic effects, and there is little evidence of the sorts of non-linearity in response implied by non-DNA-targeted effects. There are also excess risks of various types of non-malignant disease in the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and in other groups. In particular, elevated risks of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and digestive disease are observed in the A-bomb data.
              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

              Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors, 1958-1998

              The data were consistent with a linear dose response over the 0- to 2-Gy range, while there was some flattening of the dose response at higher doses. Furthermore, there is a statistically significant dose response when analyses were limited to cohort members with doses of 0.15 Gy or less.

              ...excess absolute rates appeared to increase throughout the study period, providing further evidence that radiation-associated increases in cancer rates persist throughout life regardless of age at exposure...

              Significant radiation-associated  increases in risk (cancer) were seen for most sites, including oral cavity, esophagus, stomach, colon, liver, lung, non-melanoma skin, breast, ovary, bladder, nervous system and thyroid...

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

              Dose response and temporal patterns

              Findings of the Life Span Study (LSS) cohort of atomic-bomb survivors are a primary source for quantitative risk estimates that underlie radiation protection. Because of the size and length of follow-up, the LSS provides considerable information on both the nature of the dose response and on how radiation-associated excess risks vary with age, age at exposure, sex, and other factors.

              ...while discussing issues related to the shape of the dose response and low dose risks in some detail, the new reports consider temporal patterns in greater detail than has been done previously. As we have reported, the LSS solid cancer dose response is well described by simple linear dose response over the 0 to 2 Sv range (with some leveling off at higher estimated doses). This remains the case with the extended follow-up.

              ...about 75% of the 50,000 cohort members with doses in excess of 5 mSv have dose estimates in a range of direct interest for radiation protection (0-200 mSv). Analyses of data limited to this low dose range provide direct evidence of a significant solid cancer dose response with a risk per unit dose that is consistent with that seen for the full dose range.

              ...excess rates have increased rapidly throughout the study period with some indication, especially for the incidence data, that attained-age-specific rates are higher for those exposed at younger ages.

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

              Again, not being a scientist, I have to take formal-looking scientific reports with a grain of salt, considering the history of industry hiring "professionals" to pimp the industry line and come up with research "results" that confirm that line, such as they  were proven in court to have done with tobacco, lead paint, and virtually all such industrial pollution cases, including "global warming" climate change.

              Thus, the lay person can ultimately only look to the broader science community, as to what  degree of consensus may have emerged around any given position or hypothesis.  
              Then there's the angle of looking at who is promulgating which research, "analysis" and line.

              When industry scientists adamantly assert one line, and environmental scientists assert a contradictory line, I'm going to accept the environmental line much more readily, every time.

              Independent environmental scientists (and advocates, like Greenpeace) rely entirely on their reputation for producing objective, accurate research and analysis, for their very survival and continuance in their field, in terms of funding, support, and seeking practical application of their findings.

              Industry "scientists", not so much...they get paid, as long as their "analysis" is consistent with industry line, regardless of efficacy or accuracy, more or less.

              Industry has very deep pockets, such that it can just keep hammering away on it's line, whether it's discredited by the real science or not, not being subject to having it's funding jerked out from under it, even for being caught lying it's ass off.

              While they may walk a fine line, in this regard, between legal liability and broader public credibility and acceptance of their "products",  they clearly tend to rely far more on the sheer brute strength of wide promulgation of their propaganda line, than accuracy.

              And while they may ardently fight legal liability fines and penalties, they also  calculate such "costs" into their budget, as a necessary element of raking in the huge profits they "make" from products which even they themselves know, from their own research, are harmful.

              Thus far, I still see absolutely no basis for bringing an argument that hormesis, "proves" that nukes are "safe", nor that to even hint at such an analysis in a context like this diary, can be considered anything more than unprincipled propagandistic persiflage by industry hacks, to attempt to discredit Greenpeace and no-nukers.

              Regarding the French Acadamy of Sciences report, this seems to be a source for a previous comment by someone, purporting that LNT is "unreliable", and that Greenpeace and regulatory agencies, since they base their monitoring on this standard, are thus "unreliable", using "bad science", "sensationalist fear- mongering",  yada, yada, yada.

              ..the only method for estimating the possible risks of low doses (< 100 mSv) is extrapolation from carcinogenic effects observed between 0.2 and 3 Sv. A linear no-threshold relationship (LNT) describes well the relation between the dose and the carcinogenic effect in this dose range where it could be tested. However, the use of this relationship to assess by extrapolation the risk of low and very low doses deserves great caution. Recent radiobiological data undermine the validity of estimations based on LNT in the range of doses lower than a few dozen mSv...

              In conclusion, this report raises doubts on the validity of using LNT for evaluating the carcinogenic risk of low doses (< 100 mSv) and even more for very low doses (< 10 mSv). The LNT concept can be a useful pragmatic tool for assessing rules in  radioprotection for doses above 10 mSv;  however since it is not based on biological concepts of our current
              knowledge, it should not  be used without precaution for assessing by extrapolation the risks associated with low and even more so, with very low doses (< 10 mSv)

              So, while LNT may seem to break down, somewhat, in extrapolation to very low dose exposure, the French scientists confirm that it is a "useful pragmatic tool for assessing rules in radioprotection for doses above 10 mSv."

              Their main concern about these findings seems to be that patients may be scared away from potential benefits of radiation treatment by potentially inaccurate LNT extrapolation of risk for very low doses, but also in regard to regulating very low dose exposure in the general public from various sources, like nukes, nuclear waste, accidents, etc.

              Again, this by no means indicates to me that Greenpeace, or regulatory agencies are deliberately, or mistakenly, using "scare tactics" to unjustly, irrationally, subjectively attack the nuclear industry, as the industry hacks tends to so adamantly charge.

              If anything, the ambiguity and lack of definitive scientific proof of the actual effects of low and very low dose radiation seem to me to indicate a continued need for extreme caution, in terms of individual and mass exposure to contamination.

              Just because some exposure to very low doses of toxic substances may indeed have somewhat of an inoculative effect, protecting from, or enhancing tolerance to higher doses, to some extent, does not, by a long shot, "prove" that such substances are thus "safe", or "good for you".  

              As doses rise, as they may very likely be wont to do, once contamination begins to enter the environment, any hormesis "protection" is sooner than later superseded by the toxicity, to pathological effect.

              The toxic substances still remain highly toxic and dangerous, especially when any purported inoculative effect from the very low doses is unpredictable, in terms of what actual doses, and combinations of various kinds of doses will actually be encountered in a real world environment, which is NOT a strictly controlled laboratory environment.

              And, in combination with the many varieties of carcinogens proliferating in the environment in general, it seems that certain "thresholds" may exist, where human biological systems break down, or are overwhelmed, especially as the individual, and combined, doses of various kinds increase, depsite the body's best efforts to deploy immunological defenses in response to the lower levels of exposure.

              My own summary analysis:  Attempts to discredit and dismiss Greenpeace based on such "science" is bogus, disingenuous, industry hype.

              I might add, for Commenters to inject such persflage into a diary, especially early on, to cast dispersions on Greenpeace, and me to have to go back and do the research to refute that deliberate disinformation, really makes me furious.

              They got the results they wanted, to cast dispersions among those reading the diary, early on... no matter how effectively I may subsequently refute that, later, in a dead thread that has now scrolled off the first page...they have met their nefarious objective, and could give a flying fuck about having lied their ass off, in effect.

              Such bastards have no principles, no scruples, no honor.

              Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

              by Radical def on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 01:01:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for taking the time to read (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mcrab

                and try to understand.   I have a few points:

                You're right that there is a lot of conflicting data regarding the effect of low dose radiation, and from my reading I believe that is due to the fact that there are no "definitive" studies yet published.  I have seen some studies that show an increase lifespan in male survivors of Hiroshima that would support a hormetic effect, then there are others that show the opposite.  A great deal of the outcome depends on how one poses the question.

                As I mentioned before, I'm not trying to support a hormetic model, or a threshold model, or the LNT model - I'm simply trying to point out that we don't understand what biological effect these low doses have.  

                The other thing you mentioned that I think is important, is that there is a linear relationship between dose and cancer risk at higher doses - so its important to define what a high dose is.  From what I've read, above 100 mSv there is a statistically significant and clear increase in cancer risk, and it works out to about .5% increase risk of cancer at this dose.    

                As you quote from the French report, anything less than 100 mSv is considered low dose, and under 10 mSv is a very low dose.  I can't find a link now, but there are only a handful of workers at the plant who have been exposed to doses above 100 mSv.

                I don't think that anyone (perhaps besides Ann Coulter) is using hormesis as an argument to show that nuclear plants are safe, but what I feel is important is to have relatively clear understanding of the risks.  

                Sorry, have to run, but will try and add some more thoughts in the not too distant future.

              •  Back for a few minutes with more thoughts (0+ / 0-)

                I also agree that it is extremely important to consider the source of information.  The researchers publishing on hormesis and radiation exposure in general come from all the place - I haven't tried at all to look at their sources of funding, but this is a very real area of concern.

                The papers cited above are at least peer-reviewed, its not a perfect system, but short of actually repeating every experiment but independent labs its probably the best we can do.  

                Generally, (or at least in the recent past), researchers are required to report conflicting interests in their publications - things like whether they received funding from industry groups that are trying to promote something.

                I would contrast this with Greenpeace.  They don't generally publish peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals (at least that I'm aware of), and they have a clear agenda - it happens to be one that I guess you agree with, so their findings are easier for you believe.  

                I personally would not try to discredit greenpeace by invoking a hormetic model of radiation response and I don't think anyone else did either (could also be wrong about this).  

  •  Where does Greenpeace expect all these (0+ / 0-)

    people to go?

    •  We're going to have them camp (0+ / 0-)

      in your back yard, mmk?

      Let's just hope we don't have to evacuate all of Japan.

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

      by Radical def on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 08:36:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Have you ever been in a hurricane evacuation? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radical def

      It's a bloody nightmare, but it beats the hell out of getting slammed by a class 4.
      Maybe if we could see the radiation, as we can see the blowing debris from a hurricane, we wouldn't feel the need to ask "where can we go?" until we got away from where we were.
      I saw a vid yesterday of a couple guys driving around Japan with Geiger counters on the dashboard of their car. Every so often the machines would sound the alarm. That seemed pretty graphic, actually.

      "I almost died for the international monetary system; what the hell is that?" ~ The In-laws

      by Andhakari on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:51:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One hundred years ago (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radical def

    only 3 in 100 people died of cancer.

    Roughly 20% of people die of cancer, so we would expect a million fatal cancers in a population of 5 million.

    We've poisoned the planet and the food we eat is crap and we filled the atmosphere with nuclides from bomb tests. Can we really justify pollution based on the incremental additional damage it will do? Will we be justifying engineering projects of the future with the rational that the background cancer mortality rate is 30%, 40% or 50% and adding an additional risk of 2% or 3% isn't such a big deal?
    I have a child, 16 months and growing, and I'm damned tired of hearing rationalisations for radiation exposure based on risks to middle-aged nuclear plant workers. I won't say it's irrelevant, but it sure as hell is bad public medicine.

    "I almost died for the international monetary system; what the hell is that?" ~ The In-laws

    by Andhakari on Sun Apr 10, 2011 at 11:59:07 PM PDT

    •  Yikes!...a Breeder! (just kidding) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andhakari

      Some people think over-population is the real problem, environmentally.

      Of course they ignore the reality, that exploding populations are mostly due to imperialist social and economic disruption, and ruthless rip-off dictatorships.

      Once a population achieves decent levels of health care, education, and economic security, it levels off, and even declines.  

      But that requires lots of taxes on the rich, so forget about that, heh.

      Instead, it seems like a lot of industrialists are working hard to kill off as many of us as they can, by hook or by crook.

      A few percent here, a few percent there, it adds up.

      Just like radiation, mercury, lead, aluminum, pesticides, herbicides, teflon and other plastics, etc. etc.

      It all adds up to more money for the rich, and fewer of us, to have to share it with.

      Hopefully we can begin to reverse that trend, after 2012.

      Bring the Better Democrats!

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

      by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:00:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Worse than that: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radical def

        I'm a hypocrite breeder: I'm one of the overpopulation fetishists. But honestly, I think we're both right
        More justice, better education, more income parity, less pollution, fewer people; we need all of this to happen - the sooner the better.

        "I almost died for the international monetary system; what the hell is that?" ~ The In-laws

        by Andhakari on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 01:54:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

      Things were much better a century ago when diarrhea was the third leading cause of death in the US. It's hard to imagine how much more wonderful the US was with pneumonia, influenza, and tuberculosis (the leading killers) sparing so many people from a death by cancer.

      It's a shame what "public medicine" has come to. I just want to cry. ;-)

      An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
      -- H. L. Mencken

      by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:04:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Typical industrial persiflage... (0+ / 0-)

        attempting to dismiss the very substantial proof that many common industrial products do, in fact, cause cancer, and should be avoided, or their use discontinued.

        Industry has fought tooth and nail against regulation, with millions upon millions of dollars, and the most insidious lies and misinformation, for many years, only to eventually be proven by the science to be killing people, often having known this all along from their own research, prior to finally being compelled to submit to regulation...and then spending millions more to water down, evade, bribe and manipulate their way out of those regulations and penalties for violations.

        The fact that medicine has advanced, such that people live longer, and thus may display different, longer-term pathologies that previously didn't have time to manifest, does not prove your seeming point, that concern about cancer causing environmental factors is some kind of silly nonsense.

        Which, if you really are as smart as you like to pretend, then you already know, which makes you nothing but a craven industry hack, promulgating bullshit memes.

        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

        by Radical def on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:02:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How rude! (0+ / 0-)
          Which, if you really are as smart as you like to pretend, then you already know, which makes you nothing but a craven industry hack, promulgating bullshit memes.

          By "Dr." Indycam's rules, this is an HR-worthy offense!

          You have insulted me, sir.

          If you have any evidence at all that I'm a "craven industry hack," then please present it. Otherwise, please STFU.

          An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
          -- H. L. Mencken

          by bryfry on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:07:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site