Pages

Saturday, November 30, 2013

There Are No Atheists At The Grand Canyon?

My guess is, the author used this headline to gain attention.

One doesn't need to confuse awe and wonder with facts & evidence versus religious mumbo-jumbo.

Obligations Of Scientists

Here's an easy to read piece on scientific ethics.

Those people with science degrees who write op-eds, blogs, etc. to convince the general public that the scientific consensus is wrong are behaving unethically.

In regards to the science of health physics there are fear-mongers (take Dr. Helen Caldicott for example) and doubt-mongers (take Dr. Wade Allison for example).  Rather than overturning the scientific consensus with evidence, which is what honest, objective scientists do, they write books or have webpages to convince the general public to their point of view.  And they write books and/or accept donations.

Honest, objective scientists may also have blogs, webpages and/or write books, but they teach the general public what the scientific consensus is and why.

It is vital that you recognize the difference.

Texas Hereos

There was a "controversy" over evolutionary biology in Texas textbooks, which was won by the pro-science folks (applause!).  The National Center for Science Education has uploaded some of the final talks on their YouTube channel.


A Nation Of Science Deniers

It wasn't always this way, America (from last month):


What Does An ICRP Symposium Look Like?

The International Commission on Radiological Protection is concerned with advancing for the public's benefit, the science of radiological protection.  They recently held a symposium in the UAE.  Here's a link to some of the presentations.

Genome Instability & Mutation

Here's a nice overview in a blog by a molecular biologist, though the hyperlinks didn't seem to work.

Unwarranted Fear Of Hanford's Leaking Tank

An op-ed by someone who was apparently there.

Though there has always been fear-mongering regarding Hanford, his bringing up a study from 1987 isn't very convincing.  Makes him seem out of touch.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

reason Is Unreasonable

The author doesn't understand that a scientific theory is our best explanation based on evidence.

Hormesis is pseudoscience (search this blog for more info).

However, the GAO's point is well taken.  The risks of evacuation should be weighed against any radiation risks and guidance should be provided.

P.S.  The Heartburn Institute is spreading the propaganda.  Shocking.

Eben Byers Gets Some Coverage

I've mentioned him before (search this blog using his name), but someone else also finds him interesting.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Former ANS President Spreads DeNiAl

No surprise, it's a post within the Atomic Ideologies Insights blog.

(For new readers, a DeNiAr is one who attacks health physics, just like an IDiot, an Intelligent Design advocate, attacks evolutionary biology)

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Friday, November 22, 2013

Radiation Info

A host of radiation related topics is discussed here.

Fukushima Porn

Removal of spent fuel from #4 spent fuel pool.


All About Adam

The Economist has a piece on creationism.  There is no scientific debate.

Spent Fuel Is Pretty Safe

In the U.S., concludes the NRC, though some see things otherwise.

Poor Henry Reid

The Senate majority leader isn't too happy about revisiting Yucca Mountain for high level waste disposal.

But Californians aren't feeling too sorry for him.

Fukushima Fuku-Ups

Or myths and lies.

It "killed a dozen right away"?  That's another fuku-up!

Oh, the irony.

Drug To Reduce Radiation Induced Cancer

It's in the class of drugs called synthetic triterpenoids, and it seems to reduce cancer induction in mice exposed to radiation.  It's interesting that mice with fractionated doses had a higher risk of cancer, than those receiving the same dose at one time.  That is the opposite of what would be expected, but there is no elaboration on that issue.

A Shockingly Dangerous Number?

Ok, this spill is significant, 9,000 gallons of water contaminated with uranium.  The legal maximum concentration is 30 ug/l and this stuff was at over 800 ug/l.

Is that really shockingly dangerous?

If one doesn't drink the water, and the uranium is returned to the ground from whence it came...does that qualify as shockingly dangerous?  Or is it fear-mongering?

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Now, That's Funny!

"The Republican Party Isn't Really The Anti-Science Party"


Clearly not every Republican is anti-science.  The point is that Republican elected leaders promote anti-scientific thinking and aren't publicly criticized by other Republicans for it.  Here's but one of many, many, many examples:


Thursday, November 7, 2013

Fighting Pandora's Promise Propaganda

Pandora's Promise is a pro-nuclear power propaganda film.  Some anti-nukes decided to criticize it with their own propaganda.

Physicians Pretending To Be Seismologists

Because they are anti-nuclear.  What do you think they'd find, that Hanford is just fine?  If they had, would they have "issued a report"?  Of course not.

Monday, November 4, 2013

Climate Change Warriors: It's Time To Go Nuclear

The easiest thing (if not for selfishness) would be to reduce consumption.  At their current ability to generate power, renewable power sources have a tough time beating nuclear.

DeNiAr At Forbes

James Conca has a history of being a health physics denier (DeNiAr).  He hadn't engaged in it much recently, but he's back at it. I won't address his main point which is the high compensation levels given to refugees.  There are many facets to that he doesn't touch on.

He also states, "No one in Japan or anywhere else will get cancer because of Fukushima".

He doesn't know that.  He can't know that.

That's propaganda.

Why Most Of What You've Heard About Cancer Is Wrong

Not if you follow this blog.  But here is some further discussion on cancer and its relationship to evolution.

Friday, November 1, 2013

Nice Bod1!

It is a protein which has been identified as being critical to cancer growth.

Radiation Health Effects

Here's a pretty good video, though it has its faults (like "mino" acid chains).  The audio is a bit ghoulish, just in time for Halloween:


Where's The Beef?

Some people didn't like the NRC's spent fuel environmental study, but they didn't provide any facts to substantiate their criticisms.  Unless the reporter failed to report them.

Shocking! Global Warming Denial In Forbes!

Not really if you've followed this blog at all.  Forbes provides an outlet for anyone to claim anything regardless of facts.  So here's another pile of bull.