Search This Blog

Sunday, November 2, 2014

DeNiAl Again At Atomic Ideologies

Blaming the theory of LNT on poor Fukushima emergency planning is like creationists blaming the theory of evolution on Hitler's holocaust.  I tried to comment there, but I have been religiously excommunicated!

The International Atomic Energy Agency didn't blame science on the failings of Fukushima, they blamed a lack of preparedness and training.

UPDATE:  The IAEA link appears to be broken.  Here is a similar report from the pro-nuclear power Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO).  See the bottom of page 4 (using the page numbering of the document, not Adobe).  They didn't blame science.  Obviously.


8 comments:

  1. This review (www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/VoigtScherbMoscow2011.pdf) supports LNT greatly.
    Even very low amounts of extra radiation cause extra damage to the genes as shown by the gender change of new born after Chernobyl and from mothers who life near nuclear facilities. Also in France:
    http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/fileadmin/ICB/biostatistics_pdfs/scherb/HELENA_Scheyern_2013.pdf

    The male chromosome is smaller than the female chromosome, so less chance it is hit by a radiation particle. Hence, abnormal more males born after Chernobyl in Europe (~1mln), and in the vicinity of nuclear facilities.
    This also implies more damage in other chromosomes of these new born. Hence more Down, serious malformations, etc..

    This is in line with the recent results of the RERF studies concerning the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs

    ReplyDelete
  2. LNT is almost as old as Darwin's theory of evolution (see Hugo de Vreis). It says pretty much the same thing as the theory of evolution. In species evolution, mutations in sex cells (caused by radiation, chemical oxidation, etc.) result in the evolution of new organisms. In LNT, mutations in somatic cells (caused by radiation, chemical oxidation, etc.) result in the evolution of new tissues which we call cancer.

    DeNiArs (LNT deniers) who accept evolution are logical inconsistent. To be consistent a DeNiAr should also deny species evolution. Such a person would be absurdly wrong, but at least consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Richard G. Eramian (Rick)November 3, 2014 at 6:32 PM

    LNT has been proven wrong by the facts of background radiation. You folks are in denial.

    ReplyDelete
  4. HA! Nope...the scientific consensus is LNT. That is a fact.

    You can't accept the scientific consensus because YOU are in denial.

    If you have the evidence to overturn the scientific consensus, publish it in the peer reviewed literature.

    (But you don't and you won't)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Consensus of who?
      Where?
      What's going on in your head?
      Are you for real?

      Delete
    2. Consensus of authorized scientific consensus bodies like the NCRP, the ICRP, the NAS, UNSCEAR. Are you for real?

      Delete
  5. Bob, have you at least managed to understand the relation between SUM and AVERAGE?

    If not, ask a 10 years old.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's take an example...suppose your IQ and that of Kirk Cameron are both 0. Then the sum of your IQ's would be 0+0=0. The average of your IQ's would be the sum divided by the number associated with the sum (2), or 0/2=0. That pretty sums (pun intended) things up.

      Delete