Welcome to the RIB Joint. A blog discussing science issues with an emphasis on health physics and agnotology. We'll try to keep 'em honest. So dig in!
Search This Blog
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
What Have Climatologists Learned...
From fighting deniers? Pretty much the same thing others have learned in fighting deniers of other sciences, like tobacco toxicology, evolutionary biology, and....hey, wait!
No mention of health physics!
No mention of health physics!
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Friday, December 19, 2014
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Dan Hirsch Attacks Diablo Canyon Safety
He's an anti-nuclear power activist, but one of the more rational ones:
Where Have All The SORRY DeNiArs Gone?
The DeNiAr group called SARI, which I refer to as SORRY, seems to have lost most of their membership based on their website listing (I'm intentionally withholding a link). They may just be re-organizing into Members and Associate Members, I don't know.
Where have all the DeNiArs gone? Sing along!
Where have all the DeNiArs gone? Sing along!
Saturday, December 13, 2014
I Agree With Mark Kermode
I don't even know who he is, but he has reviewed the documentary, "Merchants of Doubt" and he finds the subject enraging. As do I:
Friday, December 12, 2014
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Yale Cancer Course
It's free and on Youtube. Here's a section on clonal expansion as an evolutionary process:
Monday, December 8, 2014
Institute Of Physics? Really?
Here's a review from a couple of years ago on DeNiAr Wade Allison's book.
Besides the book being mostly fiction, did you catch this?
"Only 1 nucleus in a million has changed since the formation of the earth 6,000 years ago."
The Earth formed 6,000 years ago?
Besides the book being mostly fiction, did you catch this?
"Only 1 nucleus in a million has changed since the formation of the earth 6,000 years ago."
The Earth formed 6,000 years ago?
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Merchants Of Doubt - The Movie
The great book by Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway is now a movie. I haven't registered to watch it
Here's the trailer.
Here's the trailer.
How DeNiArs Are Like Creationists
DeNiArs (health physics deniers who don't think low dose radiation can cause cancer) are like Creationists (biology deniers who don't accept species evolution) in many ways. See right hand side of this page for "Comparing the Creationist and Hormesis Cults".
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Friday, December 5, 2014
Keith Baverstock - A Refreshing Voice Over DeNiAl
I posted a video of DeNiAr Wade Allison at the FCCJ yesterday.
Here's Keith Baverstock discussing Fukushima and UNSCEAR,
He slams Allison at about 21:00, "He's a crank":
Free Fukushima Book
Can be downloaded here. Unfortunately, the chapter of radiation health effects includes this:
"Some researchers subscribe to the once discredited hormesis concept, a hypothesis that receiving low ionizing radiation in doses just above the natural background level may induce beneficial biological responses. The proponents of this hypothesis explain that a number of compensatory and reparatory mechanisms (e.g., stimulation of the immune response and DNA repair, and activation of apoptosis that eliminates damaged cells that would otherwise become cancerous) are stimulated in response to small doses of ionizing radiation."
It's still discredited....whether some researchers subscribe to the concept or not.
"Some researchers subscribe to the once discredited hormesis concept, a hypothesis that receiving low ionizing radiation in doses just above the natural background level may induce beneficial biological responses. The proponents of this hypothesis explain that a number of compensatory and reparatory mechanisms (e.g., stimulation of the immune response and DNA repair, and activation of apoptosis that eliminates damaged cells that would otherwise become cancerous) are stimulated in response to small doses of ionizing radiation."
It's still discredited....whether some researchers subscribe to the concept or not.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Wade Allison Fools Journalists
The problem with journalists, is that they feel compelled to get both sides of a story.
See this video at about 1:30.
That's not how science works. We have scientific consensus bodies which draw conclusions based on the evidence.
Wade Allison can't accept those conclusions, so he makes up his own "science".
Uranium Drive In
Is a documentary concerning a small town's battle for or against opening a uranium mill.
It's airing right now on the PIVOT channel.
It's airing right now on the PIVOT channel.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Believe In God In 5 Minutes!
Gerald Schroeder, PhD in physics, former AEC employee is a moron trying to fool others that the laws of nature (those associated with our Universe) existed before the Universe (no evidence of that at all). Therefore, (pre-determined conclusion) Gawd:
A Book Blamed For A Suicide
Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion".
Maybe not lying to kids about religion, would prevent this sort of thing.
Maybe not lying to kids about religion, would prevent this sort of thing.
U.S. Fails To Properly Monitor Fukushima Fallout?
It's not a safety issue (though the Russian Times seems to want it to be fearful), just a data collection issue, if one is interested in that sort of thing.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
An IDiot's Flawed (But Repeated Ad Nauseum) Design Argument
That's why they (Intelligent Design proponents, evolution deniers) are called IDiots:
U.S. NRC Rules Ill Suited For Decommissionings
According to the head of the NRC, Dr. Allison MacFarlane.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Global Warming - Like A Blanket & A Tanning Oil
Longer wave radiation emitted by the Earth is trapped like a blanket.
But eventually, shorter wave radiation emitted by the Sun is also trapped.
But eventually, shorter wave radiation emitted by the Sun is also trapped.
Science Denial Charts Are Insufficient
Chris Mooney has a post in which he charts the influence of politics and religion on science denial.
At the end, he concludes that our sense of personal identity is the major influence.
At the end, he concludes that our sense of personal identity is the major influence.
What An IDiot!
Dr. John Lennox, an Intelligent Design proponent (IDiot), can't comprehend chemical evolution:
Friday, November 14, 2014
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
No, Stephen Meyer Isn't An Amazing Scientist
He's an IDiot (Intelligent Design cultist) at a scientific laboratory church.
Fukushima's Contaminated Water
Lots of it! (Nice photo gallery within link - why is it necessary to point out that people wearing protective gear are wearing protective gear?!? HA!)
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
Cigars Are Carcinogenic Too
Not surprising since tobacco is tobacco.
It also wouldn't be surprising if cigar afficionados started a science denial campaign.
It also wouldn't be surprising if cigar afficionados started a science denial campaign.
Oklahoma - You Have A Problem
Actually, all Americans do thanks to the election of a U.S. Senator from OK who will use a "biblical worldview" to defeat the national debt.
He's a Redumblican, of course!
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Friday, November 7, 2014
Oh, The Irony!
This is several weeks old, but worth the wait.
Creationist (with a major in biology), climate change denier and LA Govenor Bobby Jindal (Redumblican, of course!) calls the Obama administration "science deniers".
He's praying about whether he'll run for President in 2016.
Creationist (with a major in biology), climate change denier and LA Govenor Bobby Jindal (Redumblican, of course!) calls the Obama administration "science deniers".
He's praying about whether he'll run for President in 2016.
Behe = IDiot
Because an Intelligent Designer loves bacterial flagellum. Where did the rest of the bacteria come from?
S. Carolina - You Have A Problem
An IDiot (Intelligent Design proponent) state senator. Redumblican, of course.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
The LNT:MDA Analogy
When a laboratory analyzes a sample for radioactivity, it has to compare the instrument's sample results with the instrument's background results.
A one time measurement of the radiation background may or may not represent the true background, there is variability. Same with the sample.
If you've ever read the results from a laboratory, when the sample and background counts are the same, what do they record as the sample's radioactivity?
Hint: It's not zero!
A one time measurement of the radiation background may or may not represent the true background, there is variability. Same with the sample.
If you've ever read the results from a laboratory, when the sample and background counts are the same, what do they record as the sample's radioactivity?
Hint: It's not zero!
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Virgin Galactic Spaceship Crash
Have you heard about the crash?
What if the company's CEO, Sir Richard Branson, had appeared on T.V. and said something like:
"This is a tragedy. Please join me in signing a letter denouncing the science of physics, particularly the horrible theory of general relativity (our theory of gravity). We mustn't let this happen again. A pilot was killed and another injured. The costs have been in the millions. Please denounce general relativity."
What if the company's CEO, Sir Richard Branson, had appeared on T.V. and said something like:
"This is a tragedy. Please join me in signing a letter denouncing the science of physics, particularly the horrible theory of general relativity (our theory of gravity). We mustn't let this happen again. A pilot was killed and another injured. The costs have been in the millions. Please denounce general relativity."
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Climate Of Ignorance
With right-wing nut and Weather Channel founder, John Coleman (& The Young Turks):
DeNiArs Should Watch This Chernobyl Video
Ian Goddard does a wonderful job of explaining a commonly used tactic of DeNiArs (those who deny the scientific theory of LNT, analogous to evolutionary biology deniers or anthropogenic climate change deniers). They typically indulge in the fallacy of cherry picking radiation studies at low doses and with low statistical power and then erroneously conclude that LNT is wrong and part of an anti-nuclear power conspiracy!
Jesus...The "Science Isn't Incompatible With Faith" Delusion Again
In the Atlantic dealing with the Pope's views on evolution.
The author completely ignores a fundamental Catholic myth.
That Jesus had to die in order to get forgiveness for Original Sin (Adam & Eve stuff).
If Adam & Eve didn't exist (they didn't) and Original Sin never happened (it didn't), then Catholicism blows up. The whole Jesus myth becomes even more nonsensical.
Someone should tell the author that the reason the Pontifical Academy of Sciences exists is because faith is incompatible with science. They need THEIR version of science, instead of an objective version of science.
And what about that wafer turning into the flesh of Jesus after one eats it? Is that science?
Zombie worship isn't science.
The author completely ignores a fundamental Catholic myth.
That Jesus had to die in order to get forgiveness for Original Sin (Adam & Eve stuff).
If Adam & Eve didn't exist (they didn't) and Original Sin never happened (it didn't), then Catholicism blows up. The whole Jesus myth becomes even more nonsensical.
Someone should tell the author that the reason the Pontifical Academy of Sciences exists is because faith is incompatible with science. They need THEIR version of science, instead of an objective version of science.
And what about that wafer turning into the flesh of Jesus after one eats it? Is that science?
Zombie worship isn't science.
Politicians Say The Most Unscientific Things!
Here's a sampling.
Happy Election Day...please vote (it should be obvious which political party's leadership is the most unscientific).
Happy Election Day...please vote (it should be obvious which political party's leadership is the most unscientific).
Monday, November 3, 2014
IDiot's Secret Weapon
Intelligent Design ministers (IDiots) have a secret weapon.
I didn't realize human stupidity was a secret. They aren't doing very well keeping it secret.
How about some music?
I didn't realize human stupidity was a secret. They aren't doing very well keeping it secret.
How about some music?
Thank You Jon Stewart
For having the integrity to mock your newest advertiser, who also fund science denial organizations, Koch Industries. If you ever had any doubts about anthropogenic climate change, Koch Industries was involved in paying people to appear on T.V., on the Internet, etc. in order to confuse you.
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.
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.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Friday, September 26, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Polar Bears Changing Menu
Thanks to global warming. Or, what else don't we know about climate change?
Monday, September 22, 2014
Saturday, September 20, 2014
"Climate Science Is Not Settled"
Says BP non-climatologist in the peer-reviewed, scholarly scientific publication, the Wall St. Journal.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Monday, September 15, 2014
Friday, September 12, 2014
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Monday, September 8, 2014
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Airman Can't Reenlist Thanks To "God"
He wouldn't say "so help me God", so he couldn't re-enlist. The Air Force can't change their rules without an act of Congress.
Friday, September 5, 2014
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Mousseau On Fukushima
I think he's sincere, but in speaking out, he's not allowing the legally elected consensus body to draw its conclusions. He should be making his arguments in the scientific literature, not to the public. It's all about him and his papers, which is the fallacy of cherry picking. Around 48:00, one person asks about DeNiAr Wade Allison's hormesis, which Mousseau discounts:
Monday, September 1, 2014
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Don Prothero Again
I had a post yesterday of him in a video, and today you have the written version.
Libertarian Ideology Is Anti-Science
Which is why the manufacturing of much of the anti-science propaganda originates with Libertarian stink think tanks.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
The Mind Of A Science Denier
With geologist Donald Prothero (health physics not mentioned! Pooh.). Science deniers have minds???:
Fukushima - UNSCEAR vs Mousseau
I don't think this article will help the average person understand science.
It is basically describing the difference between primary research (Mousseau) and meta-analysis (UNSCEAR), which is combing through primary research in order to reach conclusions. Meta-analysis always lags what primary research shows, but isolated bits of primary research could lead one to erroneous conclusions (which is why we do meta-analysis).
Here's a related Fukushima piece.
It is basically describing the difference between primary research (Mousseau) and meta-analysis (UNSCEAR), which is combing through primary research in order to reach conclusions. Meta-analysis always lags what primary research shows, but isolated bits of primary research could lead one to erroneous conclusions (which is why we do meta-analysis).
Here's a related Fukushima piece.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Thursday, August 28, 2014
NRC Lifts GA Probation
I didn't know that their regulatory program had been put into probation (the first time the NRC has done so!). Apparently they've made some improvements.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
"Name & Shame" Greenhouse Gas Emitters
A political strategy required due to Redumblican science denial.
I Didn't See That One Coming!
Just kidding....MI legislation introduced to stop radwaste importation and disposal.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
ANS Nuclear Cafe Allows More Propaganda
It's a blog (intentionally no link) of the American Nuclear Society (I quit because they have no discipline) and it's Rod Adams again with the Ed Calabrese fabrication that H.J. Muller lied about LNT.
It is the DeNiArs verion of the IDiot's (Intelligent Design proponents) Haeckel's embryos.
It is the DeNiArs verion of the IDiot's (Intelligent Design proponents) Haeckel's embryos.
Monday, August 25, 2014
The End Of Tanning?
I doubt it, but tan responsibly.
The computer generated image of the female face, reminds me of this earlier post's image.
The computer generated image of the female face, reminds me of this earlier post's image.
How Science Deniers Delude Themselves
False equivalence.
Science is the process of NOT fooling oneself....whatever one thinks one knows, one submits for peer review.
Scientific consensus bodies review the peer-reviewed literature and draw conclusions which are also open for peer review and comment. They then make those conclusions public.
Any other process isn't as good as the scientific method.
Science is the process of NOT fooling oneself....whatever one thinks one knows, one submits for peer review.
Scientific consensus bodies review the peer-reviewed literature and draw conclusions which are also open for peer review and comment. They then make those conclusions public.
Any other process isn't as good as the scientific method.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Don't Waste Money On CAM Trials
Complementary & Alternative Medicine (CAM) is pseudo-science and let's call it what it is.
And don't waste money on it!
And don't waste money on it!
They Should Have Consulted A Health Physicist
Residents file a lawsuit claiming radioactive contamination from a St. Louis area landfill.
Case dismissed.
Case dismissed.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Who Are The Koch Brothers?
They fund the Cato Institute & Heritage Foundation.
They are also billionaire fossil fuel executives.
Is it any surprise that Cato & Heritage manufacture climate denial propaganda?
They are also billionaire fossil fuel executives.
Is it any surprise that Cato & Heritage manufacture climate denial propaganda?
Friday, August 22, 2014
Science Deniers - You Can't Ignore Facts Forever
It's Bill Nye, the Science Guy, addressing climate change denial and denial of a few other scientific areas (but he doesn't mention health physics!):
Thursday, August 21, 2014
C-Span Does The U.S. A Disservice
They are covering a portion of the Heartburn Imbecile's pseudo-scientific global warming conference, at 8 p.m. EST tonight. They're referring to it as "Climate Change Skeptics", when "Climate Change Deniers" would be more accurate.
To James Hollow And His Audience
(This is in response to a Youtube video comment section)
James:
I hope what you are about to read will anger you, because you have been intentionally misled. You have been used by Allison as an accomplice to spread his misinformation around. If you have a pro-nuclear power bias, you are particularly susceptible to this mis-information due to what is called "confirmation bias" and "motivated reasoning".
Let's get into some detailed facts:
There are two international scientific consensus bodies on radiation health effects. They are the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
Both of these consensus bodies have concluded that LNT is the best explanation of radiation health effects. You can find this in ICRP Report 103 (which you have to buy) and in UNSCEAR 2010 (which you can read online).
In the U.S., we also have the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' BEIR VII (I've already provided a link) and the National Commission on Radiological Protection & Measurement (NCRP). The NCRP Report 136 (which you have to buy) details their conclusions.
All four consensus bodies are in agreement, that LNT is the best theory of radiation carcinogenesis. And that is one of the remarkable facts about science....we can't have consensus bodies in disagreement! Any areas of disagreement are worked out! And more broadly, we can't have a theory in biology contradict a theory in physics....or a theory in health physics contradict a theory in cosmology!
Science works well because of the filtering methodology of peer reviewed publication, meta-analysis, and scientific consensus bodies. The vast majority of scientists appreciate and respect this process. The vast majority of scientists are careful to stick to their own area of expertise and to educate the general public on what the scientific consensus is within their own area of expertise.
Sadly, there is a small minority of people with science degrees (I don't refer to them as scientists because they have abandoned the scientific method) who don't like the conclusions of scientific consensus bodies, and manufacture propaganda to confuse the general public. One of those people is Wade Allison.
Note in your video (just before 3:00) he states he came to his own conclusions. That should be a warning bell to everyone! No one should care what his own conclusions are. You should only care what the conclusions are of an appropriate scientific consensus body. Note that prior to making that statement he describes his credentials...he is inducing his audience to fall for the fallacy of argument from authority.
From there he proceeds to misinform (we can get into technical details, but I'm avoiding doing that for the moment).
ASIDE - At 1:58 in this video, Allison says he's not an expert. If he's not an expert, shouldn't he be paying attention to the experts? I'm reminded of the creationist dentist who doesn't like the scientific consensus of evolution within biology. (Someone has to stand up to the experts! HA!)
So, to be crystal clear, the scientific consensus has been and continues to be LNT and Allison is intentionally misinforming the public. The reason you think LNT is based on the precautionary principle is because you have been led to believe it. It is possible that LNT overestimates the risk of radiation, but it is also possible LNT underestimates the risk of radiation. As of today, the evidence suggests that LNT is the best model.
Allison is engaged in the same behavior that evolution deniers, climate change deniers, tobacco deniers, etc. engage in. It is narcissistic, intellectually cowardly and unethical. If a medical doctor decided to pray to cure a disease rather than provide the consensus medicine, that doctor would be banned from practice. If an attorney, advised his client to ignore a court ruling because he didn't agree with it, he would be banned from practice. Sadly, we don't have a similar mechanism within the physical sciences.
Now Allison is not the only unethical science person. You have given us another one, Jane Orient. She is the President of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. As you can see if you read that webpage, they engage not only in LNT denial, but also in climate change denial. They are a bunch of Libertarian (don't like government regulations) medical doctors who are associated with the Libertarian Marshall Institute (mostly physical scientists). The Marshall Institute was the subject of the book, "Merchants of Doubt".
These organizations take donations from corporations and other Libertarians, and pay people with credentials to manufacture arguments against the scientific consensus. They do this to delay, minimize, or overturn regulations which may be a consequence of the scientific conclusions. Very unethical.
So, if you look at the references in her paper, you find the same cherry-picked group of people who have attacked health physics over the decades. One example is T.D. Luckey. Here is a paper by him, in which he promotes hormesis (that radiation is good for you) by comparing it with the pseudo-science of homeopathy! That's like comparing it to astrology in order to promote it!
Here is Luckey at a 2000, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness meeting giving a talk called "How Health Physics Lost the 20th Century". Well, health physics didn't lose the 20th century nor the 21st. However, Luckey passed away this year.
Creationists repeat the same, tired old arguments attacking evolutionary biology. They'll claim evolution is just a hypothesis, it's an atheistic conspiracy, it's about to be overturned, etc.
You will find the same dozen or so people using their credentials to attack health physics (I call them DeNiArs). You will also find a different group, consisting of another dozen or so people with credentials, exaggerating radiation risks. Both groups are engaged in unethical conduct.
Stick with the scientific consensus bodies' conclusions on any issue....don't seek out individuals with science degrees who are telling you what you want to hear.
Otherwise they'll play you like a fiddle.
I hope you are very angry.
James:
I hope what you are about to read will anger you, because you have been intentionally misled. You have been used by Allison as an accomplice to spread his misinformation around. If you have a pro-nuclear power bias, you are particularly susceptible to this mis-information due to what is called "confirmation bias" and "motivated reasoning".
Let's get into some detailed facts:
There are two international scientific consensus bodies on radiation health effects. They are the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
Both of these consensus bodies have concluded that LNT is the best explanation of radiation health effects. You can find this in ICRP Report 103 (which you have to buy) and in UNSCEAR 2010 (which you can read online).
In the U.S., we also have the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' BEIR VII (I've already provided a link) and the National Commission on Radiological Protection & Measurement (NCRP). The NCRP Report 136 (which you have to buy) details their conclusions.
All four consensus bodies are in agreement, that LNT is the best theory of radiation carcinogenesis. And that is one of the remarkable facts about science....we can't have consensus bodies in disagreement! Any areas of disagreement are worked out! And more broadly, we can't have a theory in biology contradict a theory in physics....or a theory in health physics contradict a theory in cosmology!
Science works well because of the filtering methodology of peer reviewed publication, meta-analysis, and scientific consensus bodies. The vast majority of scientists appreciate and respect this process. The vast majority of scientists are careful to stick to their own area of expertise and to educate the general public on what the scientific consensus is within their own area of expertise.
Sadly, there is a small minority of people with science degrees (I don't refer to them as scientists because they have abandoned the scientific method) who don't like the conclusions of scientific consensus bodies, and manufacture propaganda to confuse the general public. One of those people is Wade Allison.
Note in your video (just before 3:00) he states he came to his own conclusions. That should be a warning bell to everyone! No one should care what his own conclusions are. You should only care what the conclusions are of an appropriate scientific consensus body. Note that prior to making that statement he describes his credentials...he is inducing his audience to fall for the fallacy of argument from authority.
From there he proceeds to misinform (we can get into technical details, but I'm avoiding doing that for the moment).
ASIDE - At 1:58 in this video, Allison says he's not an expert. If he's not an expert, shouldn't he be paying attention to the experts? I'm reminded of the creationist dentist who doesn't like the scientific consensus of evolution within biology. (Someone has to stand up to the experts! HA!)
So, to be crystal clear, the scientific consensus has been and continues to be LNT and Allison is intentionally misinforming the public. The reason you think LNT is based on the precautionary principle is because you have been led to believe it. It is possible that LNT overestimates the risk of radiation, but it is also possible LNT underestimates the risk of radiation. As of today, the evidence suggests that LNT is the best model.
Allison is engaged in the same behavior that evolution deniers, climate change deniers, tobacco deniers, etc. engage in. It is narcissistic, intellectually cowardly and unethical. If a medical doctor decided to pray to cure a disease rather than provide the consensus medicine, that doctor would be banned from practice. If an attorney, advised his client to ignore a court ruling because he didn't agree with it, he would be banned from practice. Sadly, we don't have a similar mechanism within the physical sciences.
Now Allison is not the only unethical science person. You have given us another one, Jane Orient. She is the President of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. As you can see if you read that webpage, they engage not only in LNT denial, but also in climate change denial. They are a bunch of Libertarian (don't like government regulations) medical doctors who are associated with the Libertarian Marshall Institute (mostly physical scientists). The Marshall Institute was the subject of the book, "Merchants of Doubt".
These organizations take donations from corporations and other Libertarians, and pay people with credentials to manufacture arguments against the scientific consensus. They do this to delay, minimize, or overturn regulations which may be a consequence of the scientific conclusions. Very unethical.
So, if you look at the references in her paper, you find the same cherry-picked group of people who have attacked health physics over the decades. One example is T.D. Luckey. Here is a paper by him, in which he promotes hormesis (that radiation is good for you) by comparing it with the pseudo-science of homeopathy! That's like comparing it to astrology in order to promote it!
Here is Luckey at a 2000, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness meeting giving a talk called "How Health Physics Lost the 20th Century". Well, health physics didn't lose the 20th century nor the 21st. However, Luckey passed away this year.
Creationists repeat the same, tired old arguments attacking evolutionary biology. They'll claim evolution is just a hypothesis, it's an atheistic conspiracy, it's about to be overturned, etc.
You will find the same dozen or so people using their credentials to attack health physics (I call them DeNiArs). You will also find a different group, consisting of another dozen or so people with credentials, exaggerating radiation risks. Both groups are engaged in unethical conduct.
Stick with the scientific consensus bodies' conclusions on any issue....don't seek out individuals with science degrees who are telling you what you want to hear.
Otherwise they'll play you like a fiddle.
I hope you are very angry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)