Why do people fear nuclear power?

I have exposed your lies about UNSCEAR, of which you apparently know nothing. UNSCEAR is virtually saying the exact opposite of what you've quoted them as saying.

I have also exposed your anti-environment sentiments revealed by your website.

I kicked your butt, so take it like a dog.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

adults?, but you act like a child!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how so?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh lets see: the insulting, the Ad Hominems, Appeal to Authorities, ect

 

Maybe the best in depth analysis of exactly when and how “Experts” fudged the data to reach a more optimistic view of Chernobyl’s legacy

http://ecolu-info.unige.ch/colloques/Chernobyl/actes97/MS-DOS-Word.doc/16commeq.doc

 

Here are a few more references, the first names and quotes the documents whereby IAEA has control over UNSCEAR

http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/speakers/fernex_health.pdf

http://www.comite-bandajevsky.org/zzz_angl/News_prison/01_News_relegation_05_06_2004.htm

http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr21/kr21pdf/Malko2.pdf

 

Mr. Chips,

I would not say those sits a un-bias.

 

I would not say UNSCEAR is unbiased. Learn to spell. Those are relatively long articles. I guess you are just shooting from the hip there, nothing but ad hominems dude.

 

I not repersenting UNSCEAR, I'm saying if you want to justify your claims over Edufer you should try something less bias, also attacking me won't help.

 

I did. He refuses to acknowledge the data, the contradiction right there within UNSCEAR's reports themselves. Why not attack you? That seems to be all you can do, discount data entirely from your oh so god like ability to discern what is trustworthy or not. I'm looking in depth at the data from organizations and individuals who differ greatly in their assesment. You, why, you are seeking to blanket condemn and offer no new data. Poor job, WellCookedFetus, of trying to jump on the bandwagon of Edufer's mission.

I believe I have noted before how your lack of participation and inability to discuss data and reliance on ad hominems almost exclusively as well as blanket condemnation of anything that does not support the extremism evident in the so-called "expert" opinions makes you more a a liability to Edufer's zeal than any help at all, HalfBakedChild.

 

you're a liar. i'm always cordial until attacked, then I kick your ass.

look what you're doing. you're intervening in an argument of which you know nothing.

it figures you'd side with a shill for big corporate polluters despite all the evidence I've shown that he's a LIAR. but I expect that from you. you don't think and you have no scruples.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

paulsamuel there is nothing in that last post of yours that is actually a logical argument. How about this since you can't ignore me (you could not even do it before I was a mod like you said you would), I'll just ignore you hows that sound? your insulting at a wall as it is why not make it real.

Mr. Chips,

Who said I was? I'm not saying nuclear power was not dangers or killed many, I am simply advocating for more advanced and safer nuclear reactors, also advocating the lethality of conventional non-nuclear sources of power (coal)

 

right.

how observant.

it's a list of facts because i'm not arguing with you, i'm telling you

 

Well then, wellcooked, it would behoove you to prove yourself correct by posting some information rather than all the denial and ad hominem attacks. If you think advocacy is just coming here and barfing then I suggest you wear a barf bag 'round your neck. I guess you take IAEA's policy statements to heart, that nuclear is virtually the only viable alternative (though they even post and disseminate contradictory data within their own missives).

 

Reading back from the first pages of this thread, I found a link by Mr. Nitwit recommending the reading of <b>Dr. Ernest Sternglass' book, “Secret Fallout”.</b> Its Chapter 17, “Incident at three Mile Island” ends with this closing paragraph: <dir>And as inexorable as that fateful decision was to suppress the truth about the biological effects of the worldwide fallout from nuclear-weapons testing in the interest of national security, it would now be necessary for the government to keep from the people of this country and the rest of the world the truth about what I knew would surely happen <b>in the wake of the <b><font color=#ff0000>drifting fallout clouds</font></b> from Three Mile Island.</b></dir>
By now we all know what happened at Three Mile Island – better, <b><font color=#0080ff>what did not happen</font></b> – so the mention of <b><font color=#ff0000>drifting fallout clouds</font> from Three Mile Island</b> makes us laugh, and show that Mr. Nitwit is either:

1) A poor reader,
2) Has a poor memory,
3) He's been living inside a thermos, and/or
3) Has a poor integrity for recommending misinformation of this kind.

I mean, Dr. Sternglass has been shown long ago <b><font color=#ff0000>to manipulate statistics to present nuclear energy as the Devil.</font></b> Here is one example:
<dir><b><font size=4 color=#0080ff>The Sternglass Report</font></b>

(Translation from my 1993 book in Spanish: <b>Ecology: Myths and Frauds</b>)

"A most clear case of statistics manipulation was performed by Dr. E.J. Sternglass and J.M. Gould, as the result of a study asked by the <i>“Don't Waste Oregon Committee”</i>, for opposing the Trojan nuclear plant in Multnomah County, Oregon. The <i>“study”</i> was published <i>“just in time”</i> for Oregon's governor election, and given a widespread diffusion by the press. This study is still quoted as reference by many green ONGs all over the world because it <i>“proves”</i> that <b>“the number of deaths due to leukemia in Multnomah county increased 72% sfrom 1980 and 1988”.</b> Of course, the region panicked."

"Things got worse when a spokesman from Oregon's Health Department, Art Keil, told the newspapers that state officials couldn't explain the sudden increase in leukemia deaths. This way, implicitly, the state was giving support to the Sternglass study. The case was meant to close down Trojan nuclear power generating plant that had been inaugurated in 1976. As the study <i>“proved”</i> that leukemia deaths had increased by 72%, public pressure for halting Trojan operation was tremendous, and almost succeeded. Luckily, the truth finally managed to surface – <b>once scientists cleared all the garbage the greens had accumulated.</b>

We can see in the graph supplied by the Department of Epidemiology of Oregon state, relative to deaths by leukemia in Multnomah county since 1950 through 1989, where, without the need of being an expert in statistics, it stands clear that deaths by leukemia, for every 100.000 inhabitants, vary in a ample manner from one year to another.

<center><img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-8/Sternglass2.gif></center>

This unscrupulous study by Sternglass reported a 72% increase in deaths from 1980 through 1988, starting from the lowest point in the chart (<i>32 deaths in 1980</i>) and ending in the highest point in the chart (<i>56 deaths in 1988</i>). In order to see how easy is to manipulate a statistic – without falsifying any data – we can start our statistic in <b>1977</b> (one year after Trojan was running) with 60 deaths and end our trend in <b>1980</b> (with 32 deaths) and claim – without lying – that between 1977 and 1980 <font color=#ff0000><b>deaths from leukemia decreased in Multnomah County by 48%</b></font>.

Our forced conclusion would be, according to the methodology of getting fast conclusions, that the operation of the Trojan nuclear plant <b>caused a decrease in deaths from leukemias</b> among the population. <b><i><font color=#ff0000>Ergo, nuclear plants cure leukemia.</font></i></b></dir>
But you people all know that this is not licit nor ethical – worse, we know this is would be a tremendous fraud of twisting data to make a point. <b><i>The same applies to Dr. Sternglass famous “study”</i></b>, and most of the false alarms sent out by the greens – as in Chernobyl.

In the graph we can also see the way Sternglass and Gould distorted data. We should note that there is <b>no general trend in any direction</b>, either declining or increasing, although there seems to be a slight decreasing trend since 1960. Another noteworthy point is that deaths from leukemia fluctuate widely, from one year to the other, the same as other cancerous or non cancerous diseases. This is absolutely normal for cancers relatively rare in small populations as in Multnomah. In fact, these fluctuations have a fundamental importance for demonstrating the manner in which Sternglass manipulated the information in order to “prove” a hypothesis that <b><font color=#ff0000>“was known beforehand.”</font></b>

Dr. Sternglass claim: <b><i>“The number of deaths from leukemia increased 72% from 1980 to 1988”</i></b>, is strictly correct, Dr, Sternglass is not lying. But ethically and scientifically speaking, this claim <b>does not represent the TRUTH</b> because the information provided by Sternglass and Gould <b>was out of context.</b> It does not tell <b><font color=#ff0000>the whole truth.</font></b> As late volcanologist Haroun Tazieff said once: <b><font color=#0080c0>“It is deplorable the speed at which the scientific morality is disappearing. It is as immoral to falsify statistics as it is immoral to omit data that does not conform to the hypothesis that someone wants to demonstrate”.</font></b>

By choosing Sternglass the year 1980 as the starting point (the lowest point in 30 years) and 1989 as the ending point (one of the 5 highest points in 30 years) and connecting them – Presto, maestro! they got big headlines in the press. A preferred green technique, of course. But we already know what the greens are, don't we? Why has not Sternglass mentioned in his book this "famous" report on Trojan nuclear plant? Why has Mr. Nitwit reccomended his reading?

What else will Mr. Nitwit recommend now for reading? Perhaps Rachel Carson? Reverend Thomas Malthus? Al Gore's, <i>“Earth in the Balance”</i>? Or Lester Brown's <i>“Annual Worldwatch Report”</i>?

 

Oh I see, if you can't address something in discussion dig up something else. Should I go back too and see if I can find the other stuff that was the rejoinder for that stuff? Na, I'll leave you to flop about like a fish on dry land.

 

It's your choice.

 

Bastard use of spin Man. I see you use the weaknesses of a forum to the most crafty anti-communication means you can. I find you to be....

very disturbed. Ah, forums fail me.

Notice that the UNSCEAR did not really include genetic effects of the radiation. If Edufer's change of subject appears daunting to you, do a search on the web. Sternglass wasn't the only such researcher and they exist today with different analysies of potential catastrophic releases of radiation on the planet than industry pundits, though not as well funded.

Forget you Edufer. There is over whelming evidence that you have a zealous and religious adherence to some specific theories to the extent of using manufactured data and making up some of your own. Nothing you post can be trusted.

 

I showed you where the paper you brought to my attention by UNSCEAR came to a conclusion counter to the data observed. Are you willing to address this finding that some of the major data and persons you are presenting as final arbitrators are corrupt? Is that your choice guerilla warrior, supporter of the dirty war?

 

Yes. Do a search. You'll find 98% of the web is full of crap. But sometimes we can find characters as Mr. Nitwit that makes us laugh. Much funnier than the Three Stooges.

BTW, the one who changed the subject to the UNSCEAR lack of trustability was you, Moe! And Curly played along with you from Hawaii. Why haven't you brought Larry along? Perhaps he got leukemia at Three Mile Island?