Edufer, long LONG posts with lots of long quotes are not nice. They are not conducive to posting back and forth. Please attempt to have more brevity to your replies. One can get the distinct impression that you are attempting to overwhelm the discussion rather than participate in a discussion. But then if you’ve got all the answers then it isn’t a discussion but should just be your informing us about truth. But all of the quotes from various people and studies, (actually few), can be put into your own words and then cited. From what I have observed, you do have a strong agenda to exonerate nuclear energy use and development from any culpability as well as other powerful inventions that were first used with inadvertent and designed human destruction. Therefore, I strongly suspect that you are trying to bowl us over rather than participate in some cogent discussion.
Shit, looks like I got some studying to do. You didn’t post actual research findings by independent sources but this paper seems to be a major final statement, thanks. You’ve thrown me a curve ball when I was hoping for a little straight shooting so that we could more quickly and easily find mutual understanding but if the design is just to obfuscate, to drown out any debate through massive posting of one view then you rightly picked the stuff that does not make it easy to analyze the data for myself. Even the paper itself incorporates some real gaffes that do not make analyzing it any easier. Does not seem like a class act for a major UN organization.
I really suspect there is contradiction between findings and conclusions for UNSCEAR. Now I go look. Damn PDF files. All of the references for that first paper are just text. Can’t copy and paste into Google or Altavista to go see if I can find the original studies because of the nature of PDF files. Got to just type the data in, limits how many I can research so I will be selective. Hmmm, I need a test claim from the text. But this is from 1988! Recently I posted some evidence that studies previous to 2001 were deeply flawed on the conservative side concerning how much core reactor material was ejected from the site. Oh well, should still be able to find some major differences between studies and a pertinent claim. Let’s see, from the summary, page 39 no shit, actually the table of contents appears to be incorrect. That’s real nice, as well as the grammatical errors. So the summary actually starts on page 36.
Damn, have to type any quotes, “Exposures, mainly from released Cs137 will continue for a few tens of years from the external irradiation and ingestion pathways. Estimates of dose commitments have been made for larger geographical regions, based on projection models developed from fallout measurement experience.”
Whoa! Stop right there. This was an unprecedented event. When was the last time a nuclear power plant reactor exploded and burned fiercely and freely for ten days? If they are only drawing from “fallout measurement experience” then they are using base data based on altogether different kinds of radionuclide release. I get the idea that this was a pretty lame study. Any ways, this points out a claim that is probably contradicting some observations, the amount and kinds of radionuclides released.
Here I go with the magic fingers again (Fuck you!), “In Europe, the highest effective dose equivalents in the first year were 760 microSv in Bulgaria, 670 microSv in Austria, 590 microSv in Greece and 570 microSv in Romania, followed by other countries of northern, eastern and south-eastern Europe (Table 18).”
Okay, found the contradiction within the study itself, go figure, this is not an example of careful data analysis and presentation. Table 18 is entitled “Country average of first-year dose equivalents” which is not what is reported in the summary. By not including that term “Average” in the statement in the summary quoted above they are implying that their derived dose equivalents cover anybody and everybody despite difference of exposure from various life styles, weather inconsistencies, geophysical factors etc. PISS POOR UNSCIENTIFIC BROOHAHA! Makes it easier though, I thought I was going to have to do some searching within the references. I do suspect the data in the tables as not worthy of accepting for face value when some obvious bias is already quite apparent.
Okay, lets see how long I can keep this up (Fuck you again, Edufer). Hey, that second PDF document you link to actually has the “Conclusions” on page 15 as listed in the table of contents! Oh, ah, did you read it? There is nothing there that applies to this debate. Some more padding to your snow job, Edufer (fuck you again, thank you moderator for allowing us to vent frustrations with this bozo and thank you for suggesting the descriptive terms, paulsamuel).
Okay, now for the next linked PDF file (fuck you!), annexj. Nice that the page numbers start at 451. That is actually what UNSCEAR is offering via their site? You’d think they’d try to make things easier to navigate unless their idea is to make it hard to analyze their findings (fuck UNSCEAR!). Okay, summary to the first section on page 466 (actually page 16), The only thing I can begin to fault there is that though they state that their study only analyzed Iodine 131 and Cesium 137, other radionuclides were released. They also note that more time based study needs to occur which means it didn’t for this analysis so one should not assume any final verdict that they may come to in this first section and now, onto the second section, equally effected by these failings of the study.
Next section of that third linked PDF (incidentally, this does not seem to be the original data collectors talking but just the top level conclusions that were drawn from the data some how or other (very possibly in such a slip-shod way as the page numbering), at least the grammar appears better than that first PDF (Pretty Damned Fucked?). BTW, like the second PDF you post in your last two posts (unless you posted some more unadulterated crap since then) this third one (at least the first section) does not address anything cogent to the current debate, more fluff. You must have been eating a lot of rodents lately, Edufer, to come up with so many hair balls.
Gotta scroll back up to the top and note the page number of the second section’s summary from that third PDF and then scroll back (used to be a time when a summary was a summary.) page 487. Now to scroll back down and keep my eyes on the PDF page numbers rather than use the quick advance capability of Adobe Acrobat Reader (fuck you and UNSCEAR). It’s actually page 37. Hmmm, interesting, “thyroid doses to adults were smaller than those to infants by a factor of about 10.” So how does this skew the data that only uses average dose approximations? This study does not address the possible over all effect of the radionuclide dispersal as it states itself it is concerned only with assessment for a fraction of the contaminated areas. MORE FLUFF, SNOW JOB AVALANCHE!
Now your fourth Pretty Damned Fucked link, no table of contents but it is a short one and at least it does have a summary (note, unlike yourself, Edufer, I don’t quote lots of whole passages, People can go there and see if I’m taking things out of context or trust in my often cogent alalysis
rather than wade through mounds. Sorry folks for the length of this reply, even when trying to keep things brief, long posts with many references, a snow job attempt, requires a lot of heat to melt.) Okay, summary on page 4, nice of them to note that microsatellite mutations observed do not match those not observed in Japanese children from their atomic bomb experiences. Underscores the idea that the base models they used to estimate average exposures were flawed as I discussed concerning the first linked PDF. Shit, they do not reference their data on the analysis of observations of Chernobly victims (or the lucky ones depending on your degree of desire to exonerate) in the summary, only studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors and their children. Oh well, one would have to read the content of the paper. Excuse me while I go gag into the toilet for a while. I don’t want to read this shit! Tell you what, Edufer, if you are serious about this, why don’t you cull out the references hopefully with the names of researchers and their studies that were used to formulate this largely summarized document (Looks like one quarter of the brief is summary). Nice little note that they plan on posting the full text soon. I would have rather seen that.
Hmmm, according to this letter by one of your favorite people, Jaworowski,June of 2003,
http://mailman.mcmaster.ca/mailman/private/cdn-nucl-l/0306.gz/msg00031.html UNSCEAR is getting a new lease on life. Maybe they don’t post it on their web site. I really wouldn’t put such ineptness beyond them or yourself to remain ignorant of one of your own hero’s exultations. Maybe this was just more misinformation from your beloved Jaworowski? Hmm, so which is it? Were you mistaken or was Jaworowski about UNSCEAR getting a new lease on life (or license to promote death as I am finding)?
Now, the fifth link (an HTML file, nice) about the ceasing of funds that occurred for UNSCEAR. Do you think maybe there were folks who found UNSCEAR so biased and inept that they helped that happen? I wouldn’t be surprised. They’ve got to do a whole lot better in my eyes to earn any kind of respect from me. Like the AEC, I suggest they fold and make a new corrupted entity as they have stuck their foot in their mouths too many times. Notice the note there that the IAEA uses data from UNSCEAR to formulate policy. There is evidence that it actually goes the other way, IAEA dictates what UNSCEAR will find. Why post the link and then quote much of the article, Edufuck? More padding for the cell you would put us in?
Look at the studies again, sure looks like they are using thyroid cancer as a general analysis of potential other cancers.
Edufer: “No, they are not paying me well. In fact, I am not being paid a cent”
I can not trust a single thing you state, Edufer. Too many lies, too much misinformation, too much selecting biased data expressly for supporting your desired hypothesies has given me a total lack of trust in your statements.
Enough for now. I got a life. I guess the length of this does not allow me to put in smilies. Every time I use the word "Fuck" please realize I wanted to include a smiley to suggest I am just being facetious with that word though, the frustration of talking to a wall does make me want to really mean that term of endearment. I do not like people who attempt to convince through sheer quantity rather than quality. Go fuck yourself, Edufer
Oh, some smilies made it!
