Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Nuclear power and cancer

Expand Messages
  • XK SAZ
    People who don t believe in the dangers of radiation poisoning and nuclear proliferation probably mean well. No one likes to look at the world as a dangerous
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 29 9:59 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      People who don't believe in the dangers of radiation poisoning and nuclear proliferation
      probably mean well. No one likes to look at the world as a dangerous place where
      governments hide things that are bad for our health.
      But it has been known to happen. People do hide things when their careers are on the line
      and unfortunatelly, when there is money to be made. People hide things when they make
      mistakes that could get them fired. Its human nature. Plus It's hard to speak up when you
      have kids to support. With Chernobyl, the rest of the world had no idea what had
      happened until a Power plant in Sweden registered an extreme rise in radiation from their
      monitoring system. They lined up their whole staff and indeed their clothes had radiation
      above the minimum allowed. After a while of looking, they realized their plant was not the
      source of the radiation "leak". The Soviets did not admit to the chernobyl radioactive
      emissions until the world began pointing fingers. Some 1800 children got thyroid cancer
      and
      that's only the low number that everyone can agree on. Thyroid cancer, in an area that had
      no previous incidents.
      http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/
      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0426_040426_chernobyl.html

      The thing about cancer is a lot of times it takes a few years to grow into a malignancy, and
      radiation is invisible. Its not like pouring salt on a slug, where you can see that obviously
      the slug was melted by the salt.
      The DOE used to have all these cancer maps online. You could look and see what kinds of
      cancers were prevalent in what years on a map of the United States. Around the times they
      tested the bomb, the areas closest to ground zero were in the red for cancers.
      I wish I could post the url but when the Bush administration came into power, these maps
      were taken offline.
      When the Bush administration came into power, Sandia lost the majority of its funding for
      solar research. Their informational website for solar concentrators was taken offline.
      At this time, our government is pro nuclear. The media often follows suite. So what you
      learn might not necessarily be an unbiased teacher, even many scientists are "paid" by
      government grants: biased.
      At this time, Cheney is trying to keep the list of advisors who shaped US energy policy a
      secret.

      http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4704302/
      http://www.nirs.org/nuclearrelapse/TalkingPointsonBush.htm
      http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0412-05.htm
      http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/08/cheney.cnn/

      To have Cheney say nuclear reactors is safe is similar to cigarette companies saying
      cigarettes don't cause lung cancer.
      The sad thing is that radioactivity is longer lasting and can damage a more widespread an
      area than a single person smoking in their own home.

      > > Do you think that radiation poisoning gives you cancer or do you not
      > "buy" that either?
      >
      > Sure it does. So do a lot of other things.

      > > What do you think these people who live close to the plants are
      > faking cancer?
      >
      > No. Neither have I seen a study that irrefutibly creates a causal
      > link between the two. How do you know there might not be some other
      > environmental factor responsible?
    • Steve Dodd
      ... [..] No, and I don t think many on this list are likely to claim that big business and politicans aren t a bunch of lying, conniving scum-bags :) The
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 29 11:12 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 04:59:14PM -0000, XK SAZ wrote:

        > People who don't believe in the dangers of radiation poisoning and
        > nuclear proliferation probably mean well. No one likes to look at the
        > world as a dangerous place where governments hide things that are bad
        > for our health.
        [..]

        No, and I don't think many on this list are likely to claim that big
        business and politicans aren't a bunch of lying, conniving scum-bags :)

        The mistake you must not make is to assume that nuclear power is
        inherently evil because it is advocated by some of these people
        (presumably the ones who aren't bankrolled by the oil companies..).

        It's based on science that we, as a society, happen to understand pretty
        well. It can be managed well, or it can be managed badly. It has
        advantages and disadvantages, and I'll admit that some of the
        disadvantages - the waste disposal problem - are huge, and pose a
        problem that'll be around for millenia. But if we're going to argue
        about it, can we use facts and critical thinking?

        --
        Home+FOAF: http://www.loth.org.uk/ OpenPGP: 201A57B6
        Original portions © 2004 Steve Dodd
        Appreciated this message?: http://www.loth.org.uk/tipjar/

        "The man dies in all who keep silent in the face of tyranny."
        -- Wole Soyinka
      • kirkmcloren
        The mistake you must not make is to assume that nuclear power is ... Actually that is a major problem. If we could rely on them doing the right thing when
        Message 3 of 3 , May 23, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          The mistake you must not make is to assume that nuclear power is
          > inherently evil because it is advocated by some of these people
          > (presumably the ones who aren't bankrolled by the oil companies..).
          >

          Actually that is a major problem. If we could rely on them doing the
          right thing when there is an accident we could then concentrate on
          procedures, planning and training. Unfortunately deception is all too
          common. I know personally of 2 occasions when truth was a casualty.

          Kirk





          --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, Steve Dodd <steved@l...>
          wrote:
          > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 04:59:14PM -0000, XK SAZ wrote:
          >
          > > People who don't believe in the dangers of radiation poisoning and
          > > nuclear proliferation probably mean well. No one likes to look at
          the
          > > world as a dangerous place where governments hide things that are
          bad
          > > for our health.
          > [..]
          >
          > No, and I don't think many on this list are likely to claim that big
          > business and politicans aren't a bunch of lying, conniving scum-
          bags :)
          >
          > The mistake you must not make is to assume that nuclear power is
          > inherently evil because it is advocated by some of these people
          > (presumably the ones who aren't bankrolled by the oil companies..).
          >
          > It's based on science that we, as a society, happen to understand
          pretty
          > well. It can be managed well, or it can be managed badly. It has
          > advantages and disadvantages, and I'll admit that some of the
          > disadvantages - the waste disposal problem - are huge, and pose a
          > problem that'll be around for millenia. But if we're going to argue
          > about it, can we use facts and critical thinking?
          >
          > --
          > Home+FOAF: http://www.loth.org.uk/ OpenPGP: 201A57B6
          > Original portions © 2004 Steve Dodd
          > Appreciated this message?: http://www.loth.org.uk/tipjar/
          >
          > "The man dies in all who keep silent in the face of tyranny."
          > -- Wole Soyinka
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.