Author: sansukong

Chinese nuclear disaster “highly probable” by 2030 [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2013-3-28 19:08:10 |Display all floors
petera Post time: 2013-3-28 18:50
Corrupt

You are obviously a corrupt propagandist.The book referred in my post has been written by ...

c. A collection of anecdotes is not data. Correlation does not prove cause. The data cited in this report were accumulated by stumbling across correlations of various illnesses or symptoms, regardless of whether such symptoms have ever been known to result from irradiation. Most have not. Recognizing that such post-hoc pattern-building is generally disparaged by scientists, the authors argue that in the Chernobyl situation, it is required. There is no attempt to replicate or peer-review the data. The need for statistical significance is specifically denied.

d. “Exposed to radiation” does not mean “injured,” though the report implies otherwise. All life-forms have been exposed to radiation, since the dawn of time. Table 1.9 of the report’s Chapter 2 shows the number of people “Suffering from Chernobyl Radioactive Contamination.” Heavily contaminated areas is 270,000; Outside Europe is 4,000,000,000. These four billion people are said to be suffering from a Chernobyl radiation dose of 0.025mSv. This is about 1% of the global average radiation background from all sources, and many people will casually take actions that increase their radiation dose a hundred times the Chernobyl dose, just from the everyday activities of living.

Marshall Brucer, “the father of nuclear medicine,” in his canonical “Chronology of Nuclear Medicine,” indicates how extensive this variation can be. On page 323, he lists various radiation background levels (with cosmic ray contribution removed) from New York City at 0.62mSv/year to SW France up to 87.6; to the potash fertilizer area in Florida up to 1,750. He notes, “If you live in one place on earth, your background may vary from day to day by a factor of ten, or even 100…The inside exposure rate can change by a factor of 10 within hours, just by opening windows.” He notes that building with brick, rather than wood, can nearly double your daily radiation dose, but that the radioactivity of bricks and concrete is also highly variable: from 0.05 to 4.93 mSv/hr for bricks, and from 0.29 to 2.54 for concretes. “A factor of 10 daily variation [in radioactivity] marks the diets of most people.” As to the specific isotopes unique to nuclear fission: despite statements to the contrary in the report, over 99% of those were put into the air by nuclear weapons tests, not the reactor.

The authors’ theory of radiation damage is bizarre. “One physical analogy can illustrate the importance of even the smallest load of radioactivity: only a few drops of water added to a glass filled to the brim are needed to initiate a flow. The same few drops can initiate the same overflow when it is a barrel.” [TR note: No, it doesn’t. Just try it. The water will not run up and over the sides of a glass or a barrel.]
“…we simply do not know when only a small amount of additional Chernobyl radiation will cause an overflow of damage and irreversible change in the health of humans and in nature” No evidence is offered to support this unorthodox theory of radiation damage.

One other factor makes the tiny Chernobyl dose appear to be so significant–the statistical magic of small numbers. Cluster analysis has been made notorious by Sternglass, Wing, et al. They look at the cancer rate in counties surrounding, say, a nuclear facility. They are shocked to find that about half the counties are above average. (This is not Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average.) Asked about the other half, they say these are not of interest; those people are just lucky. If the average annual rate of cancer deaths in the counties of this study is, for example, 10, then suppose one of that 10 moves to an adjacent county. That raises the death rate for the new county to 11, and lowers the old county to 9 – a 20% difference! If, instead of 10, the average is hundreds, or thousands; do they then lose the magic of small numbers? Not at all. They can then break the data down into particular types of cancers, and/or age groups or other categories of individuals. The possibilities are endless. And it’s all bad science.

Being the publisher of this book dishonors the Academy. If we continue to publish it, we are saying that it is a work that the Academy believes worthy of attention by busy scientists. Why else would we publish it?
There is no shame in reversing course when the facts advise it. This is best done quickly and decisively, with minimum publicity. Unfortunately, the latest move by Greenpeace has foreclosed on that option.
I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - Voltaire

The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them
ignora

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-3-29 11:35:22 |Display all floors
Prometheus2 Post time: 2013-3-28 19:08
c. A collection of anecdotes is not data. Correlation does not prove cause. The data cited in this ...

Liquidators

You are engaging in word games.And you don't say a  word about the 600,000 liquidators brought in to clean up the mess.About a fifth of them if I recall have died,mainly from medical conditions attributed to their exposure to radiation.
9/11 was an inside job.
No second plane.It was a bomb.Bomb in the other building.
You KNOW without a doubt the videos are fake,right ?!
Planes don't meld into steel and concrete buildings.They crash into them !!!!!!!
It's amazing how the building ate the plane !!!
Imagine those fragile wings cutting slots in massive steel columns !!!!!
How STUPID can they think the people are to believe that crap ??!!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-3-29 11:43:51 |Display all floors
bluenoser Post time: 2013-3-28 19:52
You are wrong AGAIN!!!
And calling people name like you do just proves you have very little formal ...

Graduate

I am an engineering graduate from a reputed university you worthless lump of lard.
9/11 was an inside job.
No second plane.It was a bomb.Bomb in the other building.
You KNOW without a doubt the videos are fake,right ?!
Planes don't meld into steel and concrete buildings.They crash into them !!!!!!!
It's amazing how the building ate the plane !!!
Imagine those fragile wings cutting slots in massive steel columns !!!!!
How STUPID can they think the people are to believe that crap ??!!

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.