How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation

[jpak]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation

Soon after the Fukushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima.

Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of "cherry-picking" data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools. Yet by reassuring the public that things aren't too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process.

To wit: 1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation

Let me educate him.

<more>

[Mnemosyne]

1. K&R for more visibility. n/t

[Javaman]

2. K & R nt

[intaglio]

3. Fascinating, especially that IAEA can veto research by WHO n/t

[flamingdem]

4. So what will the new pro-nuke talking points be now that Fukushima is L7? nt

[Nederland]

5. George Monbiot's response:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

Over the last fortnight I've made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.

I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week with Helen Caldicott. Dr Caldicott is the world's foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel peace prize. Like other greens, I was in awe of her. In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of radiation. So I did what anyone faced with questionable scientific claims should do: I asked for the sources. Caldicott's response has profoundly shaken me.

First she sent me nine documents: newspaper articles, press releases and an advertisement. None were scientific publications; none contained sources for the claims she had made. But one of the press releases referred to a report by the US National Academy of Sciences, which she urged me to read. I have now done so – all 423 pages. It supports none of the statements I questioned; in fact it strongly contradicts her claims about the health effects of radiation.

I pressed her further and she gave me a series of answers that made my heart sink – in most cases they referred to publications which had little or no scientific standing, which did not support her claims or which contradicted them. (I have posted our correspondence, and my sources, on my website.) I have just read her book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer. The scarcity of references to scientific papers and the abundance of unsourced claims it contains amaze me.

The 423 page peer reviewed article he and Caldicott both refer to is here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11340#description

Also, the email correspondence between the two is fascinating. Monbiot repeatedly asks for peer reviewed articles to support a series of statements that she made during a debate and she continually refuses to provide them. It ends with Caldicott pushing Monbiot off onto her publisher, who also fails to deliver any of the requested documents. Here is a link to that:

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/correspondence-with-helen-caldicott/

[kristopher]

6. You have it backwards, that is what she shredded.

The OP is the refutation of his many errors in the article you posted.

[Nederland]

7. I think you are right

The one preceded the other. That being said, I still think the link to the US National Academy of Sciences paper and the email correspondence is fascinating. The fact that she was unwilling to offer any peer reviewed literature to support her claims is telling. We will have to see if Monbiot responds.

[kristopher]

8. Odd what you define as "peer reviewed literature"