Caldicott "educates" Monbiot on nuclear safety and science.

[kristopher]

This one is a must read...

How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation
George Monbiot and others at best misinform and at worst distort evidence of the dangers of atomic energy

guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 April 2011 12.10 BST

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...

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

[tabatha]

1. I could not believe this ridiculous article by Monbiot

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

http://mg.co.za/article/2011-03-22-why-fukushima-made-me-stop-worrying-and-love-nuclear-power

[kristopher]

2. My impression is that she took him to the woodshed...

I have to say, though that no matter your point of view, the Guardian is to be commended for their coverage of the discussion.

[tabatha]

3. Yep, I was commenting on the contents of the article

not of the Guardian. It was not mentioned. I believe that my opinion matches that of Caldicott.

[kristopher]

4. Ok, I didn't notice your link wan't to the Guardian.

I've been following it there, and I just assumed that was your source also. Ooops.

yes, the points she brings forward about his level of actual awareness vs his attitude of certitude reveals a widespread pattern of behavior on the part of those that trust in claims from an industry that has successfully convinced the public that the ethical principles of the academic-scientific world are the ethics that are guiding the dissemination of what is purely business information.

In point of fact, the academic-scientific literature has the highest level of validity we are able to manage, while the information put out by business and industry has the lowest. The fact that they've successfully equated to two is no accident, either; it is part of a planned campaign launched in 2002.

[tabatha]

5. Actually, it could be considered a virtual link to the Guardian

because the Mail & Guardian of SA is, I believe, an offshoot of the Guardian, but with a lot of local content. I read it often for that local content, but do come across international articles as well.

[kristopher]

8. That makes sense. nt

[Karmadillo]

6. K&R

nt

[JohnyCanuck]

7. K&R n/t

[kristopher]

9. Kick because this article isn't showing up on google news.

For some reason when I googled /caldicott/, or /caldicott monbiot/ on both web and news search, all I got were referrals to the Monbiot article. I looked at a total of 12 pages of results and this article didn't appear even once although it is the most recent from the Guardiam

[Junkdrawer]

10. K&R