Home | About | Donate

The Quake to Make Los Angeles a Radioactive Dead Zone

See the ongoing 70-year Life Span Study, which began in 1947 in Japan (google it). Hiroshima or Nagasaki blast survivors who received an instantaneous dose of 100 mSv or less had no radiological medical or genetic issues. Neither have their offspring. A threshold does indeed exist. Muller’s 1946 Linear No-Threshold hypothesis (“no safe dose” / “all doses are cumulative”) is simply not valid science. Also, it was not known in 1946 that all living cells can and do routinely repair DNA damage from ionizing radiation, up to 10,000 repairs a day. It’s the same mechanism cells use to repair oxidation damage. Muller didn’t know this. Now we do. LNT is not correct.

It is never to late to change the road your on.

Back atcha. Try reading up on the actual science.

Simply put – there is a very-well proven threshold of 100 mSv per year. “No safe dose” is a lie.

Study the science. The world depends on it.

The “experts” established a safety threshold of 100 mSv PER YEAR, after thousands of real-life victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki received 100 mSv in a MICRO-SECOND, with no bad effects.

That’s a ginormous built-in margin of safety. Explain to everyone here why that is bad science.

Try using your observation skills, still fracking for uranium? Cleaned up the sites from the last 60 years, and then there is the waste. The world existed for millions of years without science.

I looked at a few definitions and it seems the word started with gambling but is in wider use now. I believe @Trog is right in that deception is a necessary part of the definition. If there is no deception, this begs for a different word.


Dishonesty is a part of it, but it does not require one to conceal their position or identity nor pretend to be a disinterested party as Trog stated.

That is not science but a statement with nothing to back it up.
If you want to talk science why not start by producing a single peer reviewed study showing that radiation is harmless?

1 Like

Mr. Wasserman should ashamed to publish this uninformed fearmongering, especially in light of the real danger we face from climate change, and the essential role nuclear energy will play in lowering global carbon emissions.
Though anyone familiar with nuclear energy and radioactivity will immediately recognize Wasserman’s article as nonsense, many won’t - the voices of irrational fear and ignorance has been too persistent. I and other activists are working hard to put a stop to them - there’s no more time to waste. Some basics:
• Nuclear energy is, by far, the safest way to generate dispatchable grid electricity - bar none.
• Diablo Canyon Power Plant generates 2.2 billion watts of electricity - 9% of all electricity in California - with zero carbon emissions.
• Nuclear waste hasn’t been responsible a single death or injury in the last half century.
• Not one person died from radiation released from the 2011 Fukushima-Daiichi accident.
• An estimated 1,500 residents of Fukushima Prefecture died in the panic which ensued after the accident - panic for which fearmongering like Mr. Wasserman’s is directly responsible.
• The 2013 shutdown of San Onofre Nuclear Generating station added 9 million tons of carbon emissions to California’s annual total, the equivalent of 1.7 million additional cars on the road, after it was replaced by fossil fuel methane (“natural gas”).
Get the facts about Big Oil’s concerted effort to do the same with Diablo Canyon Power Plant. This time, there are too many Californians who know better.

I never said or implied that “radiation is harmless.” What I said was, it is safe in doses of 100 mSv/year or less. Google the peer-reviewed Life-Span Study. I posted the link in an earlier reply on this thread.

Wow, ANOTHER “new poster” arriving here to defend the nukes! Amazing co-incidence that always happens when an article here denounces nukes! AMAZING co-incidence!

Right, and we haven’t even got to the tons of plutonium being destroyed by the U.S. and Russia. It is such a racket, first they sell you the problem and then sell you the solution, charge billions of dollars, make wastelands from the fuel cycle and then are dishonest about the risks and environmental damage.

On the dictionary.com entry, I agree def #2 does not require deception like def # 1 (which is the gambling usage). On Wikipedia, their definition is matching what @Trog is thinking I believe:

A shill , also called a plant or a stooge , is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

On the topic of this story, I don’t know anything about this site and of course I’m saddened by any mess we’ve made in the pursuit of nuclear weapons which I am completely against - I want complete disarmament. I’m open minded to Gen IV Nuclear Power Reactors (the MSR designs Trog describes) mostly because we have all this spent fuel - if we were starting from ground 0 and had to mine and process to get the fuel, I’m not sure I would be as open to it.

EDIT: Whoops I was thinking of a different story about a weapons reactor (https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/13/60-years-largest-us-nuclear-accident-and-captured-federal-agencies)

fern, if by the “tons of plutonium being destroyed by the U.S. and Russia” you’re referring to Megatons to Megawatts, you’ve got it wrong: 20,005 warheads worth of plutonium were sold by Russia to the U.S., then generated 20% of U.S. electricity with zero (0) carbon emissions.

Nuclear energy both makes clean electricity and makes the world a safer place. Fact.

Not a coincidence at all - you can expect a lot more of it, too. People who understand nuclear energy have heard enough rampant fearmongering from people who have no understanding at all.

I’m referring to this:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Russia-suspends-plutonium-agreement-with-USA-04101601.html

It’s a billion-dollar industry investing in projecting its PR image.

Merely co-incidental, i’m sure.

But people like you have no understanding of what the MIC will do in its own interest.

That is not peer reviewed.
In fact they even saw fit to include the following disclaimer: The conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the scientific judgment of RERF or its funding agencies.

1 Like

Was referring to the fact that earthquakes, massive storms, tornadoes and possibly weather events we have never even seen before are about to become a global phenomena, but you are of course correct that this would not adversely affect many forms of thermal energy storage much.

“With the successful conversion of 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium extracted from Russian nuclear weapons into low enriched uranium, the transfer to the United States of that low enriched uranium (LEU) for use as fuel in commercial nuclear reactors, and the completion of all payments to the Russian Federation, there is no further need for the protective blocking imposed by Executive Order 13617. For this reason I have determined that it is necessary to terminate the national emergency … and revoke that order,” he told Congress.
Clean power from 20,005 former warheads. The world is safer and cleaner thanks to nuclear energy.