1. Caldicott was also one of the Chicken-Little tubthumpers prophesying global doom from Pu-238 ahead of the launch of the RTG power source in the Cassini Saturn mission in 1997.

    She and Michio Kaku both made fools of themselves through that whole period, but nobody in the mass media was well-informed enough to realize it. I still grind my teeth and struggle against the urge to hurl a shoe every time I see Kaku’s face on the TV screen.

    1. Michael

      what Caldicott said is “in case of accident…72 PU-238 pounds poured over earth”.

      Two subjects there:

      1) what 72.5 pound of PU-238 aerosols would do
      2) chance of that accident

      About 2d point: NASA had have several major failures at that time (one LANDSAT and STEP satellites to name two of them)

      1. Look 238 is a high Alpha admitter-yet this is hardly credible given the decay series of 238 & the exposure of one is likely to experience. It is prepared by irradiation of neptunium-237, one of the minor actinides that can be recovered from spent nuclear fuel during reprocessing, or by the irradiation of americium in a reactor. I’ve never heard of more than 4.9 Kilo being loaded in to a satellite.

  2. Caldicott should stop reciting her resume so much and remember some basic debate manners, like let the other guy finish after he sat politely through your 5 minute hysterical tirade without interrupting you.

    But what else can I expect from a snake in the grass who frightens children for a living?

  3. Notice that Caldicott plugged two of her books.

    Even though she looked like a fool and a conspiracy nut, her objective was accomplished. 😉

  4. Years ago, I reviewed Caldicott’s book:
    A Desperate Passion: An Autobiography, published in 1996 by W.W. Norton & Company. The review (below) appeared in 21st Century Science & Technology, Summer 1997, under the title “The World According to Helen Caldicott.” I think it sheds some insight into this aging antinuke.

    Australian physician Helen Caldicott, one of the best-known and most emotional of the international anti-nuclear activists, has been scaring people to death for 25 years, backing up her ghastly images of nuclear-incinerated babies with her medical authority as a pediatrician. Her skill at moving audiences to tears has made a major contribution to the increasing incapacity of Americans to think through scientific ideas with reason, surrounding them instead with a passionate ignorance. In the world of Helen Caldicott, men and industry are both oppressors, and feeling good about being one’s self is a primary goal in life.
    I read this autobiography in part because Caldicott has moved to the fashionable town of East Hampton, New York, where she is involved in attacking Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, a longtime center for ground-breaking physics and medical research, along with three nuclear reactors in nearby Connecticut. Her tactics today are the same as those in the past: lies, half-truths, exaggerations–anything to scare the audience into attacking the “enemy” of nuclear technology.
    I thought it might be useful to find out what drives such a “desperate passion,” and such a disregard for science. Her autobiography did not tell me anything unexpected. The intersection of Hollywood, political figures, big money, big media, and anti-nuclear ideology is not a surprise. And neither is Caldicott’s personal philosophy or its dependence on the views of Bertrand Russell (who says that he welcomes wars, famine, and pestilence as natural ways of culling the population).
    Caldicott tells you about herself in a warts-and-all, touchy-feely way. I am mistrustful of this tell-all frankness–is it really necessary to know about her mother’s sex life?–but here’s what I learned about Helen: She was a bright student, quite conventional, who sewed her own clothes and from an early time “used her sexuality to advantage.” She describes, for example, how she made a “somewhat revealing” dress that she wore to an oral exam. “…I’m sure the dress was not a hindrance,” she writes, telling how she came out top in that subject. She was scared into becoming anti-nuclear after she read Nevil Shute’s novel “On the Beach,” about nuclear war survivors in a doomed world.
    She goes to medical school, falls in love with a fellow student, gets engaged, gets pregnant, gets married, and stays home to care for their three children. While in Boston, where her husband is working at the Children’s Hospital Medical Center at Harvard, she goes back to medical work part-time, working on cystic fibrosis.
    Back in Australia, in 1970-1971, another book then changes her life: Germaine Greer’s {The Female Eunuch.} Sexual liberation, she says, lifted her out of depression. “I was awakened sexually by reading the feminist literature, which did wonders to improve our failing marriage,” she writes. From Greer, she moved on to her “next mentor,” Lord Bertrand Russell and his three volume autobiography, with all the concomitant Russellite activism (as well as his Malthusianism). Caldicott says that with these books, she “found” herself, the real person that had been buried under layers of convention.
    Her “coming out,” so to speak, occurred at a posh church in Adelaide, where she was invited to speak on women’s liberation and told to say what she really thought. So, she writes, “I said that women in Australian society were less confident than men because they rarely had orgasms, which I had discovered from surveying my patients in general practice….”
    Continuing her liberation, Caldicott began to expand her political activities, especially against the French government’s nuclear tests in the Pacific. However, her arguments, and their scientific content, never rise above the anecdotal orgasm level.
    Caldicott lobbies, gives interviews, addresses meetings, and works hard to establish a cystic fibrosis clinic at the Adelaide Children’s Hospital. When the Australian government decides to mine and export uranium, she reads the quackiest book on nuclear energy ({Poisoned Power} by Arthur Tamplin and John Gofman) and then hits the road, lecturing trade unions on why they should oppose this government policy.
    – Hit ’em in the Testicles –
    Caldicott’s address to the Adelaide Trades and Labour Council sums up her concept of organizing: As she writes: “I’d worn a pair of black velvet slacks and an ivory-colored satin blouse–so that they might at least look at me.” When this didn’t work, and the audience continued their own conversations without paying her any attention, she says: “I had a brilliant idea. I began talking about the medical effects of radiation upon testicles. Suddenly you could have heard a pin drop. Australian workers are not adamant about many things, but if there is one subject dear to their hearts, I had found it.”
    She then summarizes: “I learned something very important that night. Don’t overwhelm your audience with data they can’t assimilate, because you will lose them. Grab them where they are emotionally vulnerable; once they are with you, the whole occasion is extremely rewarding.”
    Her political organizing escalates, and Caldicott frankly discusses her method of using “a little flirtation” to obtain signatures, and so on. (How this fits in with the liberated feminist ideology is not discussed.) She carries this method to America, where she and her husband return in 1975-1976, although she acknowledges some difficulties with this form of organizing–such as the time George Meany (allegedly) invited her to his hotel bedroom.
    It is in the United States that her activist career moves into high gear. Caldicott meets all the big players in the anti-nuclear movement and forms the Physicians for Social Responsibility, which is launched with flattering coverage in {The New York Times} and other press. Its membership got a big boost in March 1979, after “Three Mile Island melted down,” as she puts it. Caldicott was now in her element, hitting people in the testicles, so to speak, with hysterical accounts of what the potential dangers of Three Mile Island were.
    Riding a wave of television and press coverage, Caldicott then goes international, speaking and attending conferences in Hiroshima, the Soviet Union, and around the world–becoming a “nuclear bag lady,” as she put it. She leaves her medical work at Harvard to devote herself to jet-set organizing and raising money, lots of it, for the anti-nuclear cause. There are no limits to the publicity her Hollywood and journalism connections can arrange.
    One also learns the eye-color and build of all the well-known activists who are her friends, from the German Green Party’s Petra Kelly, to Meryl Streep, Sally Field, and Lily Tomlin. Then there are the ins and outs of high-level anti-nuclear diplomacy, including Caldicott’s meeting with President Reagan, arranged by his daughter, Patti David.
    In 1984, Caldicott is forced to resign from the Physicians for Social Responsibility, by a leadership faction that dislikes her hysterical scare-mongering (theirs is more low key). She works feverishly in the Mondale campaign, and is crushed by his loss in the Presidential race. As she put it, “I’d reached the end of my tether.” She and her husband vacation around the world and return to Australia. Then, another personal disaster occurs: her husband divorces her.
    – Caldicott Reborn –
    Here, the book ends, but Caldicott’s crusade continues. After a long period of re-finding herself, Caldicott has settled in Long Island, N.Y., where she continues on her desperate and passionate way, dressing well and arousing her audience with emotional ploys and distortions of the truth.
    Meanwhile, as a result of Caldicott’s activities and with the complicity of masses of comfortable people who are all too willing to be hit in the testicles in order to become passionately ignorant, research at the frontiers of science, such as that conducted at Brookhaven, is stymied and people around the world are dying of starvation and disease, because we lack the benefits of nuclear energy.

    1. I was surprised to read: “the views of Bertrand Russell (who says that he welcomes wars, famine, and pestilence as natural ways of culling the population)”.

      I found this, supposedly from Russell’s “The Impact of Science on Society”, 1951: “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.” (p. 26)

      Contrast with “The Russell-Einstein Manifesto” 1955http://www.pugwash.org/about/manifesto.htm where Russell, along with Einstein and others signs an appeal to all humans to “find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them”.

      Regarding Caldicott. Wikipedia says “In 1980, following the TMI nuclear accident, she left her medical career…” to be a full time” I like that idea of verifying if she is a “registered” anything to see if the organization of “doctors” she is registered with does “deregister” their members if they are caught lying.

      1. @David Lewis: I wonder if that paragraph from “The Impact of Science” which you quote was, perhaps, written in a sort of tongue-in-cheek way? It’s sometimes difficult to gauge an author’s actual intent, but it looks to me like Russel is trying to layout for people, with a bit of black humor, the alternatives to rational self-regulated population control – bad wars with lots of death and suffering, famines, etc.

        One passage in particular, “. . .survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s,” just *reeks* of sarcasm, at least to me personally.

        I don’t really see that he is a ‘proponent’ of those things, simply acknowledging a rational conclusion about possible outcomes.

  5. Marge Hecht said it ALL.
    Dr Caldicott, which should be renamed Dr Fraud is alive and well, given the recent and on going tragedy in Japan.
    I met her during the Prop 15 campaign in California, 1975. She supported Prop 15, to shut down ALL California Nuclear reactors.. She was so successful that we now have 4 LARGE nuclear reactors in California producing 17% of electricity, very successful,36 years after Prop 15!!!
    Is she really a practicing pediatrician? when does she find time for honest curative work? She is really a true case of hyperventilation.
    I did not know her husband divorced her.. THAT says something.

    Costas Spalaris

  6. If Helen Caldicott is a crusader, then who is best placed to be a pro-nuclear Saladin? 😉

  7. Is every single person on this site in the employ of nuclear industry?

    Caldicott is spot on. It is very true that most of what Monbiot is spouting off about has no basis in reality. The type of radioactivity that is released when the world experiences a Chernobyl, or a Fukushima, is NOT low level radiation. Within five days, everyone on the planet receives some amount of radioactivity – and the particle physics of radioactivity is such that we do not even have all the names of all the types of particles that are released when such plutonium-based radiation releases occur. (Some types of particles may occur only for a nano-second some three weeks or later, after the plutonium event.)

    The smallest micron level part of radioactivity that gets inside a human being will be emitting its radioactivity for thirty years.

    Look at this information – which is rather dialectic in its approach:

    “There are, of course, many agencies that have gone on the record as having looked into the particulars of the April 26, 1986 disaster.

    “You have UNSCEAR’s assessments of the radiation effects, and they point to the fact that there were 30 people killed by radiation in the first few weeks after the disaster. And that another 100 people were injured by radiation in that period as well. (UNSCEAR stands for: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.)

    “Initially, one hundred and fifteen thousand people were evacuated on account of the event. But in the end, closer to two hundred and twenty thousand people were forced from their homes in areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

    “Over the years, older people have moved back into these areas, wanting to be back where they feel most at home. Also, since they are older, they are not as fearful of a possibility that cancer might generate inside their bodies some twenty years down the road – at which point they might be dead from something else anyway.

    “Among the most notable of the tragic results of this accident were the serious social and psychological disruption in the lives of those affected. There were also large scale economic losses. It should not be overlooked that large areas of the three countries were contaminated with radioactive materials, and radionuclides from the Chernobyl release were measurable in all countries of the northern hemisphere. (Not just in the afore mentioned Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.)

    “Some military, social and political analysts credit the profound dismay, combined with anger, sadness and a desire to deviate and to revolt against the system that brought about this nuclear disaster to be the major propelling force, along with the Afghan War, that had the Soviet people bring down their Communistic way of life. The event is also given credit for the toppling of the Berlin Wall.

    “Now back to the grim statistics – what statistics we glean from the records of the UNSCEAR report —
    Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, claims the authors of this United Nations study, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to the radiation exposure some two decades after the accident.

    “Many current day travelers to the old Soviet Union, and many who visit places in the Ukraine where the uprooted Ukrainians now live, distrust this report. They see first hand the numerous children who do not live to the age of fifteen, but die of cancer or a genetic condition, or a birth defect.

    “It is known that the accident at the Chernobyl reactor happened during an experimental test of the electrical control system as the reactor was being shut down for routine maintenance. The operators, in violation of safety regulations, had switched off important control systems and allowed the reactor, which had design flaws, to reach unstable, low-power conditions. A sudden power surge caused a steam explosion that ruptured the reactor vessel. This allowed further violent fuel-steam interactions that destroyed the reactor core and severely damaged the reactor building. Subsequently, an intense graphite fire burned for 10 days. Under those conditions, large releases of radioactive materials took place.

    “This radioactive material went across Europe and Scandinavia. Italy received among the highest doses.

    “Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far. These numbers far surpass the UNSCEAR reporting of some four thousand deaths.

    “The mismatches in figures arise because there have been no
    comprehensive, co-ordinated studies of the health consequences of this accident. This is in contrast to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where official research showed that the main rise in most types of cancer and non-cancer diseases only became apparent years after the atomic bombs fell.

    “Critics of the UNSCEAR report also point to the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency has compromised the research and findings as collected by the United Nations. For instance, WHO guidelines, utilized quite often by UNSCEAR, were requiring the peer review of evidence and collected data and this has made it hard for many deaths and illnesses to even be considered as part of the complete record.

    “The UN’s World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people have died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually.

    “Controversy rages over the agendas of the IAEA, which has promoted civil nuclear power over the past 30 years, and the WHO. The UN accepts only peer-reviewed scientific studies written in certain journals in English, a rule said to exclude dozens of other studies.

    “Eleven years ago, an IAEA spokesman said he was confident the WHO figures were correct. And Michael Repacholi, director of the UN Chernobyl forum until 2006, has claimed that even 4,000 eventual deaths could be too high. The main negative health impacts of ­Chernobyl were not caused by the ­radiation but by the fear of it, he claimed.

    “However, it is important to consider the remarks of Linda Walker, of the UK Chernobyl Children’s Project, which funds Belarus and Ukraine orphanages and holidays for affected children, as she called for a determined effort to learn about the effects of the disaster. ‘Parents are giving birth to babies with disabilities or genetic disorders … but, as far as we know, no research is being conducted.. “

    1. Rod – You might want to consider deleting this comment as spam. At the very least, you should remove the link to the new-age-healing scam in the person’s name.

      You might want to leave the content of the comment for its comical value, however. The field of nuclear physics is 100-years old last month, so now, “Dr.” Dagg is here to explain to us how a “plutonium event” works, and how we still don’t have names for all the “particles.” Huh?!

      Where do all these weirdos come from?

      1. As someone who knew Dr Gofman personally, who has hung out with many fine scientists at both the Argonne Labs, the old Bell Labs in Lisle/Naperville, Illinois, and who has kept up with new discoveries in research (just this past week, another new and unexplained particle seems to have been detected at the facility in Illinois) I think you might be eager to hear my comments rather than stay inside the world of your blinders.

        BTW, Dr Gofman was considered to be one of the “fathers” of plutonium, as he discovered plutonium 132 and 133, and also uranium 132 and 133.

        Get back to me when you have such impressive credits as Dr Gofman.

      2. Please get back to me when you actually understand the credits of Dr. Gofman. His research was focused on protactinium 232 and 233, and on uranium 232 and 233. If you really knew these people personally, then you should have taken better notes.

        I suspect, however, that like your pathetic website, you’re nothing but a scam.

        Later in life, Gofman was nothing but an outcast in the scientific community. His predictions in the late sixties and early seventies simply did not come to pass, and his credibility died with his erroneous claims.

    2. So what if there happen to be a few nuclear professionals on this site? I happen to like people who study hard and choose to enter a profession that has high standards of performance, personal responsibility and integrity.

      It boggles my mind how people get confused between shills – people who are often paid to sell a product that they do not even understand – and professionals who dedicate their lives to understanding and improving the product. I have never met a nuclear scientist, engineer, or technologist who did not have plenty of other opportunities for employment. Believe it or not, people who can do math, take care to produce correct answers and are willing to work long hours are in high demand in many different professions.

      We chose to be nukes for a variety of reasons. I cannot speak for others, but I first thought about becoming a nuclear professional when my father taught me about the new power plant that his employer was building at Turkey Point. The fascinating thing to me was that the new plant would not even need a smoke stack. I was about 8 years old at the time, but I had visited some of the other plants that FP&L operated and seen the huge oil tanks, watched the ships arrive from Venezuela and seen the belching smoke stacks.

      Though I chose to major in English at the Naval Academy as a way to have some interesting electives, I took enough math and science courses to convince Admiral Rickover that I was trainable. Serving on nuclear submarines and seeing first hand how a mass of fuel small enough to fit under my office desk could drive a 9,000 ton ship for 14 years helped to convince me that the opposition to nuclear energy was nutty.

      I lived for months at a time within 200 feet of a reactor that operated inside a sealed ship, producing no pollution and no emissions of any kind other than a little bit of warmer water. I contrasted that with the thought of what my diesel powered predecessors had to endure and became a true believer – based on personal, first hand experience that is difficult to deny.

      If you want to really understand what real scientists know about radiation and its effects on human health, a great place to start is Nuclear Energy and Health: And the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis

  8. Important to understand the interconne tion between all the major players (in terms of how they see to it that the public is not protected):

    the agreement between the WHO and the IAEA, May 28, 1959 at the 12th World Health Assembly, clause No. 12.40:

    “whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement…”

    1. And the spam continues!

      And apparently so does the IAEA/WHO conspiracy myth.

      How come none of these conspiracy idiots ever bothers to quote the entire article of the agreement? Could it be that they want to hide something?

      For the record, here is the entire article, taken verbatim (emphasis mine):


      Article I – Co-operation and Consultation

      1. The International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization agree that, with a view to facilitating the effective attainment of the objectives set forth in their respective constitutional instruments, within the general framework established by the Charter of the United Nations, they will act in close co-operation with each other and will consult each other regularly in regard to matters of common interest.

      2. In particular, and in accordance with the Constitution of the World Health Organization and the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and its agreement with the United Nations together with the exchange of letters related thereto, and taking into account the respective co-ordinating responsibilities of both organizations, it is recognized by the World Health Organization that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the primary responsibility for encouraging, assisting and co-ordinating research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world without prejudice to the right of the World Health Organization to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting, and co-ordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects.

      3. Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement.

      1. Brian and others – I apologize. Still learning a new system and made the wrong checkmark selections regarding moderation and notification. Working now to clear up spam.

  9. Is she really a practicing pediatrician?

    Not for 31 years it would seem.

    I won’t be her books but I did read Marje Hecht’s critique above. I noticed one or two things that don’t chime with the official Caldicott cv.

    While in Boston, where her husband is working at the Children’s Hospital Medical Center at Harvard, she goes back to medical work part-time, working on cystic fibrosis.

    Hmm. She was not at that time qualified to practice because she did not start her intern year until 1972 after she got back to Oz. It may be that she was one of the many volunteer helpers at the Children’s Hospital. The only thing in her cv during this period was a research fellowship in the nutritional clinic.

    “I said that women in Australian society were less confident than men because they rarely had orgasms, which I had discovered from surveying my patients in general practice….”

    According to her cv she was never in general practice. Maybe she is referring to general medical training during her internship and residency in Adelaide 1972-1974?

    She carries this method to America, where she and her husband return in 1975-1976

    According to her cv she was still in Oz in 1975-1976, ‘founding and directing the Cystic Fibrosis Clinic’ at the Adelaide Children’s Hospital. However, as this was her first job after residency she was basically still in specialist training. Therefore I would interpret ‘founding and directing’ as ‘booking a hospital room to see her senior’s outpatients in’ – ie the sort of duty that registrars routinely do.

    It’s clear from her cv that she had a very brief career in practice and never attained any particular ’eminence’ as a physician. No doubt she was competent but I get the strong impression from some of her claims that she is somewhat ‘gilding the lily’.

  10. Helen Caldicott became prominent in Australia during the period of French nuclear testing in the atmosphere between 1966 and 1973. She and her misinformed comments were an irritant to Australian nuclear scientists and her departure for America was seen as a gain for Australia. Her views, as seen through the eyes of Australian nuclear scientists at the time, are best illustrated by the following “Question and Answer” that circulated among them:
    QUESTION: What is the difference between a nuclear reactor and Dr Helen Caldicott?
    ANSWER: A nuclear reactor produces nuclear waste; Dr Caldicott produces nuclear rubbish.

  11. A question to you who write insulting remarks regarding dr Helen Caldicott: If you believe she’s wrong in practically everything she says – why do you bother commenting her and her work? If you think she doesn’t know what she’s talking about, you could just let her go about her business, and let it speak for itself.

    1. Because she is not telling the truth she needs to be exposed. This topic is just to important to leave these types of people to spread lies.

      Of course as a known Swedish antinuclear activist you would rather that Caldicott be left alone, as I am sure that you have swallowed her B.S, hook, line, and sinker.

    2. Because Dr. Helen Caldicott is a highly paid and visible spokesperson who speaks to vulnerable college students and has been doing so for at least 3 decades. She also has enough clout to get a lengthy op-ed published in the New York Times, one of the papers of record for the United States.

      Nuclear advocates have been politely ignoring her for far too long.

      This morning, the Times published four letters to the editor that responded to Dr. Caldicott’s op-ed. You can find them at


      I was pleased to find that such qualified people responded so rationally and factually to the misinformation.

      1. I suppose you don’t agree with David Suzuki either? I don’t have a science background, but what I have seen the Japanese people go through turns me off nuclear power completely. I reckon you guys ought to just give it up & apply your clever minds to renewables. Imagine the good you could do for us & our kids. Do you have kids? I hope you can put your energy into helping our kids and their future lives on this planet.

    3. When asked, “Why do you want to climb Mount Everest?” the famous mountaineer George Mallory replied simply, “Because it’s there.”

      And so, I give the same answer when asked why I choose to grapple with the mountain of B.S. that is the writings of Helen Caldicott.

      Nobody who genuinely values science and truth can sit idle while Caldicott spreads her lies. Her misinformation and nonsense must be challenged, because it’s there.

    1. Also, look at this: …

      Linda – What? The crazy rantings of an irrelevant old hag who has lost credit even within the environmental movement that has supported her for so long?

      Yes, it was funny, in a pathetic sort of way.

      Nevertheless, I don’t think that Monbiot was amused.

      1. The way you comment and describe Helen Caldicott is appauling. I realize you disagree with her, but why are you so verbally abusive? I’m amazed you can be so upset with someone so irrelevant …

        1. I wish Caldicott was “irrelevant”, but she is still polluting young minds on the college lecture circuit and she still is celebrated enough to be invited to appear on widely distributed news programs like Democracy Now! She has been accusing me and my nuclear professional colleagues of unspeakable crimes and rampant dishonesty for several decades. Why shouldn’t we be angry and upset by the “stuff” that still spills from her mouth?

        2. Lena – Rod pretty much explained it.

          That old hag Caldicott has been insulting me and my colleagues for decades now, calling us all sorts of names and questioning our integrity. Furthermore, she has made quite a substantial profit from it.

          Why don’t we have the right to insult her back?

  12. Thank you for replying. However it’s Brian Mays’
    way of describing Helen Caldicott that pisses me off. I reacted to the invective that Brian Mays used. In just one sentence he manages to be both ageist and sexist.

    1. Lena – Sexist?

      Heh … You’ve obviously never read much of Caldicott’s writings. In her books and articles, she uses all sorts of sexist innuendo to attack males, particularly when it comes to weapons. It’s enough to make me wonder whether she’s a closet pervert or nymphomaniac, but I’ve read enough of her to realize that it’s just a ploy, just like how she used to dress provocatively for interviews many years ago when she was much younger and much more attractive (which she admits in her autobiography). That type of behavior shows just how much respect she has for the male intellect.

      So please, drop the PC crap.

  13. The year…2012..
    .67 years after a Uranium bomb was exploded directly above Hiroshima.
    .67 years after a Plutonium bomb was exploded directly above Nagasaki.

    Population of Hiroshima today…1.2 million.
    Population of Nagasaki today … over 500,000.

    It hasnt been 10,000 years.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts