1. Your series on the suppression of research, demeaning, ridicule and even persecution of those that do not believe in LNT false narrative is excellent. One only need look at the first exposure limits set for radiation dose, the fact the the original limit was a SWAG, and a ridiculous one at that. E.g. at one time, I had a government manual on radiation dose limits used for military training in the early 50’s. In it they explained how the limit was set and why it was safe. — They determined the dose rate to cause reddening of the skin, divided that number by 10, and that was the limit. Logic was that that dose rate would not cause permanent harm, as it was 1/10 the radiation of that caused harm to the skin. Later, that number was reduced again by a factor of ten and there it remains since the late 50’s.
    Looking forward to your expose’ on Global Warming. The money to be made is thousands (millions, even billions) of times higher, $Trillions per year, and the benefits to mankind are not supported by the math. The parallels in research, government, academia and the suppression of knowledge on a safe Rad Dose are clearly visible. The persecution phase of suppression has begun. Only the blind and idealogues do not see the parallels.

    1. @Rich

      While I see some of the parallels that you see, I do not understand how you can claim that the “money to be made is thousands (millions, even billions) of times higher.”

      Whatever money might be made in vigorous pursuit of “solutions” to reducing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will probably be associated with changes in the enormous enterprise associated with financing, finding, extracting, refining, delivering and consuming fossil fuels.

      Allowing uranium, thorium and plutonium to compete with fossil fuels represents just as big of a change and just as big of a shift of wealth and power. The LNT (no safe dose) is not just about protecting the income of radiation protection professionals, it is the root cause of the extra special regulatory treatment and NIMBYism associated with nuclear energy. It is the tool that has been used to drive the cost of what should be a very low cost energy source high enough so that it is only barely competitive with coal, oil and natural gas.

      It is also the tool that has been used to demonize an energy source that consumes tiny amounts of natural resources, produces a minute quantity of controllable waste (relative to fossil fuels) and has the potential to empower every person on the planet to carry around a lifetime fuel source.

      In addition, the parallel breaks down because the amount of radiation that is supposed to be risky for individuals and populations is vanishingly small, but the amount of CO2 and other pollutants associated with burning fossil fuels for energy is measured in tens of billions of tons per year.

  2. This whole annoying issue, among nuclear tech related ones, is moot stale water under the dam since, since as gleefully reported by WCBS-Radio NYC reporter Fran Schneidau among metro green and renewable power honchos in wake of pending closure of Indian Point “a watershed in heeding sane safety” in there won’t be any more nuke power orders in our lifetimes, especially with “clean coal” itching to take the niche.

    Like the nuclear industry never saw the far off headlights.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts