1. Hmm… sounds like buying votes with bogus bills. Does the Treasury Department know about this?

  2. For Mangano and Sherman, it appears that the ends justifies the means. Not exactly a hallmark of scientists.

  3. People who oppose GMO still take Gilles-Éric Séralini seriously. And he is still paid by Univ of Caen.

    “scientists” can just do anything.

    There is no bound.

    In France, academic freedom apparently means you can accuse people (incl. former president) of conspiracy, because “it is just a legal opinion by a scholar” (of the Bernard Tapie vs. France case).

    I guess Stephan Lewandowsky need not fear repercussions. There will be none.

  4. Even dis-proven “studies” such as this will be repeated and referenced over and over, any effort to correct the data will be pointed to as evidence of a “cover-up” and/or conspiracy. People who promulgate misinformation like this, which will cause real health effects from additional fear and anxiety, should be held accountable. Is there any scientific body with the authority to police the scientific community and prevent these repeat offenses? Is it any wonder the public loses faith in the scientific community when “studies” like this are published?

  5. The whole situation is beyond me. With such important things like mental health, massive pollution issues from alternatives and clean energy in the balance I don’t understand why medical professionals and all academics for that matter haven’t publicly ridiculed these people more. Obviously there is a huge ethical issue here.

    I am appreciative and more than grateful to Ian Goddard of course but he should shouldn’t be having to do this. Its beyond belief that with all the “science” journalists and commenting academics out there he does.

    Ill shut up now because I have way stronger feelings and loads more criticism on this than the near total disgust I hope I have conveyed.

  6. Goddard’s work is laudable, but it’s only effective as the number of people exposed to it, which is about zit since it’s not going to be on NPR or 60 Minutes or GoogleNews or any major news venues. It’s that old chestnut from Dr. Strangelove where the Russian Ambassador informs the POTUS that Russia has been secretly developing a Doomsday Machine to discourage and deter any attack on their country and Strangelove scolds Russia that the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret. Goddard’s work might as well be a secret if it’s kept bottled up in web niches light-years away from the mainstream public. Rather than being clowns, Mangano and Sherman (and most anti-nukers) have long known exactly what they’re doing, and that’s how to get their FUD out where it counts, totally unchallenged on the same stage.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

    1. Given that Mr. Adams has given it additional exposure should help. A lot of people do web searches these days and maybe this one will pop up with the words Mangano and Sherman. Somebody somewhere has to be paying these guys to produce this malarkey. I just wonder who it is. There may be another smoking gun out there.

  7. What Rod needs is a ‘share’ button for each story go get it on Facebook. That would help a lot and make it go viral, sort of.

    1. Dave – there is a row of social media icons just below the title of each post. One of them is Facebook. That should work for you.

    2. David, a few weeks or a month or so ago, I think Rod mentioned that an Atomic Insights Facebook page had been started but not yet released for public view.

      Any update on that for your subscribers, Rod?

  8. Mangano et alii: the fruits of scientism – the religion of self – at work. This is what happens when one is responsible and accountable to no Higher Power except one’s overweening ego: the lust for personal recognition and accolades, for power over others and for mammon – wealth unlimited.

    “Is there any scientific body with the authority to police the scientific community and prevent these repeat offenses?”

    That very community has been educated into imbecility by the anti-nuclear liberal progressive intelligentsia of post-modern Academia.

    1. “That very community has been educated into imbecility by the anti-nuclear liberal progressive intelligentsia of post-modern Academia”

      So the Koch brothers give millions upon millions to the right wing because the right is so dead set against the fossil fuel folks, right Paul? Tell me, Paul, what do you know about the holdings of the Koch Brothers, and the special interests they represent? You think they are pro-nuke?

      Really Paul, if you want a tutorial on how to foster imbecility, I suggest you tune in to a few episodes of Huckabee’s Fox News clown show. Or listen to Limbaugh for five minutes, which, by the way, is almost an impossible task if you have more than 2 brain cells to rub together.

      Is Maddow or Mathews any better??? Not really. Niether side has a monopoly on purposely instilling the imbecility you seem to want to shoehorn into the left’s loafers. But your constant insinuation here, that somehow the right is more pro-nuke than the left is ignorant and asinine to the extreme. In fact, such an insinuation perfectly demonstrates the imbecility that you are so eager to attribute to the “liberal progressives”. The fossil fuel industry is the right’s darling, always has been, always will be.

      If you think you can advance the cause of nuclear energy by making it a right vs left thing, good luck with that.

      Fighting imbecility with imbecility just seems like a loser to me. But hey, what do I know?

      1. Bravo to that comment! I totally agree, making the nuclear issue a right/left issue is a surefire way to make nuclear energy technology the loser.

        1. It’s been a left-right issue since “no nukes” in the 60’s.  The cascading defection of climate-concerned people from the left’s anti-nuclear orthodoxy is threatening that polarization and consequent paralysis.

    2. “liberal progressive intelligentsia”
      Interesting how the term “liberal” was usurped in the 20th Century.
      Nowadays, a “liberal” is very likely to have an autocratic streak a mile wide.
      Anti free speech
      Pro government direction (direct or indirect)
      Pretty much, the only genuinely “liberal” aspect of the present-day “liberals”
      is liberality in government spending.

  9. Mangano is with the Radiation and Public Health Project. In my experience, almost every group that calls itself a “Project” pushes a Left-wing agenda. I don’t know why that is, but there are so many examples that it is almost a fundamental law.

    This “Project” was apparently founded by the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. Anyone want to bet that this commission is more interested in politics than saving souls?

    1. @nurseopinion

      We enjoy talking with people who have a variety of opinions, but commenters should be respectful of others, even if disagreeing. Comments should also be substantive and not consist of short accusations like “talking to yourselves” or “Who pays you?”

      Please continue to participate, but I do my best to make this forum a conversation that informs people and challenges their thinking without being an annoyance that simply adds stress or discomfort. There are tools that help in that effort.

      1. Not so. Appreciate everyone’s opinion. We all should. However this is clearly attacking people and not the work. Seems to go against the whole idea of a forum. When I say “who pays you” it is a real question. We know who they work for…but you do not say who you work for or what is your motive. Plus a forum have VARIOUS ideas and opinions. I am voicing my opinion. Otherwise, you all seem to know eachother. I do not. Why attack? Not sure I understand. “talking to yourselves” says a lot with few words. The back and forth attack and statements that seem vicious of the people, does not make sense to me. I want to know if there is reason to be concerned about any environmental contamination. We all did I think. The article that Mangano and Sherman addresses this. We all have families. We all should care.

        1. @nurseopinion,

          First, Mangano and Sherman have been repeatedly wrong numerous times with their “studies”. Mr. Goddard has one of the best and thorough debunking of their presentation of the statistics that I have seen. It isn’t just a “You are wrong” argument. It is a deliberate attempt to back check facts and recreate the same conclusions using the same data sets that were available to Mangano and Sherman.

          As Mr. Goddard concludes, Mangano and Sherman are using the datasets incorrectly and come to wrong conclusions. However Mr. Goddard goes further and proves that Mangano and Sherman attempt to actually change widely used terminology to suit their predisposed conclusions against nuclear power.
          I could accept them attempting to redefine terminology IF and only IF they used the datasets correctly. Instead they cherrypicked data to suit their proven anti-nuclear standpoint. They misuse statistics to generate fear against nuclear power.

          Both individuals have been anti-nuclear for years, which is fine. I don’t believe wind power will save our world. I am a supporter of nuclear power who is reminded daily of the issues with nuclear power since I work in the field. As such I and the members of the teams I am on, have to defend our analysis, our designs, our conclusions. If those conclusions are incorrect then we must change our designs, analysis etc. We can’t just continue on to the next flawed study or design as do Mangano and Sherman.

          Sometimes those of us who design equipment for nuclear power plants or those that operate nuclear power plants must defend our designs and decisions in a very public forum of an NRC hearing where “intervenors” can submit opposing opinions. That is also fine as it leads to robust designs and operational provided the intervenors are acting in good faith and honestly providing objections.

          However Mangano and Sherman refuse to acknowledge when they are wrong. They do not retract their studies. They do not republish their studies. They just continue to publish more flawed studies that require time from health field and science professionals to refute since their studies create fear in the general public.

          In fact the taxpayers of San Luis Obispo just paid for the study linked below since the Public Health Commission felt it was necessary to dig into Mangano claims. If correct then it might have indicated very serious issues at Diablo Canyon. As their report indicates there are NO issues at Diablo Canyon AND the Mangano report is seriously flawed.


          However has Mangano pulled his studies and acknowledged his errors? No he has not.

          Now we get to the WHY of the question. Why do Mangano and Sherman continue to publish flawed studies when shown the errors? Why not do the ethical thing and retract and republish their studies? Yet they don’t. So many of us assume there is a financial rationale for them to continue to publish flawed studies. Mangano runs the Radiation and Public Health project. Fancy title and sounds impressive. But it is a 501(c)3 organization that relies on donations from the likes of Alec Baldwin and Christie Brinkley who aren’t exactly known for their scientific or engineering credentials.

          So when the question of money comes up, many of us who are in the nuclear field already know the answer. Mangano and Sherman keep the fires of nuclear fear stoked to keep donations coming into their 501(c )3 organization.

          It is for these reasons presented above, and many others, that those of us in the nuclear field not just question the data from Mangano but also question the individual motives of Mangano and Sherman. True scientists seeking to further the knowledge where the intersection of the fields of nuclear science and public health occurs would acknowledge their errors. These two do not. Therefore they receive the low level of respect that is due them in this type of forum especially since their work serves to create fear in the general public.

          1. “Not sure I understand. “talking to yourselves” says a lot with few words.”

            Actually, it doesn’t say squat, except “I intend to derail the thread”.

            A little perusal of the site would have served to inform you as to where Rod is coming from. The “who pays you” was a needless jab, that was not offered as an actual serious query.

            I don’t know anything about Mangano, or Sherman. Nor do I know enough about nuclear science to dispute Rod’s assertion that they’re full of crap, or if in fact Rod is the one pushing bogus science. After the time I’ve spent reading and participating here, I tend to lean a bit towards Rod’s take on things.

            But I do know quite a bit about people. And alot can be discerned about your “entry” here. You’re trolling. If you wanted to seriously defend Mangano and Sherman’s assertions, you’d certainly have more to offer than the empty bucket of nothing you’ve offered thus far.

            There is a difference between informing the public about environmental pollution, versus peddling sensationalistic bogus science designed to advance a covert agenda. My advice to you is to figure out, if you’re capable, which road Mangano and Sherman are taking, and then present a coherent argument if you think Rod is on the wrong side of the science. If not, and you’re like me, (ignorant of the science), then I suggest to you that any opinion you offer is about as worthless as saying….well….” talking to yourselves?” or “who pays you?”.

          2. Mangano and Sherman are not statisticians or mathematicians. Their “studies” are not medical or biological in nature. So they are not even “experts” or have a record of competence in the area they choose to publish in.

            Nurseopinion your post was pointless. If you have a point you need to make it. Complaining that we all seem to know each other hardly counts as valid argument.

            If you want to present a medical argument in their favor, please do. And honestly posing as a anonymous medical professional ? Really ??

  10. Great information, but it lacks the drama that Mangano’s studies and the way they were “spun” by a pliant media. The damage is done, and will be done again if an opportunity arises. Journalists will run stories about studies like these because such stories can be made to look very “science-y” on their face, and have built-in drama. “Science-y”is more than enough to a profession hungry for drama.

    Didn’t you see the reporter holding up the study? It even has footnotes! Really, what more do you people need?

    The motivated predilection to believe Mangano & Co., the drama inherent in the kinds of claims he makes, and the skill he has in manipulating a low-integrity, low-interest and low-information community of journalists cannot be effectively countered except by a concerted, continuing, focused effort that has its own dramatic component.

    The presentation doesn’t develop that drama, and there is no reason to expect that it would. Actual scientists, and those who share their “bent,” tend to distrust drama (as they should).

    However, this leaves rational people at a deficit in the debate and leaves the field to people like Mangano.

    Notably, this piece does not even disclose how far Mangano will go. If quoted correctly, he referenced “. . . California’s official statistics on newborns who are born with a condition called hypothyroidism which is where the thyroid is under active . . .”

    In other words, outside the loose confines of a questionable journal (charitably put) he pushed his assertions even further, claiming it is “California’s official statistics” on these children.

    Mangano’s methods and actions, and those of his equally challengeable cohorts who concoct and promote similar claims should be a much wider and more vigorous focus of discussion. The intensity such an effort would have to match the intensity of the anti-nukes, and the information presented would have to have some dramatic quality to it. This is highly, highly unlikely to happen.

    Link here to the Mangano quote:


  11. Yes … a few journalists made some noise after reading the titles for these papers, but they really didn’t spend too much time reading or thinking about them (much less following them up). There isn’t much about correlation in them, just a few notes on statistics (very poor ones at that), some speculation on timing, and a few observations about better studies elsewhere on mortality, radiation health impacts, etc. Nobody is really citing these studies in the scientific literature, and if they are it’s to debunk them (this from the journal that published the initial study). So their import and impact in scientific circles has been minimal to nil. They seem to be mainly grist for talking points between pros and antis (and a venue for airing grievances). And perhaps more importantly, a cautionary tale to journalists to spend a little more time thinking about a story before reporting on it (and doing a bit of what used to be called reporting … in the days when someone had available funds to do such things, skilled editors, and such).

    I’m not sure it’s really worthwhile to debunk studies that are so shoddy and minimal in their scientific impact? Probably serves to elevate them more than anything else (and rescue them from the obscurity of the nether reaches of academia … where these studies were clearly exiled and said very little). The more hits on the web, the higher they get ranked on google.

    Goddard does a pretty good job identifying the weak points, and comparing them to more comprehensive studies in the broader scientific literature (or in this case a better assessment of the statistics and whether they have anything to say about the questions asked in the study). If people here like his work, you might also want to consider his summary of the MIT findings on health risks of low dose radiation (often viewed favorably on the site):


    1. So EL you are arguing that at best extremely sloppy “studies” released during the height of the Fuku radiation panic (2011 and 2012) claiming child deaths as far away as the US and that were covered in some cases by major media are not worth addressing? And its not odd that given there distribution little effort was made at the time, save a few noteworthy exceptions, to clarify the situation because they were “not scientific?” That is your argument here?

    2. Also this kind of incredible unaddressed ignorance is still occurring the regular media:

      December 29, 2013 – Mystery over what’s killing bald eagles in Utah

      Officials at the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center have their own theories. Some point to radiation from Japan after the 2011 meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

      “We aren’t ruling out anything,” Marthaler said. ( http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022558797_dyingeaglesxml.html )

      No one with a education in biology or related science should even be considering that. It is beyond belief. No one in journalism with a college degree should be publishing that. That is a major newspaper and it would be about as qualified and to accurate to accuse demons and/or ghosts.

  12. I provided the stats on this hypothyroid paper. This is an extraordinarily misguided presentation by Ian Goddard. I received an email from the editor of the journal OJPed about this Hiranuma thesis that Gogard presents here; I told the editor to ask Hiranuma to write it up as a contribution and send it to the journal for peer review. This the editor did. The snide remnaros about “predatory journals” can only come form somene with no knowledge of the peer review literature. Hiranuma refused to write anything. It was pointed out that the key issue was the (convenient) change in the assay methodologt just before the Fukushima exposed cohort period. Recently I was approached by a mainstream radiation journal. Was I prepared to debate in the journal with Hiranuma over her criticisms (and we now see. Ian Goddard’s thesis)? I was. But Hiranuma wrote back saying she would not debate the issue in the journal. Why? Clearly because by then it was obvious that she had royally fucked up in her approach. There are two points I will make. The first is that the decision to choose 29 and 19 as cut-off points for the study was based primarily on the following question: did Fukushima exposures affect the TSH levels in infants. Mangano and Sherman could have used any cut off. The question was about the probability distribution shift. Answer: Fukushima did affect the babies. Goddards nitpicking about what is defined as Hypothyroidism is neither here nor there. The exposures from Fukushima clearly affected an objectively measured bio-indicator the frequency distribution of TSH scored in newborns. This is the important conclusion. The second addresses his other and utterly stupid assertion about mechanisms, and the only effect of radiation being lagged cancer increases. There are many epidemiological indications that increased death rates immediately follow low level exposures and plenty of mechanisms. However, a mechanism identification is not necessary for causality. This was stated by Sir Austen Bradford Hill in his Principles of Medical Statistics. Hill pointed out that current understanding may not be able to find a mechanism and referred to typhus which was epidemiologically related to exposures to rat fleas but the agent was then unkown. Goddard should avoid areas where he is clearly out of his depth, and Hiranuma should put her papers into the peer review process instead of whingeing on internet blogs.

    1. @Christopher Busby
      > the decision to choose 29 and 19 as cut-off points for the study was based primarily on the following question: did Fukushima exposures affect the TSH levels in infants.

      In order to answer that question, one would first have to determine if there was any exposure at all to Fukushima radiation on the west coast, and in what amounts, and where. Doing anything less isn’t looking at exposure, it’s looking at temporal coincidence, and can determine nothing more than temporal coincidence. Thus there is absolutely no evidence that “Fukushima did affect the babies”, contra your statement.

      > There are many epidemiological indications that increased death rates immediately follow low level exposures and plenty of mechanisms.


    2. And yet there is no sign of of sudden deaths in Japan. Given that background radiation levels in my part of Tohoku jumped by 300% I would expect to see many fatalities, by your reckoning.

      Also, what mainstream radiation journal approached you?

      1. “increased death rates immediately follow low level exposures and plenty of mechanisms”

        “background radiation levels in my part of Tohoku jumped by 300%”

        300 % is not low, hence, no death…

        1. 300% increase compared to background levels is still low, so according to the Mangano and Sherman thesis, we should still have had many deaths.

    3. The snide remnaros [sic] about “predatory journals” can only come form somene [sic] with no knowledge of the peer review literature.

      Yes … as we all know Nature, one of the most highly cited scientific journals out there, has “no knowledge of the peer review literature.”

      How many lies can one man tell in a lifetime? I think that Busby is going for a new record.

    4. Chris, addressing your points…

      (1) If your paper was only asking, “Did Fukushima exposures affect the TSH levels in infants?” as you suggest, then you should not have defined TSH scores > 29 as congenital hypothyroidism. But you did. And we critiqued the study that was published, not another study you’re now proposing. You can’t change your study now and then fault us for not refuting a study that you didn’t publish.

      (2) I never said mechanism identification is necessary for evidence of causality. What I did say was: “If you can’t explain how a causal theory could happen, there’s at least some reason to doubt the causal theory.” (@ 11:32) Can you see the difference? I have to presume not. So try harder!

      (3) You imply there are mechanisms whereby very low doses can kill adults within 14 weeks. However, while I seriously doubt that, I addressed all and only the mechanisms cited by Mangano & Sherman (2011). Once again, you can’t change the study now and then fault me for not addressing a study that wasn’t published.

      (4) You say my calling the journal a “predatory publisher” means I don’t understand the peer-review process. No, it simply means I know about Beall’s “List of Predatory Publishers 2014,” and that the publisher in question is listed therein: http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/

      Regarding (1), the hypothesis that trace fallout affected TSH levels alone is an open question worth exploring within larger datasets, imo. However, the narrow window of data in your paper is far too small to determine what fluctuations we should have expected to see in the given time frame. For ought we know the TSH scores (19 and 29) range widely over a full decade, making the variations seen in the narrow window typical. ~Ian

      1. Ian – Thank you for following up so promptly and diligently. Sadly, I doubt that Mr. Busby will extend us the same courtesy,

      2. Regarding (1), the hypothesis that trace fallout affected TSH levels alone is an open question worth exploring within larger datasets, imo.

        Data set shows an increase in the birth age of the mothers (aged 30 to 44) for the year 2011.


        Given that hypothyroidism is more common among older women (above the age of 30). Perhaps it’s worth looking at demographic shifts in the study population (especially in relation to controls), and considering that elevated TSH can sometimes be an instance of maternal anti-body mediated transient hypothyroidism (attesting to the elevated biomarkers).

        Just a thought. Are very broad beta readings (of which short lived Iodine may be a component) the only risk factor that may account for the variability in the statistical sample?

        1. Thanks Brian and Eamon!

          EL, good point. It would certainly be a complex analysis, having to control for many factors no doubt. I don’t know the answer to your question on beta readings. But you should suspend belief in the beta data in the “congenital hypothyroidism” study until you reconstruct them yourself from the source.

          Following their source for I-131 in drinking water and milk does show that detectable traces were found in California and other states: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#milk

          While I-131 ingested is highly selective for thyroid tissue, exactly what those RadNet numbers entail in terms of potential thyroid doses among the general population I don’t know. But of any group most likely to show an effect, infants would be atop the list.

          So at least they’re looking in the most likely place to find an effect. But even if there was a transient effect on just TSH scores but not on any disease end-points, so what?! How should that affect the energy-products discussion they hope to influence? A potentially innocuous influence on TSH levels in children from this rare event would be comparatively meaningless versus the continuous health effects of everyday air pollution from cars, coal plants, etc.

    5. Busby here hides the fact Hiranuma wrote a letter to the editor about the study, that the editor refused to print. It’s not a standard practice to reject anything but a peer reviewed study as response. For example, when the studies by Cohen about Radon hormesis were criticized, a lot of the replies came as letter to the editor.

      To complement what is already present in the youtube video by Goddard, Hiranuma has also published a critic of the study by Steve Wing who was asked to review the manuscript before the final publication, and most of the remarks were ignored by the team :

      I’d like to add an important thing, which is that for a long time, I had identified Yuri Hiranuma as anti-nuclear. In an effort to try to inform about what’s happening in Fukushima, she has translated and appear to have taken at face value several very worrying testimonies of people about radiations. But those people are actually confused about the fact their fear of detectable thyroid cysts, or failures and bad practices of the Japanese government, or presence of some contamination around the Fukushima area, do not however necessarily mean they are at a huge risk, or even any significant risk at all.
      On the other hand, she can also put on her blog the copy of presentations by Shunichi Yamashita without any contextualization either. So it’s very hard to understand were she stands actually, but it seems to be more on the side of highly critical of nuclear. But not enough to close her eyes on how sleazy the Mangano study is.

  13. I just like the fact that nobody even recognised the black beret as one of the contributories to Mangano and Shermans’ paper.

    Has the “great man” been so marginalised lately, poor sod…no wonder Chris Busby has been seen in the Electro Hyper Sensitivity crowd, I guess he is running out of supporters among anti nuclear activists out there that he has to expand on his repertoar!?

  14. We do nothing as the article was retracted, as it should be if it did not have any scientific merrit. I will happily throw my hands in the air regarding psychoanalysis…sounds like a lot of hand waving any way.

    Regarding the second question, why don’t you go and have a good look in the mirror and find out for your self. Why does somebody else have to hand you everything on a platter, or does not your cognitive functions stretch that far?

      1. Perhaps, evidence would suggest otherwise…or do you have any relevant data that shows something different?

  15. <tongue_in_cheek>

    If low levels of radiation cause wildlife deaths and infant hypothyroidism, and higher levels do not, the obvious cure is to increase radiation levels.

    1. I didn’t really start thinking about it till recently. On the other end (instinct lol) of things if these marked biological situations of low dose radiation exposure generated catastrophic disease, were actually true they would have shattering, or at least very probably significant and previously observed implications. (as Ian seems to also be alluding to) The result would have to be worked into existing science much like the result to any equation has to make sense in the end. It would be reasonably; a as near to a impossible situation as you could hope for in science.

      It is probably another argument that the door has been closed on much of this type of speculation, in reality, a long time now.

      1. Shattering implications is the correct term. If it is true that “increased death rates immediately follow low level exposures” then there should be a veritable worldwide holocaust going on. Think of how many people get low-level exposures from medical procedures every day. Some of them die, that’s true, but the “mechanisms” involved there are very likely due to other factors, unless you want to make the “every-person-who-has-died-has-been-found-to-have-water-in-their-body” argument. Maybe I’d better cancel that dental exam I have scheduled, as I’m sure I’ll get some x-rays.

    1. No, it’s not just the photo, they are the two last coauthors of the study :
      Ismael Galván,†,*,
      Andrea Bonisoli-Alquati,
      Shanna Jenkinson,
      Ghanem Ghanem,
      Kazumasa Wakamatsu,
      Timothy A. Mousseau and
      Anders P. Møller

      The mind boggles, maybe a rescue team should be sent as probably they are held as hostage somewhere and have been constrained to sign this 🙂

      However Galván is also the author of another study which result is more than doubtful “Bird population declines due to radiation exposure at Chernobyl are stronger in species with pheomelanin-based coloration” doi:10.1007/s00442-010-1860-5 see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/f-sf-crr042611.php
      So I would be also careful about this new study.

  16. Glad someone decided to put a video together.

    I wish actual science/engineering got as much PR as fear-science.

  17. Two very different websites are MasterResource and TheEnergySkeptic. The former is cornucopian and the later is the opposite. They both agree that wind power won’t work on a utility scale. I see nuclear power as a way to avoid the collapse of civilization by using it to produce liquid fuels. I think that some of the anti nuke people are trying to engineer a collaspse.

    1. Correction the later website should read energyskeptic.com. The gist of the website is that oil production fueled population growth and food production.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts