Chernobyl's 'nuclear nightmares'
Just when we thought we had got rid of him, he turns up like a bad penny. We've all just had a gut full of watching Repacholi on TV, BBC 2 Horizon programme. The programme was about Chernobyl.
** Chernobyl's 'nuclear nightmares' **
Claims that thousands will die as a result of the Chernobyl disaster are unfounded, scientists tell the Horizon programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm
He was saying that they need to re-evaluate the whole radiation spectrum as they now believe that radiation does not harm as much as they previously believed and it might also protect against cancer!!!!!!!
The programme presented a very one sided view.
Take a look at some of Repacholi's friends who featured on the programme:
Professor Ron Chesser, of Texas Tech University, US, http://www.biol.ttu.edu/fac_staff.asp?tp=faculty&name=Ron_Chesser
http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/chesser/CenterEnvRadStud.pdf
page 7
DR. ANTONE L. BROOKS
http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/faculty/brooks/Brooks_A.html
http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/chesser/PUBLICATIONS.pdf
http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/tbrooks/
CURRENT MAJOR AREA OF WORK
I currently have a three-year grant to act as a communication specialist and chief scientist for the DOE Low-Dose Research program. This is a $20 Million dollar a year 10 year program which is directed toward providing a scientific base for radiation protection standards after very low exposures to ionizing radiation. As outlined above this grant provides me with $570,280 dollars over a three year period. This grant will provide most (70-80%) of my salary, travel money and a part time secretary. My role in this program is to:
Provide scientific and technical support for the DOE Low-Dose Research Program.
Facilitate the interactions between DOE, scientists, regulatory and scientific committees, and other government and regulatory agencies.
Provide a focal point for generation of educational materials and for communication of research results between the scientists, decision-makers and the public.
All the best
Eileen O'Connor
--------
Parthian shot by Repacholi?
Horizon
because the radiation debate matters, and ionising/non-ionising can be a rather arbitrary distinction...
Maybe you watched it, or will pick it up online. "A little radiation is good for you"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm
You may be familiar with the Chernobyl Forum. A singular view used exclusively in this programme. But at least the BBC Horizon web page on the programme has some healthy counterbalances for this rather strategically-timed programme in the light of the government's energy review.
The G8 have already decided on a global strategy of nuclear power, including fast breeder reactors, and this profiling of "no risk" supported by WHO and the UN is very useful.
Russian voices (quite absent from the programme!) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4926600.stm
Greenpeace: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4917526.stm
and the Low Level Radiation Campaign: http://www.llrc.org/
feel strongly about it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/C1824
end of subject; similar treatment of risk to perpetuate an industry. If we need nuclear to buy time against climate catastrophe (not long term change) as Lovelock says, we should be honest about it. This appears more like spin.
Andy
Nuclear Nightmares: BBC 2 Horizon 21.00 13th July 2006
A preliminary response from LLRC.
We have never seen such utterly biased reporting in our entire existence. There was not an iota of balance, not the ghost of any attempt to offer a countervailing scientific opinion, not the faintest suggestion that people exposed to Chernobyl fallout had actually been dying or sickening at a rate in excess of the absolutely undeniable. "Nuclear Nightmares" was, as its preliminary media spin suggested it would be, flat out pro-nuclear propaganda.
Let's be fair; maybe there is another programme pending in the "Horizon" series that will correct the bias. We shall ask the producer if this is so. If there isn't we shall offer him an opportunity to make another programme to give the required balance. This would bring him into line with Ofcom rules. We have plenty of material for him to work with. If there is no balance and if he declines our offer we shall lodge a formal complaint.
http://www.llrc.org
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
The enclosed information from Richard Bramhall in response to Mike Repacholi’s appearance on the BBC Horizon programme ‘Nuclear Nightmares’ is interesting.
Eileen O’Connor
From Richard Bramhall
Horizon: Nuclear Nightmares. BBC Two, 9.00 p.m. Thursday 13th July (United Kingdom)
A lot of people have, understandably, been outraged at the advance spin on this documentary (see, e.g. Monday's 10th July Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2263204.html ).
The programme apparently will offer up as "new" (The Times says) the idea that there is a threshold dose below which radiation doesn't cause harm. We read that it "may even be beneficial" and that "Evidence … has convinced experts that the risks of radiation follow a much more complex pattern than predicted."
We certainly agree that dose/response curves are complex. The reason for the complexity is that more than 50 years ago the American National Committee on Radiological Protection adopted a grossly simplistic concept of "dose" as an average of energy deposited into body tissue. This model was based on external irradiation, with which they were familiar since it was what they had been dealing with for decades in the search for adequate standards for regulating X-rays. It wasn't too difficult to extend that simple physics-based model to the external irradiation from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, and it was convenient to assume that radioactivity inside the body could be understood as if it were external — an approach which fails to account properly for the huge variations in energy distribution from different kinds of radioactivity. Even in 1952 Karl Z. Morgan, who was responsible for the NCRP sub-committee on internal radioactivity, refused to agree that internal could be dealt with like external. His sub-committee was closed down and for the rest of his life he was a critic of the NCRP and its successor the International Commission on Radiological Protection – "I feel like a father who is ashamed of his children." All this happened before the structure of DNA was discovered and long before biological responses like genomic instability, the bystander effect and microinflammation were even suspected. For these reasons all competent authorities now recognise that for many internal exposures "dose" is a virtually meaningless term, so it is irritating to see propaganda like The Times report still using it; inhaled particles of reactor fuel cannot be compared with chest X-rays. One size does not fit all.
It is appalling to see WHO denying the reality of life post-Chernobyl, but we must bear in mind that their minds are clouded by the ICRP dose/risk model and by the International Atomic Energy Agency's power of vetoing any WHO research on radiation and health. In their crazed world the risk model predicts no discernible health impact because doses (whatever "dose" may mean) from Chernobyl fallout were too small — a maximum of twice natural background. When there is an all-too-observable impact (e.g. 30% increase in cancer in Belarus in ten post-Chernobyl years or a similar increase in northern Sweden) they say it must be caused by something else rather than inferring that the risk model is wrong. Their science and their epidemiology are like two drunks holding each other up — a temporary marvel!
For an alternative view see http://www.euradcom.org and the European Committee on Radiation Risk's volume Chernobyl: 20 Years On. ECRR has summarised thousands of Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian studies. Scientists and clinicians in those regions are reporting a melt-down in human health. Studies of animals and plants show genetic defects transmitted over 22 generations, although plants don't suffer from radiophobia. There is a flyer on http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobyleflyer.pdf .
In 2004 LLRC summarised about 100 of these Russian language studies for the CERRIE Minority Report: they are on our site at http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/russianrefs.htm.
The BBC documentary "Nuclear Nightmares" looks as if it will be propaganda intended to soften us up for a new round of nuclear power stations. We have raised this with the series producer and we shall be watching to see if the programme or the series complies with the rules of the Office of Communications. Rule 5.5. says "Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved […] This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole."
We have obtained calculations of the health impact of replacing the present nuclear power generating capacity with new nuclear build. These are based on the ECRR's 2003 Recommendations and will be the subject of a separate circular.
We don't feel worried by the UK Government's announcement today. Nuclear power stations cannot operate without discharge licences, but the scientific debate over radiation risk has reached such a point that any decision to emit radioactivity will be subject to legal challenge. That's the point at which the drunks will hit the pavement.
--------
Speaking of Rapacholi...
If you are interested in a recent tour within the 30km exclusion zone from the meltdown look at this site. The author's father is a retired nuclear physicist that has conducted research in the region since the disaster.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/
All the best
panayis zambellis luton uk
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
Repacholi declares Depleted Uranium”basically safe”
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=581
--------
CHERNOBYL'S 10TH: CANCER AND NUCLEAR-AGE PEACE DON'T BE DECEIVED
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1792319/
Exorcising the ghosts of Chernobyl
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=522
Medical journal reveals that 70 percent of drug decision-making panel members have financial ties to industry
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/2346427/
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Chernobyl
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Chernobyl
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Depleted+Uranium+Poisoning+%28D.U.%29/
** Chernobyl's 'nuclear nightmares' **
Claims that thousands will die as a result of the Chernobyl disaster are unfounded, scientists tell the Horizon programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm
He was saying that they need to re-evaluate the whole radiation spectrum as they now believe that radiation does not harm as much as they previously believed and it might also protect against cancer!!!!!!!
The programme presented a very one sided view.
Take a look at some of Repacholi's friends who featured on the programme:
Professor Ron Chesser, of Texas Tech University, US, http://www.biol.ttu.edu/fac_staff.asp?tp=faculty&name=Ron_Chesser
http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/chesser/CenterEnvRadStud.pdf
page 7
DR. ANTONE L. BROOKS
http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/faculty/brooks/Brooks_A.html
http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/chesser/PUBLICATIONS.pdf
http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/tbrooks/
CURRENT MAJOR AREA OF WORK
I currently have a three-year grant to act as a communication specialist and chief scientist for the DOE Low-Dose Research program. This is a $20 Million dollar a year 10 year program which is directed toward providing a scientific base for radiation protection standards after very low exposures to ionizing radiation. As outlined above this grant provides me with $570,280 dollars over a three year period. This grant will provide most (70-80%) of my salary, travel money and a part time secretary. My role in this program is to:
Provide scientific and technical support for the DOE Low-Dose Research Program.
Facilitate the interactions between DOE, scientists, regulatory and scientific committees, and other government and regulatory agencies.
Provide a focal point for generation of educational materials and for communication of research results between the scientists, decision-makers and the public.
All the best
Eileen O'Connor
--------
Parthian shot by Repacholi?
Horizon
because the radiation debate matters, and ionising/non-ionising can be a rather arbitrary distinction...
Maybe you watched it, or will pick it up online. "A little radiation is good for you"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm
You may be familiar with the Chernobyl Forum. A singular view used exclusively in this programme. But at least the BBC Horizon web page on the programme has some healthy counterbalances for this rather strategically-timed programme in the light of the government's energy review.
The G8 have already decided on a global strategy of nuclear power, including fast breeder reactors, and this profiling of "no risk" supported by WHO and the UN is very useful.
Russian voices (quite absent from the programme!) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4926600.stm
Greenpeace: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4917526.stm
and the Low Level Radiation Campaign: http://www.llrc.org/
feel strongly about it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/C1824
end of subject; similar treatment of risk to perpetuate an industry. If we need nuclear to buy time against climate catastrophe (not long term change) as Lovelock says, we should be honest about it. This appears more like spin.
Andy
Nuclear Nightmares: BBC 2 Horizon 21.00 13th July 2006
A preliminary response from LLRC.
We have never seen such utterly biased reporting in our entire existence. There was not an iota of balance, not the ghost of any attempt to offer a countervailing scientific opinion, not the faintest suggestion that people exposed to Chernobyl fallout had actually been dying or sickening at a rate in excess of the absolutely undeniable. "Nuclear Nightmares" was, as its preliminary media spin suggested it would be, flat out pro-nuclear propaganda.
Let's be fair; maybe there is another programme pending in the "Horizon" series that will correct the bias. We shall ask the producer if this is so. If there isn't we shall offer him an opportunity to make another programme to give the required balance. This would bring him into line with Ofcom rules. We have plenty of material for him to work with. If there is no balance and if he declines our offer we shall lodge a formal complaint.
http://www.llrc.org
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
The enclosed information from Richard Bramhall in response to Mike Repacholi’s appearance on the BBC Horizon programme ‘Nuclear Nightmares’ is interesting.
Eileen O’Connor
From Richard Bramhall
Horizon: Nuclear Nightmares. BBC Two, 9.00 p.m. Thursday 13th July (United Kingdom)
A lot of people have, understandably, been outraged at the advance spin on this documentary (see, e.g. Monday's 10th July Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2263204.html ).
The programme apparently will offer up as "new" (The Times says) the idea that there is a threshold dose below which radiation doesn't cause harm. We read that it "may even be beneficial" and that "Evidence … has convinced experts that the risks of radiation follow a much more complex pattern than predicted."
We certainly agree that dose/response curves are complex. The reason for the complexity is that more than 50 years ago the American National Committee on Radiological Protection adopted a grossly simplistic concept of "dose" as an average of energy deposited into body tissue. This model was based on external irradiation, with which they were familiar since it was what they had been dealing with for decades in the search for adequate standards for regulating X-rays. It wasn't too difficult to extend that simple physics-based model to the external irradiation from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, and it was convenient to assume that radioactivity inside the body could be understood as if it were external — an approach which fails to account properly for the huge variations in energy distribution from different kinds of radioactivity. Even in 1952 Karl Z. Morgan, who was responsible for the NCRP sub-committee on internal radioactivity, refused to agree that internal could be dealt with like external. His sub-committee was closed down and for the rest of his life he was a critic of the NCRP and its successor the International Commission on Radiological Protection – "I feel like a father who is ashamed of his children." All this happened before the structure of DNA was discovered and long before biological responses like genomic instability, the bystander effect and microinflammation were even suspected. For these reasons all competent authorities now recognise that for many internal exposures "dose" is a virtually meaningless term, so it is irritating to see propaganda like The Times report still using it; inhaled particles of reactor fuel cannot be compared with chest X-rays. One size does not fit all.
It is appalling to see WHO denying the reality of life post-Chernobyl, but we must bear in mind that their minds are clouded by the ICRP dose/risk model and by the International Atomic Energy Agency's power of vetoing any WHO research on radiation and health. In their crazed world the risk model predicts no discernible health impact because doses (whatever "dose" may mean) from Chernobyl fallout were too small — a maximum of twice natural background. When there is an all-too-observable impact (e.g. 30% increase in cancer in Belarus in ten post-Chernobyl years or a similar increase in northern Sweden) they say it must be caused by something else rather than inferring that the risk model is wrong. Their science and their epidemiology are like two drunks holding each other up — a temporary marvel!
For an alternative view see http://www.euradcom.org and the European Committee on Radiation Risk's volume Chernobyl: 20 Years On. ECRR has summarised thousands of Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian studies. Scientists and clinicians in those regions are reporting a melt-down in human health. Studies of animals and plants show genetic defects transmitted over 22 generations, although plants don't suffer from radiophobia. There is a flyer on http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobyleflyer.pdf .
In 2004 LLRC summarised about 100 of these Russian language studies for the CERRIE Minority Report: they are on our site at http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/russianrefs.htm.
The BBC documentary "Nuclear Nightmares" looks as if it will be propaganda intended to soften us up for a new round of nuclear power stations. We have raised this with the series producer and we shall be watching to see if the programme or the series complies with the rules of the Office of Communications. Rule 5.5. says "Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved […] This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole."
We have obtained calculations of the health impact of replacing the present nuclear power generating capacity with new nuclear build. These are based on the ECRR's 2003 Recommendations and will be the subject of a separate circular.
We don't feel worried by the UK Government's announcement today. Nuclear power stations cannot operate without discharge licences, but the scientific debate over radiation risk has reached such a point that any decision to emit radioactivity will be subject to legal challenge. That's the point at which the drunks will hit the pavement.
--------
Speaking of Rapacholi...
If you are interested in a recent tour within the 30km exclusion zone from the meltdown look at this site. The author's father is a retired nuclear physicist that has conducted research in the region since the disaster.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/
All the best
panayis zambellis luton uk
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
Repacholi declares Depleted Uranium”basically safe”
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=581
--------
CHERNOBYL'S 10TH: CANCER AND NUCLEAR-AGE PEACE DON'T BE DECEIVED
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1792319/
Exorcising the ghosts of Chernobyl
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=522
Medical journal reveals that 70 percent of drug decision-making panel members have financial ties to industry
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/2346427/
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Chernobyl
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Chernobyl
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Depleted+Uranium+Poisoning+%28D.U.%29/
rudkla - 14. Jul, 11:18
