Greenpeace Ship Sunk by French Secret Service 30 Years Ago Today
When the Dust Settles DVD Available FREE
Friends of the Earth, Melbourne office, has decided to stock and deliver the famous DVD
When the Dust Settles
composed by David Bradbury of Frontline Films
to the public and/or private sector.
The reported cost is $20 per 100
Reference:
www.melbourne.foe.org.au
When the Dust Settles
composed by David Bradbury of Frontline Films
to the public and/or private sector.
The reported cost is $20 per 100
Reference:
www.melbourne.foe.org.au
Dr. Helen Caldicott Reveals Effects of Human Nuclear War
When:
2 p.m. Sunday 22 July 2012
Where:
University of Adelaide
Napier Building
Room 102
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC : FREE ENTRY FOR THIS VERY VALUABLE TALK
Note : Almost all of Dr. Helen Caldicott's research, presentations and books are fully referenced with accurate citations, statistically credible studies and other factual evidence, in direct opposition and contravention to Scaremongering by the Human Nuclear Industry. which would poison Planet Earth with terrible toxins and Human Nuclear War, as demonstrated by the use of Atomic Weapons (highly radioactive depleted Uranium projectiles and dust) in Iraq, Afghanistan and other regions, to include the heartless Idiots' terrorist testing sites on the sacred traditional ancestral shores around and aground in Australia, North America, etc.
References:
www.helencaldicott.com/2012/07/dr-caldicott-to-speak-in-adelaide
Fukushima : Chernobyl's Child
After the events of 11 March 2011, we found it obvious that Fukushima Japan is just another example of the mistakes resulting from World Soviet nuclear policy that has led and bled the planet with its extremely misguided nuclear policies, since the masses of Soviet scientists frantically developed nuclear weaponry as a response to the uprisings in Central Europe and Japan, on the Eastern Front of the Supreme Soviet. Japan eventually capitulated to the influences of the Supreme Soviet, especially in New York City, and was tricked into dabbling with nuclear magic, the occult of Oppenheimer, and countless other Soviet scientists and financial elites of the New World Order
One year on, Fukushima is still spinning
The first anniversary of the Fukushima disaster is fast approaching and it promises to be another silly-season for Australia's pro-nuclear zealots.
They have form. While the crisis was unfolding in March last year, Ziggy Switkowski advised that "the best place to be whenever there's an earthquake is at the perimeter of a nuclear plant because they are designed so well."
Switkowski wants dozens of nuclear power plants built in Australia - dozens of places to shelter from earthquakes.
Even as nuclear fuel meltdown was in full swing at Fukushima, Adelaide University's Professor Barry Brook reassured us that:
"There is no credible risk of a serious accident... Those spreading FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces. I am happy to be quoted forever after on the above if I am wrong ... but I won't be."
Eggs, anyone?
John Borshoff, CEO of uranium miner Paladin, described the Fukushima crisis as a "sideshow". A Fukushima farmer was equally succinct in his suicide note: "I wish there wasn't a nuclear plant."
Here are some of the arguments we will likely hear from nuclear boosters in the lead-up to the March 11 Fukushima anniversary.
Expect a barrage of personal attacks since the boosters will want to avoid discussion about the horrendous impacts of the nuclear disaster - and how the disaster could so easily have been prevented if plant operator TEPCO had taken straight-forward measures to properly protect back-up power generators from flooding.
Cameron England said in the week following the Fukushima meltdowns, fires and explosions that "some parts of the environmental movement will be quietly high-fiving each other this week". There's a nod in the direction of that offensive drivel in Barry Brook's claim that I was "delighted" to hold him to account for his asinine statements as the nuclear disaster unfolded. Academic Allan Patience said "it appears that the opponents of nuclear energy are almost beside themselves with delight at the tragedy that is happening in Fukushima".
No evidence for any of those claims, of course.
The nuclear lobby will attack critics for overstating the scale of the disaster. Any comparisons with Chernobyl will be howled down. True, radiation releases from Fukushima have fallen short of the radioactivity spewed into the environment from Chernobyl. But TEPCO itself drew the comparison a month after the disaster began:
"The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl."
And while they're attacking nuclear critics for overstating the radiation releases, the boosters will be trivialising the problem or ignoring it altogether. Brook wrote an ABC opinion piece in December which states that "no-one was killed by radioactivity from the event" and is silent on the problem of long-term cancer deaths from exposure to radioactive fallout.
The boosters will repeatedly use this quote from a June 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report:
"To date no confirmed long-term health effects to any person have been reported as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident."
How could long-term health effects be evident three months after the event? Cancers typically have a latency period measured in years. Perhaps it's worth remembering that one of the IAEA's objectives is to promote nuclear power.
To cut a long story short, on the basis of available evidence it's difficult to see how the long-term cancer death toll from Fukushima could be lower than a few hundred deaths, and difficult to see how the number could exceed a few thousand. For comparison, the IAEA estimates 9,000 long-term cancer deaths from Chernobyl and other scientific studies put the figure 10 times higher.
The nuclear lobby is keen to point out that the earthquake and tsunami caused much greater damage (including human deaths) than the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Brook states:
"What has this earthquake taught us? That it's much, much riskier to choose to live next to the ocean than it is to live next to a nuclear power station."
But the impacts have been cumulative; one disaster doesn't negate or excuse another. And areas affected by the nuclear disaster stretch inland, well beyond distances reached by the tsunami.
There's a tired old argument about Chernobyl - the (false) claim that the death toll amounted to no more than about 50 people, whereas 200,000 unnecessary abortions were carried out across Europe as a result of radiophobia spread by greenies. Nuclear power: safe. Greenies: mass murderers.
Now we're seeing variations of that argument in relation to Fukushima. Ted Rockwell, winner of the American Nuclear Society's Lifetime Achievement Award, has been thinking laterally. He blames the "radiation police" who won't "let the good people of Fukushima return home and get on with their lives". No-one has received a life-altering injury from radiation at Fukushima, Rockwell claims, and the "atrocities" are caused by the application of excessively cautious international radiation standards.
It's not entirely clear who the "radiation police" are in Rockwell's diatribe but Andrew Bolt will have them wearing koala suits as the Fukushima anniversary approaches.
Nuclear boosters are unsure whether to defend TEPCO or to cut the company loose and portray it as a rogue operator. Toro Energy, an Australian uranium mining company, defends Toro:
"It was therefore a sequence of extraordinary forces unleashed by an unprecedented natural disaster which caused the accident at the reactors, not any operating failure, human error or design fault of the reactors themselves."
Yet the Japanese government's Investigation Committee found that TEPCO's preparations for and protections against a disaster where "quite inadequate". And every step of TEPCO's response to the disaster was "a day late and a dollar short" according to a former vice-chairman of Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission.
Peter Alford and Cameron Stewart, writing in The Australian, prefer to cut TEPCO loose:
"TEPCO may dwell in corporate infamy alongside Enron and BP...
"...The plodding utilities giant is a secretive nuclear behemoth that has been caught out for numerous safety violations
"...One of TEPCO's more monstrous practices ... is the routine employment of deeply unqualified day labourers".
They could have pinched that language from media releases put out by Friends of the Earth over the years as TEPCO lurched from scandal to scandal and accident to accident.
A related strategy from the boosters is to blame outdated 'Mark 1' boiling water reactor technology and to contrast it with long-promised gee-whiz fail-safe 'Generation 4' reactor technology. A sceptical industry insider quipped: "We know that the paper-moderated, ink-cooled reactor is the safest of all. All kinds of unexpected problems may occur after a project has been launched."
Lastly, we can expect the boosters to promote the message that lessons will be learnt, improvements made, and we need not therefore concern ourselves about nuclear safety. That is perhaps the most cynical of all the jiggery pokery from the boosters. If the nuclear industry had a track record of learning from past mistakes and accidents, the Fukushima disaster would not have happened in the first place. TEPCO only needed properly-protected back-up generators to maintain reactor cooling - that's all.
References:
A. IAEA Final Fukushima Mission Report
B. Dr. Yotaro Hatamura Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations
C. Dr. Caracrappa Russian Polytechnic Institute (NY) Load of Crap about Long Term Effects
One year on, Fukushima is still spinning
The first anniversary of the Fukushima disaster is fast approaching and it promises to be another silly-season for Australia's pro-nuclear zealots.
They have form. While the crisis was unfolding in March last year, Ziggy Switkowski advised that "the best place to be whenever there's an earthquake is at the perimeter of a nuclear plant because they are designed so well."
Switkowski wants dozens of nuclear power plants built in Australia - dozens of places to shelter from earthquakes.
Even as nuclear fuel meltdown was in full swing at Fukushima, Adelaide University's Professor Barry Brook reassured us that:
"There is no credible risk of a serious accident... Those spreading FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces. I am happy to be quoted forever after on the above if I am wrong ... but I won't be."
Eggs, anyone?
John Borshoff, CEO of uranium miner Paladin, described the Fukushima crisis as a "sideshow". A Fukushima farmer was equally succinct in his suicide note: "I wish there wasn't a nuclear plant."
Here are some of the arguments we will likely hear from nuclear boosters in the lead-up to the March 11 Fukushima anniversary.
Expect a barrage of personal attacks since the boosters will want to avoid discussion about the horrendous impacts of the nuclear disaster - and how the disaster could so easily have been prevented if plant operator TEPCO had taken straight-forward measures to properly protect back-up power generators from flooding.
Cameron England said in the week following the Fukushima meltdowns, fires and explosions that "some parts of the environmental movement will be quietly high-fiving each other this week". There's a nod in the direction of that offensive drivel in Barry Brook's claim that I was "delighted" to hold him to account for his asinine statements as the nuclear disaster unfolded. Academic Allan Patience said "it appears that the opponents of nuclear energy are almost beside themselves with delight at the tragedy that is happening in Fukushima".
No evidence for any of those claims, of course.
The nuclear lobby will attack critics for overstating the scale of the disaster. Any comparisons with Chernobyl will be howled down. True, radiation releases from Fukushima have fallen short of the radioactivity spewed into the environment from Chernobyl. But TEPCO itself drew the comparison a month after the disaster began:
"The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl."
And while they're attacking nuclear critics for overstating the radiation releases, the boosters will be trivialising the problem or ignoring it altogether. Brook wrote an ABC opinion piece in December which states that "no-one was killed by radioactivity from the event" and is silent on the problem of long-term cancer deaths from exposure to radioactive fallout.
The boosters will repeatedly use this quote from a June 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report:
"To date no confirmed long-term health effects to any person have been reported as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident."
How could long-term health effects be evident three months after the event? Cancers typically have a latency period measured in years. Perhaps it's worth remembering that one of the IAEA's objectives is to promote nuclear power.
To cut a long story short, on the basis of available evidence it's difficult to see how the long-term cancer death toll from Fukushima could be lower than a few hundred deaths, and difficult to see how the number could exceed a few thousand. For comparison, the IAEA estimates 9,000 long-term cancer deaths from Chernobyl and other scientific studies put the figure 10 times higher.
The nuclear lobby is keen to point out that the earthquake and tsunami caused much greater damage (including human deaths) than the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Brook states:
"What has this earthquake taught us? That it's much, much riskier to choose to live next to the ocean than it is to live next to a nuclear power station."
But the impacts have been cumulative; one disaster doesn't negate or excuse another. And areas affected by the nuclear disaster stretch inland, well beyond distances reached by the tsunami.
There's a tired old argument about Chernobyl - the (false) claim that the death toll amounted to no more than about 50 people, whereas 200,000 unnecessary abortions were carried out across Europe as a result of radiophobia spread by greenies. Nuclear power: safe. Greenies: mass murderers.
Now we're seeing variations of that argument in relation to Fukushima. Ted Rockwell, winner of the American Nuclear Society's Lifetime Achievement Award, has been thinking laterally. He blames the "radiation police" who won't "let the good people of Fukushima return home and get on with their lives". No-one has received a life-altering injury from radiation at Fukushima, Rockwell claims, and the "atrocities" are caused by the application of excessively cautious international radiation standards.
It's not entirely clear who the "radiation police" are in Rockwell's diatribe but Andrew Bolt will have them wearing koala suits as the Fukushima anniversary approaches.
Nuclear boosters are unsure whether to defend TEPCO or to cut the company loose and portray it as a rogue operator. Toro Energy, an Australian uranium mining company, defends Toro:
"It was therefore a sequence of extraordinary forces unleashed by an unprecedented natural disaster which caused the accident at the reactors, not any operating failure, human error or design fault of the reactors themselves."
Yet the Japanese government's Investigation Committee found that TEPCO's preparations for and protections against a disaster where "quite inadequate". And every step of TEPCO's response to the disaster was "a day late and a dollar short" according to a former vice-chairman of Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission.
Peter Alford and Cameron Stewart, writing in The Australian, prefer to cut TEPCO loose:
"TEPCO may dwell in corporate infamy alongside Enron and BP...
"...The plodding utilities giant is a secretive nuclear behemoth that has been caught out for numerous safety violations
"...One of TEPCO's more monstrous practices ... is the routine employment of deeply unqualified day labourers".
They could have pinched that language from media releases put out by Friends of the Earth over the years as TEPCO lurched from scandal to scandal and accident to accident.
A related strategy from the boosters is to blame outdated 'Mark 1' boiling water reactor technology and to contrast it with long-promised gee-whiz fail-safe 'Generation 4' reactor technology. A sceptical industry insider quipped: "We know that the paper-moderated, ink-cooled reactor is the safest of all. All kinds of unexpected problems may occur after a project has been launched."
Lastly, we can expect the boosters to promote the message that lessons will be learnt, improvements made, and we need not therefore concern ourselves about nuclear safety. That is perhaps the most cynical of all the jiggery pokery from the boosters. If the nuclear industry had a track record of learning from past mistakes and accidents, the Fukushima disaster would not have happened in the first place. TEPCO only needed properly-protected back-up generators to maintain reactor cooling - that's all.
References:
A. IAEA Final Fukushima Mission Report
B. Dr. Yotaro Hatamura Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations
C. Dr. Caracrappa Russian Polytechnic Institute (NY) Load of Crap about Long Term Effects
CRIMINAL Fukushima Nuclear
The News' media in our local, national and international area are quite fond of using the phrase
"CRIPPLED" Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant
when in fact, the deadly and dangerous disaster zone is really the site of the
CRIMINAL Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant
"CRIPPLED" Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant
when in fact, the deadly and dangerous disaster zone is really the site of the
CRIMINAL Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant
Mega Mind Professor Barry Brook
"Let me show off my Fingers full of Figures..."
"Although I speak of Climate Change I really mean Nuclear... whoopee..."
Rad Hot Red Hot Nuclear
Australia’s Nuclear Spin Doctors
How have Australian scientists handled the difficult task of keeping us informed about the unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan?
Only a few Australian scientists have featured repeatedly in the media. The most prominent have been Professor Aidan Byrne from the Australian National University, RMIT Chancellor Dr Ziggy Switkowski and Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide.
A clear pattern is evident — those with the greatest ideological attachment to nuclear power have provided the most inaccurate commentary.
The best of the bunch has been Byrne. He has presented the facts as he understands them and has willingly acknowledged major information gaps.
Switkowski has been gently spinning the issue, repeatedly reassuring us that lessons will be learned and improvements made. However, history shows that nuclear lessons are not properly learned.
The OECD's NEA notes that “lessons may be learned but too often they are subsequently forgotten, or they are learned but by the wrong people, or they are learned but not acted upon”.
The NEA says the pattern of the same type of accident recurring time and time again at different nuclear plants needs to be “much improved”.
The situation in Japan illustrates the point — it has become increasingly obvious over the past decade that greater protection against seismic risks is necessary. But the nuclear utilities haven't wanted to spend the money, and the Japanese nuclear regulator and the government haven't forced the utilities to act.
Brook is a strident nuclear power advocate and host of the Brave New Climate website, which received more than one million hits in the first week after the crisis.
Brook has egg on his face. Make that an omelette. He has maintained a running commentary in the media and on his website insisting that the situation is under control and that there is no reason for concern.
His message remained unchanged: even as it was revealed that efforts to cool the nuclear reactor cores were meeting with mixed success; even as deliberate and uncontrolled radiation releases occurred; even as explosions occurred; even as 200,000 people were evacuated; even as a fire led to spent nuclear fuel releasing radiation directly to the environment; and even as radiation monitors detected alarming jumps in radioactivity near the reactors and low levels of radiation as far away as Tokyo.
On March 12, the day after the earthquake and tsunami, Brook came out swinging, insisting: “There is no credible risk of a serious accident.”
That afternoon, after the first explosion at Fukushima, Brook made numerous assertions, most of which turned out to be wrong: "The risk of meltdown is extremely small, and the death toll from any such accident, even if it occurred, will be zero.
“There will be no breach of containment and no release of radioactivity beyond, at the very most, some venting of mildly radioactive steam to relieve pressure.
“Those spreading FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces. I am happy to be quoted forever after on the above if I am wrong ... but I won't be.
“The only reactor that has a small probability of being ‘finished’ is unit one. And I doubt that, but it may be offline for a year or more."
On the night of March 12, Brook said: “When the dust settles, people will realise how well the Japanese reactors — even the 40-year-old one — stood up to this incredibly energetic earthquake event.”
The dust is finally settling and it seems likely that four reactors will be write-offs.
On March 13, Brook said of the unfolding disaster: “I don't see the ramifications of this as damaging at all to nuclear power's prospects.”
Yet within days of the start of the nuclear crisis, Germany, Switzerland and China announced that their nuclear power plans would be reconsidered in light of Fukushima.
The Labor Party and the Coalition in Australia seem to have abandoned their interest in developing nuclear power here.
On March 14, when the second explosion at Fukushima occurred, Brook was still insisting that “the nuclear reactors have come through remarkably well”.
That evening, half a dozen people were banned from posting comments directly on the Brave New Climate website. True, some of their comments were silly and inaccurate, but by those criteria Brook ought to have banned himself.
With a fire at Fukushima spewing radioisotopes directly into the environment, Brook rallied the pro-nuclear lobby, arguing: “Now, more than ever, we must stand up for what we believe is right.”
But cracks were starting to emerge by the evening of March 15. Brook acknowledged an “ongoing crisis situation”, banned another 40-50 “random nobodies” from posting comments directly on his website, and quoted Rudyard Kipling: If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken / Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.
One contributor to Brook's website said: “Unfortunately, Prof. Brook has really abdicated a neutral position on this event. His clear support of nuclear power seems to have impacted his critical thinking skills. Every time he states something in this crisis is 'impossible', it seems to happen the next day.”
Finally, on March 17, with Brave New Climate web hits over the preceding week approaching one million, came a belated mea culpa.
Brook said on his website: “My initial estimates of the extent of the problem, on March 12, did not anticipate the cascading problems that arose from the extended loss of externally sourced AC power to the site, and my prediction that 'there is no credible risk of a serious accident' has been proven quite wrong as a result.
“It remains to be seen whether my forecast on the possibility of containment breaches and the very low level of danger to the public as a result of this tragic chain of circumstances will be proven correct.”
Yet even as he mea-culparised, Brook continued spinning.
In the same web-post, he uncritically reproduced this from the Nuclear Energy Institute: “Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yukio Edano, said earlier today a radiation level of 33 millirem per hour was measured about 20 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi plant earlier this morning. He said that level does not pose an immediate health risk.”
But that dose equates to almost 3,000 millisieverts a year, compared to the annual allowable limit for members of the public of just one millisievert per year. And keep in mind this is 20 kilometers from the Fukushima nuclear plant.
It is by no means a negligible dose and it seems increasingly likely that collective human exposure to radiation from Fukushima will be significant — a great deal less than exposure from Chernobyl fallout, but significant nonetheless.
Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun has been urging people to read the “marvellously sane and cool explanation” of the Fukushima crisis from “our friend Professor Barry Brook”.
Both Bolt and Brook claim that no more than 50 people died from the Chernobyl catastrophe. The scientific estimates of the Chernobyl death toll range from 9,000 to 93,000.
Brook has spread misinformation as far and wide as the Fukushima reactors have spread radiation over the past week. With the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster falling on April 26, he will likely continue spinning.
This sad situation proves yet again that some of the most unscientific, anti-scientific jiggery pokery comes from scientists themselves.
That history can be traced back to the British nuclear bomb tests in Australia, when ideologically-driven scientists peddled whatever nonsense their political masters asked them to about the radiation fallout.
Only a few Australian scientists have featured repeatedly in the media. The most prominent have been Professor Aidan Byrne from the Australian National University, RMIT Chancellor Dr Ziggy Switkowski and Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide.
A clear pattern is evident — those with the greatest ideological attachment to nuclear power have provided the most inaccurate commentary.
The best of the bunch has been Byrne. He has presented the facts as he understands them and has willingly acknowledged major information gaps.
Switkowski has been gently spinning the issue, repeatedly reassuring us that lessons will be learned and improvements made. However, history shows that nuclear lessons are not properly learned.
The OECD's NEA notes that “lessons may be learned but too often they are subsequently forgotten, or they are learned but by the wrong people, or they are learned but not acted upon”.
The NEA says the pattern of the same type of accident recurring time and time again at different nuclear plants needs to be “much improved”.
The situation in Japan illustrates the point — it has become increasingly obvious over the past decade that greater protection against seismic risks is necessary. But the nuclear utilities haven't wanted to spend the money, and the Japanese nuclear regulator and the government haven't forced the utilities to act.
Brook is a strident nuclear power advocate and host of the Brave New Climate website, which received more than one million hits in the first week after the crisis.
Brook has egg on his face. Make that an omelette. He has maintained a running commentary in the media and on his website insisting that the situation is under control and that there is no reason for concern.
His message remained unchanged: even as it was revealed that efforts to cool the nuclear reactor cores were meeting with mixed success; even as deliberate and uncontrolled radiation releases occurred; even as explosions occurred; even as 200,000 people were evacuated; even as a fire led to spent nuclear fuel releasing radiation directly to the environment; and even as radiation monitors detected alarming jumps in radioactivity near the reactors and low levels of radiation as far away as Tokyo.
On March 12, the day after the earthquake and tsunami, Brook came out swinging, insisting: “There is no credible risk of a serious accident.”
That afternoon, after the first explosion at Fukushima, Brook made numerous assertions, most of which turned out to be wrong: "The risk of meltdown is extremely small, and the death toll from any such accident, even if it occurred, will be zero.
“There will be no breach of containment and no release of radioactivity beyond, at the very most, some venting of mildly radioactive steam to relieve pressure.
“Those spreading FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces. I am happy to be quoted forever after on the above if I am wrong ... but I won't be.
“The only reactor that has a small probability of being ‘finished’ is unit one. And I doubt that, but it may be offline for a year or more."
On the night of March 12, Brook said: “When the dust settles, people will realise how well the Japanese reactors — even the 40-year-old one — stood up to this incredibly energetic earthquake event.”
The dust is finally settling and it seems likely that four reactors will be write-offs.
On March 13, Brook said of the unfolding disaster: “I don't see the ramifications of this as damaging at all to nuclear power's prospects.”
Yet within days of the start of the nuclear crisis, Germany, Switzerland and China announced that their nuclear power plans would be reconsidered in light of Fukushima.
The Labor Party and the Coalition in Australia seem to have abandoned their interest in developing nuclear power here.
On March 14, when the second explosion at Fukushima occurred, Brook was still insisting that “the nuclear reactors have come through remarkably well”.
That evening, half a dozen people were banned from posting comments directly on the Brave New Climate website. True, some of their comments were silly and inaccurate, but by those criteria Brook ought to have banned himself.
With a fire at Fukushima spewing radioisotopes directly into the environment, Brook rallied the pro-nuclear lobby, arguing: “Now, more than ever, we must stand up for what we believe is right.”
But cracks were starting to emerge by the evening of March 15. Brook acknowledged an “ongoing crisis situation”, banned another 40-50 “random nobodies” from posting comments directly on his website, and quoted Rudyard Kipling: If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken / Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.
One contributor to Brook's website said: “Unfortunately, Prof. Brook has really abdicated a neutral position on this event. His clear support of nuclear power seems to have impacted his critical thinking skills. Every time he states something in this crisis is 'impossible', it seems to happen the next day.”
Finally, on March 17, with Brave New Climate web hits over the preceding week approaching one million, came a belated mea culpa.
Brook said on his website: “My initial estimates of the extent of the problem, on March 12, did not anticipate the cascading problems that arose from the extended loss of externally sourced AC power to the site, and my prediction that 'there is no credible risk of a serious accident' has been proven quite wrong as a result.
“It remains to be seen whether my forecast on the possibility of containment breaches and the very low level of danger to the public as a result of this tragic chain of circumstances will be proven correct.”
Yet even as he mea-culparised, Brook continued spinning.
In the same web-post, he uncritically reproduced this from the Nuclear Energy Institute: “Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yukio Edano, said earlier today a radiation level of 33 millirem per hour was measured about 20 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi plant earlier this morning. He said that level does not pose an immediate health risk.”
But that dose equates to almost 3,000 millisieverts a year, compared to the annual allowable limit for members of the public of just one millisievert per year. And keep in mind this is 20 kilometers from the Fukushima nuclear plant.
It is by no means a negligible dose and it seems increasingly likely that collective human exposure to radiation from Fukushima will be significant — a great deal less than exposure from Chernobyl fallout, but significant nonetheless.
Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun has been urging people to read the “marvellously sane and cool explanation” of the Fukushima crisis from “our friend Professor Barry Brook”.
Both Bolt and Brook claim that no more than 50 people died from the Chernobyl catastrophe. The scientific estimates of the Chernobyl death toll range from 9,000 to 93,000.
Brook has spread misinformation as far and wide as the Fukushima reactors have spread radiation over the past week. With the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster falling on April 26, he will likely continue spinning.
This sad situation proves yet again that some of the most unscientific, anti-scientific jiggery pokery comes from scientists themselves.
That history can be traced back to the British nuclear bomb tests in Australia, when ideologically-driven scientists peddled whatever nonsense their political masters asked them to about the radiation fallout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)