Trailer: Chernobyl

March 29, 2019

114 Responses to “Trailer: Chernobyl”

  1. Sir Charles Says:

    This was the situation in and around Fukushima one year after the catastrophe and the cover-up started. Bad video quality, but the subtitles explain everything.

  2. Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

    As the world barrels towards catastrophe, money can be made from horror and fear.
    Nobody has died from Fukushima radiation, and the government started lifting the bans on people returning a couple of days ago.

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      I think the only way nuclear can be established as a reliable power source is if China succeeds in developing “dry” nuclear technology.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Nuclear power is already reliable, and there are many new technologies that are safer than old designs. That’s not the problem. The technology fail and unreliability is in the incomplete evolution of the human brain and psyche.


        • I suppose you mean Thorium/molten Salt Reactors

          The world leader in such research is India. They have been experimenting with commissioned reactors for 30 years. Not one of these reactors is reliable and add nothing to India’s energy supply.

          Radioactive tea kettles are not the answer and always require vast subsidies from the countries commissioning them. Not one nuclear technology is safe (not even molten salt) and all induce 2ndry radiation in their infrastructure

          • dumboldguy Says:

            India, SG? Wonder what China would think about that assertion? And WHAT the heck do you mean by “all induce secondary radiation in their infrastructure”?

            Perhaps you need to read up a bit more?

            http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx


          • I do apologise to China, though India has been researching this for far longer

            I suggest you follow your own advice and read the paper yourself, can you identify any mention of an on-stream MSR? I can certainly see references to “minor actinides” and we are all very well aware that any absorption of radiation and radioactive emission is not perfect – hence there large portions of the reactor beds and cooling system will, over time become radioactive


          • Oh and have you checked a recent post on this very blog?

            I doubt it so here’s a link
            https://climatecrocks.com/2019/04/02/china-falling-out-of-love-with-nuclear/

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Why do you doubt that I have seen the Crock piece on China? Are you the only one that can read here? (although it may be difficult with that steam punk eye patch you wear). There is nothing particularly new or relevant there—-why do you grasp at straws? (and I have to laugh at “minor actinides”—-they make up only about a pound of every ton of spent fuel)

            An aside—if anyone wants to see how badly this society has deteriorated, check this out:

            https://www.google.com/searchrlz=1C1CHBD_enUS714US714&q=steampunk+metal+eyepatches+monocles&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN3vSyjrLhAhXrc98KHRhQDz4QsAR6BAgJEAE&biw=1184&bih=920)


          • Regarding the Crock peice – you are the one pushing China as a likely user of MSRs, do you belives MSRs are not nuclear technology?

            As to your deliberate attempt to poison the well perhaps you could check the picture in this post of mine

            Of course it hasn’t even crossed your mind that for the search terms you are using I was the source of the images.
            https://asteampunkgentlemanincornwall.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-impolite-art-of-christian-deceit/

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Again, I’m sorry, but I’m having great difficulty understanding WTF you are talking about—-either your language skills or the thoughts behind your maundering inanities are defective. But that’s no surprise from someone who has to dress up and stand on the sidewalk and make a fool of himself. I did enjoy the encounter with the “christian ladies”—it would make a good YouTube clip—-did anyone film it?

            And most importantly, what ever possessed you to come on this site and comment so strongly on nuclear power? Whatever does that have to do with atheism? Do you understand that you cannot prove the NON existence of “god” any more than the Christians can prove that Christ IS “god”? All of that being irrelevant to the question of “where did it all come from”?


          • No, you are either being deliberately obtuse or you are ignorant. What part of “China Falling out of Love with Nuclear” implies that they are looking to increase investment in a failed technology such as MSRs

            As to your second complaint. I’m not comparing myself to Russell but your ridiculous comment would mean that Bertrand Russell could not have any interest in Mathematics, or anti-Nuclear campaigning because of his atheism.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I’m beginning to think that you are playing with us—-the obtuseness, confusion, and illogic of YOUR comments seems almost deliberate. Either that, or you are one of the biggest Dunning-Kruger sufferers to hit Crock since A Throwup. Yes, you now qualify for an award of the Demented Rooster Suit—-to be worn as you strut around the Cornwall barnyard crowing about your imagined victories and intellectual superiority and aggravating good Christian ladies. It should be quite a sight watching you mesh your steam punk with your feathers.

            “What part of “China Falling out of Love with Nuclear” implies that they are looking to increase investment in a failed technology such as MSRs” is just senseless. It elicits only a WHAT? when read. Herrings and straw men and non sequiturs—makes my head hurt to try to figure it out.

            “I’m not comparing myself to Russell but your ridiculous comment would mean that Bertrand Russell could not have any interest in Mathematics, or anti-Nuclear campaigning because of his atheism”. ??? Who the hell is talking about Bertrand Russell here? The direct questions were asked of YOU—-answer them!

            (PS—sticking the word “ridiculous” in there is rather feeble—-just because you use it doesn’t mean it’s true—just more Demented Rooster self-delusion)

          • dumboldguy Says:

            It didn’t like the link. Instead google “Images for steampunk metal eyepatches monocles”


          • @Steampunk Gentleman

            Check your facts, hubristic armchair nuclear “expert”.
            Would you mind getting a degree in nuclear physics or engineering before asserting your Reddit understanding is gospel? Heck, even a masters in chemical engineering might suffice. Stop pretending you know everything.

            And as for your link? 😂😂😂😂
            Time you update your facts! China is OBSESSED with nuclear. Thank goodness.

            https://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/3002379/nuclear-shares-soar-after-china-plans-invest-us12-billion-new

            Cheers!

  3. redskylite Says:

    Thanks for the trailer and I’ll be sure to watch this one.

    I used to work in the oil extraction business, films and documentaries of the horrific and shocking Piper Alpha oil rig fire (in which 167 workers needlessly perished) were shown regularly to all operational teams – the cause was faulty maintenance procedures and the films helped to educate people on the criticality of safety procedures when dealing with volatile systems. In hindsight the incident was preventable. Deepwater horizon was another story to be told. No system is perfect and accidents and disasters need examining from all angles. The Nuclear industry is especially needful of safety procedures.

    The Chernobyl accident happened because of design fault, and as someone who lived in sight of the Hinkley Point “B, Nuclear power station in Bridgewater, South West England, I fully hope all nuclear power incidents are fully investigated and faults and injuries reported with no attempt to cover up from the public.

    Too much truth has been and is still covered up in many industries. Truth is open as my grandfather used to say – so lets see the film, without the Soviet Union spin.

  4. dumboldguy Says:

    Wonderful! The fossil fuel propagandists and the cognitively dissonant anti-vaxxers/anti-nuke/flat-earthers haven’t done enough damage to the cause of nuclear power?

    Now HBO wants to make a buck by sensationalizing Chernobyl, an event that happened 33 freaking years ago and has killed fewer than 100 people since? And very few of them had the flesh fall off their faces like the trailer. A FIVE part series, no less, which will be hyped by commentators on other channels for weeks. Shameful exploitation and money-grubbing by all concerned.

    Let’s look at ANNUAL death rates from other causes:

    Climate change worldwide: Hundreds of thousands to millions of humans, uncounted numbers of other critters (we are in the Sixth Extinction, remember)

    In the U.S. alone:
    Car crashes ~40,000
    Guns ~40,000
    Drug OD’s ~70,000
    Suicides ~50,000

    It once again proves that man is his own worst enemy. Nuclear power, which COULD have been a very important part of the fight against climate change, drops further behind every day because of ignorance and irrational fear of something that is not as deadly as so many other things in our daily lives. We are simply too stupid to survive and deserve our fate/

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      So, anti nuke = flat earth = anti-vaxx???

      That’s ridiculous.

      Nuclear radiation has a half-life longer than the public’s attention span.

      Chernobyl may have killed hundreds of thousands:

      https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0dbb/e12e1cd51ead639ddae83727070910e27076.pdf

      Nothing “irrational” about fearing an energy source which is inherently dangerous as well as being too expensive.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Your fingers finally thawed out in VT so you can type? Too bad your brain is a bit behind.

        Chernobyl MAY have killed hundreds of thousands? And you cite a freaking BOOK REVIEW as evidence? Now that’s ridiculous!

        https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0dbb/e12e1cd51ead639ddae83727070910e27076.pdf

        Look at the figures I cited—-they’re NOT made up—-look them up yourself. What’s “inherently dangerous” is ignoring the real damage being done by fossil fuels, which UNDISPUTEDLY and ABSOLUTELY has and will continue to be far more dangerous than nuclear EVER will. What you BELIEVE doesn’t matter, only what you can show as FACT, and your FACTS aren’t there—-that’s why I lump anti-nukers in with anti-faxers and flat-earthers—-“believers” all!

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          “Chernobyl MAY have killed hundreds of thousands? And you cite a freaking BOOK REVIEW as evidence? Now that’s ridiculous!”

          Oops!

          You are right – wrong link. Here is the report,originally published by the NY Acad. of Sciences:

          http://www.foejapan.org/energy/evt/pdf/121214.pdf

          327 pages. I expect a full report on it on my desk by tomorrow 7:00 AM sharp.

          And nobody cares what evils fossil fuels are wreaking when it comes to evaluating nuclear – it’s completely irrelevant, since sun and wind and geotherm, etc can easily replace FF’s without any need of nuclear. Logic is your friend. Well, when it comes to nuclear, it can be your new friend.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Ah, the famous 327 page “everything including the kitchen sink” bullshit “study” that has been thoroughly debunked by scientists, and even referred to as a “noxious turd from the bowels of Alexey V. Nesterenko”. Check this:

            https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment

            Another quote of a reviewer said “….the value of the report is negative, because it has very little scientific merit while being highly misleading to the lay reader. It also characterized the estimate of nearly a million deaths as more in the realm of science fiction than science”.

            Here’s a “proper” report from the NIH that gets it right, since you don’t like Wiki.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674166/

            “It is concluded that, unlike the widespread myths and misperceptions, there is little scientific evidence for carcinogenic, mutagenic or other detrimental health effects caused by the radiation in the Chernobyl-affected area, besides the acute effects and small number of thyroid cancers. On the other hand, it should be stressed that the above-mentioned myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation caused, by themselves, enormous human suffering. The authorities did not learn this lesson from Chernobyl, and the same kind of suffering is occurring in Fukushima. The lessons should finally be learned and the present overcautious attitude to radiological hazards should be corrected in order to mitigate the present suffering and to avoid such suffering in the future.”

            That’s my “report”, GB—-ignore it as usual. You have gotten so crazy in your anti-nuke fever that you actually said in the same paragraph “logic is your friend” and the wildly illogical “nobody cares what evils fossil fuels are wreaking when it comes to evaluating nuclear – it’s completely irrelevant, since sun and wind and geotherm, etc can easily replace FF’s without any need of nuclear”.

            That rates the same WHAT? that I used to give Omnologos when he spouted his BS here. It IS relevant, since RE sources are NOT replacing FF’s—-CO2 is going UP, coal use is going UP—-RE is being swallowed in growth, and is not “replacing” anything.


        • Whereas you live in a fantasy world of “too cheap to meter” nuclear power

          Even compared to coal nuclear is too expensive and is heavily subsidised either directly or indirectly

          • dumboldguy Says:

            ROTFLMAO! Someone who calls himself Steampunk Gentleman, posts that picture as his WP gravatar (is that actually YOU?), and states in his WP data that he is…”An atheist, tired of street preachers and others selling the non-existent.
            I am retired, but still feisty and will publish items by myself and others that bear on my aim”….is the one who is living in a fantasy world.

            The world of “too cheap to meter” nuclear power ended back in the late 50’s when I was in HS. Why do you make yourself look stupid with this imagined “zinger”?

            You say “Even compared to coal nuclear is too expensive and is heavily subsidised either directly or indirectly” So? Again, even though it’s almost surely now too late for nuclear, what price would you put on saving the planet? When the SHTF and CAGW starts to kill humans by the hundreds of millions, do you think the $$$$ will be found for a Manhattan Project on nuclear power?


          • Poisoning the well
            Ad hominem attack

            That picture was taken at the East Pool Mine near Redruth by my best beloved.

            Next you issue straw man attacks and display utter ignorance of the realities of renewables as well as the utter failure of the nuclear industry to keep to any of it’s promises or the fact that decommissioning is almost entirely taxpayer funded either directly or through tax credits.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Again you babble on unintelligibly. I DO get that you are accusing me of an “ad hominem” attack. No, I’m merely making a valid observation about the evidence that YOU provided about yourself—not the same.


          • Apparently you seem unable to understand logical fallacies. Attacking an opponent rather than their argument is an ad hominem attack and attempting to downplay an opponent or his/her sources because of what you perceive to be a flaw in their character of the opponent or the author of the sources is poisoning the well.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            And I’ve done neither. I’ve attacked the inadequacies of what you say (they’re not really “arguments” since they are not factually based but mostly opinions), and since you present little in the way of factual argument but merely opinions, it becomes impossible to separate your strange “character” from your drivel.

      • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

        Anti-vaxx, anti nuke, flat earthers and deniers all disregard scientific facts.

    • redskylite Says:

      Ridiculous reply DOG – There were films on Piper Alpha, Deepwater and countless aircraft crashes – yet people still rush to the pump and take seats on flights- What are you so worried about ? The down side with nuclear is the enormous cost – wake up and smell the roses.

      It’;s called communication.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Not sure what you mean about “communication”—-perhaps my reply to GB will help clarify what I said.

        Don’t you see the difference between Deepwater, Alpha, plane crashes and car crashes, versus irrational fear of nuclear power? Of course, people still do those “normal” things, things that can lead to crashes or explosions—they are playing the law of averages and hoping that something they DO understand won’t happen to them.

        They DO NOT understand the inner workings of nuclear power and radiation, and get all upset about the release of radiation on the other side of the world. Radiation that will be well diluted before it reaches them, and is being hyped by the media and the anti-nukers.

        As far as the “tremendous cost”, I will again ask what I and others have asked before—-“What is an acceptable price for saving the planet?”

        • redskylite Says:

          You are single minded – you never see the possibilities in other energy sources. You never ever see anything but Nuclear Power.

          You want to censure information regarding the down side of previous nuclear incidents.

          You are truly and very despicable sometimes.

          Media is a form of communication. I was a Michael Jackson fan – Did I accuse the movie “Leaving Neverland” of just making the film for a quick buck?. No it was valid communication, to expose his dark side.

          Koch bros, Murdoch etc are in the murky business of manipulation and telling us what to think.

          https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/03/27/guns-climate-denial-conspiracies-al-jazeera-australian-far-right-one-nation-koch

          • dumboldguy Says:

            In the interests of good “communication”, I must ask if you still stand by the statement “You are truly and very despicable sometimes”, and will you point out some of those “times” besides on this thread that I have been “despicable”? .

            adjective
            deserving hatred and contempt.

            synonyms: contemptible, loathsome, hateful, detestable, reprehensible, abhorrent, abominable, awful, heinous, beyond the pale; odious, execrable, repellent, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, disgusting, horrible, horrid, horrifying, obnoxious, nauseating, offensive, distasteful, beneath/below contempt; vile, base, low, mean, abject, shameful, degrading, ignominious, cheap, shabby, miserable, wretched, sorry, scurvy; infamous, villainous, ignoble, disreputable, discreditable, unworthy, unscrupulous, unprincipled, unsavory;

            informal: dirty, filthy, dirty rotten, rotten, lowdown, no-good, beastly, lousy

          • redskylite Says:

            There are times when indeed you have got right under my skin, times you have tried to put me down and sided with omnilogos, the Engineer Poet and some other very strange posters, history/anger bottled up inside I guess. I have not kept references to these blogs, they were some time ago, so cannot attach.

            What gets me the most is that you never show any encouragement in the developments outside nuclear, such as the London Array, which has around half the nameplate capacity of Hinkley Point B at a tiny fraction of the overall cost.

            If you are truly dedicated to solving the climate mess we are in now – you would show some enthusiasm to alternatives, so I begin to suspect you may have sinister motives.

            “despicable” is a bit too strong and I regret using it – I am sorry.

            Lastly the recent fatal Boeing 737 incidents – Caused by design fault – who would have thought this would occur in the 21st century with so much aviation history behind us. Yet it did, we need to be sure and safe on nuclear, that is why I welcome this film.

            regards
            Bob

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      For many decades the biggest source of radiation-related cancers in the industrialized economies were under-filtered coal plants. The heavy metals within poorer-quality coal were sent out of the smokestacks in a convenient, easy-to-breathe form. China’s rates of lung cancers will continue to climb for decades.

      • Sir Charles Says:

        Not to forget the radioactive ammunition the US army uses.

        => U.S. Military Is World’s Biggest Polluter

        • Sir Charles Says:

          It’s $700bn now. More than $2,100 per capita per year.

        • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

          War starts as an obscenity and goes down hill from there!
          Your link is to a fundamentalist green site with some outrages propaganda which detracts from the cause IMO.
          Depleted uranium is Way less radioactive than natural uranium which is stored and transported in 44 gallon drums. Just saying.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            A “fundamentalist green site”, aha. These “super bullets” are made of radioactive waste!

            => Radioactive Ammunition Fired in Middle East May Claim More Lives Than Hiroshima and Nagasaki

            => The Pentagon’s Radioactive Bullet

            They even lied to their own personnel.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Chucky is really overdoing it with these two links, and actually becoming quite brazen in his disregard for the truth and our intelligence.

            One is from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes RWNJ conspiracy theories, and is part of the Russian propaganda machine. NOT a credible source by any measure. Google it and find:

            “In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of pro-Russian propaganda”.

            The Nuclear Bullet article from the Nation has unfortunately gone a bit “anti-vaxxer and anti-nuke” and presented some contradictory and confusing science, not surprising for a left-leaning publication. Uranium, as are many heavy metals, IS toxic, but it’s not very radioactive—-this article presents conflicting chemical, physical, and biochemical “evidence” for harm.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Sure. NATO’s Rasmussen also accused the European anti fracking campaigners to be steered by Russia. So around a hundred initiative groups signed an open letter demanding Rasmussen to put his proof on the table or to retract. Of course we never got a response. Here we’re talking propaganda. Yes. NATO propaganda. NATO = big oil and gas.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Charles is attempting to bullshit us yet again, folks. He links us to a NATURAL GAS site to examine the Rasmussen accusations. And he’s an antifracker in Ireland? Will the real Chucky please stand up?

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Will the real dumboldguy just shut up when he’s not even able to read?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            As usual, when Chucky runs out of bullshit and links that constitute anti-American trolling, he resorts to inanities. FYI, Chucky, Brent and I, and other Crockers are NOT “A Throwups”—-when you argue with us you are not dealing with someone who is half-armed, i.e., a half-wit like Throwup. Nor will we disappear from the site, as he has—we have been here for years, and will continue to be.

            Also, I would again caution you to be concerned about what your bosses at the Russian Troll Factory will have to say at your next performance review—-in spite of your over-inflated self-image, you are NOT scoring many points. (I CANNOT believe that you cited The Centre for Global Research as a source—that alone should get you put on probation).

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Well, we all see your ‘ammunition’ here, dumb old guy, almost every day. One might wonder who the real “troll” here is. Over and out. I reject playing any more in this kindergarten.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Oh, there’s no doubt I’m a troll, Chucky. I DO “troll” with vigor:

            —for America and against those who would do her damage
            —for good science and educating others on science and against those who would distort science and misinform
            —for honesty rather than lying
            —for political parties that try to put forth American values and preserve what’s good about the country
            —for human rights and civil rights for all and against those who would deny them
            —for recognition of AGW and fighting it and against those who would deny it

            I could go on, but I see you’re leaving us now. Is your shift over? Have your bosses noticed you making a fool of yourself and “hurting the cause” and told you to go home?

            I’ll be here when you return, Chucky. And let me remind you of a popular American saying:

            It’s fitting that this is an assistant principal saying this in a 1985 movie—I said the same thing to kids in the 1970’s—don’t know where I heard it—maybe a cowboy movie?

          • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

            Chas, try reading my comment first. You should also read your own links. Do you really believe that 2 out of 3 children born to Iraq vets have severe deformities and sickness? Including no brains, organs, arms, hands attached to shoulders? Like to think you did not actually get passed the heading.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yep, Chucky likely did not get past the “heading”. When you’re a troll who is blowing smoke, brainwashing, and bullshitting, you just look for the “sound bite” rather than at the substance.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Sure, dumb old guy. That’s why I cited the concerning part of the article in quotes.

            Next.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Maybe you should cite correctly and understand:

            One survey of 251 returned Gulf War veterans from Mississippi made by the Veterans Administration found 67% of children born to them suffered from “severe illnesses and deformities.”

            37% of Mississippi’s population is black, right? So who is sent to the front doing the most ugly jobs in the US army? White soldiers?

            More read on this inhuman ammunition => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Ammunition

          • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

            Do not get in a tank about to be hit with DU munitions, it is dangerous.
            Do not go to war, it is dangerous.
            WTF has this got to do with producing electricity.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            It has nothing to do with generating electricity. It’s ALL about Chucky’s trolling against America.

            (As for DU, you most assuredly wouldn’t want to be in a vehicle hit by a DU round, or even around rocks that were being hit by rounds and producing DU dust, but you COULD sleep on top of the load of DU ammunition in a truck every night without worry).

          • Sir Charles Says:

            It’s the attitude, Brent. If you don’t care about the health of the people who are supposed to “defend” your country, how could you care about its citizens?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Straw man, Chucky! (or is it a red herring?—Chucky uses so many of both it’s confusing). But of course, Chucky MUST respond to every comment, even though he shoots himself in the foot more often than not.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Maybe you once slept on top of the load of DU ammunition in a truck, dumb old guy. That would explain a lot.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            This comment explains only your impotence and ignorance when it comes to making REAL responses. BTW, one time during a train exercise I was on, a Marine got run over and squashed flat by a tank. The tank probably had some ant-tank DU ammunition aboard. Can we blame his death on DU?

  5. Terry Donte Says:

    The reactor did not have a cover over it and when it caught fire the release of particles contaminated the area around it and killed some of the people who gave their lives to put out the fire. The reactor caught fire as an idiot bureaucrat decided to run it outside of its operating region as a test, why has never been explained.

    If you look at every reactor malfunction they were all caused by some idiot not doing something or doing something. Where I live an idiot was changing a light bulb over an open circuit board which dropped and shorted out the board causing an emergency stop to the reactor which cost us 150 million dollars.

    In any case none of the reactor malfunctions caused the end of the world and very little actual damage on the larger picture. Reactor power in the USA has killed zero people and saved around 10,000 people a year from dying from fossil fuel power plant pollution. Which means if one is not blind, nuclear power is safer than any other source of grid power supply for baseline use.

    When the storage problem is solved for solar and wind than we can switch over, it has not been solved to date.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Terry’s ignorance of science is almost “cute”—-the reactor didn’t have a “cover” over it? LOL Just like your pot of boiling potatoes can slop over without a lid?

      And not EVERY malfunction was cased by an idiot, although many were—-some were just failures of parts—simply accidents like a blown tire on a car.

      Nuclear power may have “saved 10,000 from dying from fossil fuel pollution”, but it actually HAS killed perhaps a dozen. NONE from radiation, though—-all were from scaldings from burst steam pipes, electrocutions, or “industrial type accidents” like being crushed by a piece of machinery while moving it.

      “Which means if one is not blind, nuclear power is safer than any other source of grid power supply for baseline use”. Yep, Terry got that right.

      • Terry Donte Says:

        The containment vessel is a cover which the RBMK designs did not have and still do not have for the 11 reactors in operation. You even admit none were killed from actual radiation here in the USA as all the deaths you mention are normal industrial accidents. All the problems were caused by human error when something went wrong or which caused something to go wrong. Example, in the case of the Japan accident, when the wave knocked out the power to the primary coolant pumps and the secondary pumps the operators at the plant wanted to cool the reactors some 16 hours on with pumped water using fire trucks pumping sea water to cool the reactors. That decision was kicked up to corporate in Tokyo who played with it for a while as sea water would have caused the reactor owner hundreds of millions to rebuild them, than they kicked that up to the government which like all government bureaucrats decided to hold conferences on the subject. Meanwhile the reactors heated up to the point they started melting and dumping radioactive stuff over the countryside and in the water flowing seaward under the plant.

        You love to call people names but that only proves you have a problem, not that your ideas have merit like you posting of actual death rates in this discussion.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Relax, Terry—-being called “cute” is far better than being called a moron—-you’re actually coming up in the world.

          I’m sorry, but NO one in the atomic and nuclear physics courses I took would ever have called a containment vessel a “cover”, and none of the several books on nuclear reactors that used to reside on my bookshelf used that term either—-it DID make me chuckle.

          (And several WERE killed by radiation in the U.S., but NOT at commercial power generating plants—the accidents happened at government and research facility reactors)

  6. dumboldguy Says:

    Decided to dig for more data—-All should try to get their heads out of their anal orifices and ACCEPT the truth.

    “Much is written about the dangers of nuclear energy. However, it is the safest source of energy for producing electric power, in accordance with studies by the World Health Organization and the european study EXTERNE based on data from past decades. Any deaths due to future global warming, partially the result of the CO2 from fossil fuels, was not considered by these studies.

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

    The USA: 30,000 deaths/yr from coal pollution of 2,000 TWh/yr, or 15 deaths/yr/TWh, a ratio that will likely remain about the same over the years.

    China: 500,000 deaths/yr from coal pollution of 1,800 TWh/yr, or 278 deaths/yr/TWh, a ratio that will likely decline, as China implements safer mining practices and more efficient, cleaner-burning coal power plants over the years.

    Energy Source Mortality Rates; Deaths/yr/TWh

    Coal – world average, 161

    Coal – China, 278

    Coal – USA, 15

    Oil – 36

    Natural Gas – 4

    Biofuel/Biomass – 12

    Peat – 12

    Solar/rooftop – 0.44-0.83

    Wind – 0.15

    Hydro – world, 0.10

    Hydro – world*, 1.4

    Nuclear – 0.04

    * Includes the 170,000 deaths from the failure of the Banquao Reservoir Dam in China in 1975

    • Terry Donte Says:

      Thanks for the Stats, for once we both agree.

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      Unless, of course, it actually has killed about a million people.

      Really good to see how “safe” the technology is…

      You know, all you have to do to feel that nice warm feeling…
      is to ignore certain reports, and forget about the fact that:

      * the isotopes involved are *extremely* energetic,

      * *extremely long-lived,

      * *extremely* cancerous even from a single atoms worth of contamination in the wrong body part,

      * and *extremely* toxic on their own as heavy metal poisons.

      Yup, no risk at all, keep moving along folks…….

      After all, plenty of reports of people dying from radiation poisoning solar panels and wind towers (cough, cough).

      A-yup.

      FFS – stop defending this tech. It does not have a prayer of being revived. And we do not even need it any more.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        This technology has NOT killed “about” a million people, not even close. Climate change and fossil fuel use, however, kill more than 5 million EVERY year by best estimates.

        You need to take some courses in chemistry, atomic and nuclear physics, and biology before you start using the word *extremely* so liberally. It is an “extreme” oversimplification of the science facts (but perfectly understandable for a “believer” who doesn’t accept facts he doesn’t like).

        You should be able to understand the math without going back to school, though. Figure out the relative number of deaths from the four “safest”.
        Solar/rooftop – 0.44-0.83 (11 to 20.75 times worse than nuclear)
        Wind – 0.15 (3.75 times worse than nuclear)
        Hydro – world, 0.10 (2.5 times worse than nuclear)
        Nuclear – 0.04
        Hmmmm……looks like you shouldn’t want your children to grow up to be rooftop solar installers (although it’s safer than being coal miners)

        I will defend “this tech” as long as confirmation-biased, science-ignorant morons keep attacking it. It is absolutely irrelevant as to whether it “doesn’t have a prayer of being revived”—-and WTF is wrong with you and anyone else who says “we don’t need it anymore” when CO2 is going up, coal use is going up, and global temperatures are rising. We need anything and everything that will help us combat that, and I will say again that humans are rejecting nuclear for all the wrong reasons.

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          “You need to take some courses in chemistry, atomic and nuclear physics, and biology before you start using the word *extremely* so liberally. ”

          I have taken courses in chemistry, both inorganic and organic, both 5-credit courses for chemistry majors. And I have a degree in biology. I have published in biology in a peer-reviewed journal. Not a glorious record. But enough.

          It matters not – the toxicity of heavy metal nuclear power fuel products are common knowledge. And well known to most scientists, and people interested in science. Except maybe you.

          Name other emitters that are more dangerous or energetic than the panoply of isotopes made during nuclear power reactions. These are, indeed, extremely high alpha and gamma producers.
          Very little comes close.

          And many of these isotopes also have acute heavy metal poisoning characteristics. A nice double whammy.

          Ask Alexander Litvinenko if polonium is dangerous. Putin loves the stuff.

          Polonium has a LD50 less than one billionth of a gram. Plutonium has a maximum tolerated dose of only 1.5 μg.

          • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

            For CS GB, if you are going to Reply, at least reply to the post. So there is dangerous stuff in the world, NO S*T. It is an imperfect world, and airy fairy wishful thinking will not change it. At present tech, renewable’s can not maintain a reliable power supply alone. Think it through, If you have another solution besides Nukes for filling the gap, explain it. (Does not have to be 100% pure and perfect either.)
            PS. Am sorry for the concentration on your posts, even though you deserve it.
            PPS . Have full BSc in GeoPhysics including specific courses in nuclear physics given by a world leader in the subject and a incredible educator. Unfortunately, over half his lectures were given by a grad student because the prof was away presenting papers, chairing committees and giving seminars.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Perhaps I misspoke a bit when saying you needed more science education—-you do have some, and I know you’re not a total dummy, so the problem must lie elsewhere. Hmmmmm….ah yes, it’s in your logic and psychology education that you have the “holes” and “fails”.

            Logic fail in that you would hold up the deliberate poisoning of Litvinenko as a meaningful example. A mere handful of people have been deliberately poisoned with polonium, and although it does have industrial uses, only around 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of polonium-210 is produced worldwide each year, people /ARE aware of its toxicity, and it is tightly controlled.

            Psychology fail in that you are unable to recognize that your confirmation bias blinds you to the role that nuclear power SHOULD be playing in the fight against AGW. Go back and read the letter from Hansen and the scientists about that.

            Both logic and psychology fails are evident in your continued “push” of the “extremely” and “heavy metals” bullshit. Heavy metals ARE dangerous, but you simply cannot try to conflate that with the fact that very little of the heavy metal contamination in the environment comes from nuclear power. Heavy metal poisoning is one thing, radiation poisoning is another, and it speaks poorly of your thinking and psychological state for you to keep pushing such a weak argument. Fossil fuels, especially COAL, contain large amounts of poisonous heavy metals, and that’s what we need to worry about, not the very small portion of heavy metals in the environment that may be radioactive because of nuclear power.

            “Name other emitters that are more dangerous or energetic than the panoply of isotopes made during nuclear power reactions. These are, indeed, extremely high alpha and gamma producers. Very little comes close”.

            Yep, they are indeed “dangerous and energetic”, and it’s a good thing that almost no humans on the planet “come very close” to having contact with them. The “emitter” that is far more dangerous, in the U.S. at least, is the device that fires “heavy metal pellets” called bullets, which kill 40,000 of us every year.

            As for “…well known to most scientists, and people interested in science. Except maybe YOU”, which was gratuitous, that rates a friendly “GFYS, a-hole” [:-)

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            You are both off-base.

            BJS – my post was in response to DOG’s claim that nuclear radioisotopes were not extremely high emitters. I have no idea what you are pissed off about.

            DOG –

            Firstly – I have looked at your rebuttal to the million-death paper. I stand corrected.

            2nd – you conclude that I do not see a place for nuclear. That is incorrect. I support continued use of * existing * facilities, but am dead-set against new construction because of cost.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            IMO, BJS is exasperated with people who who want to deny the science and math PROVING the safety and desirability of nuclear because it IMAGINED to be “so dangerous”. The point that nuclear radioisotopes were not extremely high emitters is meaningless unless people are in close proximity to them, which is NOT happening.

            Your illogic is once again on display with “I support continued use of * existing * facilities, but am dead-set against new construction because of cost”. The “existing” facilities are the ones that are making the “nasty stuff”. and again, what price do you put on saving the planet?

      • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

        FF pollution kills 9,000,000 people a year according to the Lancet! That’s 9 Million every year!
        Isotopes that are extremely energetic are extremely useful.
        Energetic isotopes do not last an extremely long time, you are propagating untruths, or more bluntly, other peoples LIES.
        Possibly one atom can cause cancer. As there is a hell of a lot more than one atom in you body right now, and you are receiving a quadzillion units of cosmic radiation on a continual basis, hiding under the bed will not help. For heavens sake, get some damn PERSPECTIVE.
        Yep, heavy metal toxicity like Lead, Arsenic, Mercury etc etc. Personally I avoid eating or breathing them all, not just radio actives.
        There are no reports of people dying from radiation installing solar panels. A-yup.
        This tech is a needed part of saving the world. Stop standing in the way.
        .

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          You are full of shit.

          There are a ton of radioisotopes produced in nuclear rods, and MANY of them have half-lives that are significant:

          Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years . Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years.
          Cesium-135 – 2.3 million years
          Iodine-129 – 15.7 million years

          There are dozens more:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Actually, GB, the one who is FO S**T here is YOU, and you are so full of it that your once blue eyes have turned brown—–and that’s not ear wax that’s making it hard for you to hear.

            Those isotopes ARE radioactive, and you shouldn’t be sprinkling them on your breakfast cereal, but they are not produced in very large quantities and are contained, unlike the many toxic substances that are being poured into the environment from burning fossil fuels and industrial processes. When the hell are yoi ever going to try to educate yourself on nuclear power? TRy these two sources

            http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx

            This one shows the length to which the dangers of nuclear waste have been thought out.

            http://www.safesecurevital.com/pdf/Dry%20Cask%20Storage%20FAQ.pdf

            “All people experience natural and man-made radiation. About 82 percent of our total exposure to radiation comes from natural sources: radon gas; outer space; rocks, soil etc. Radioactive elements in our own bodies account for 11 percent of our total exposure. The average annual radiation dose for a person living in the United States is 360 millirem. Theoretically, people who live within a 50-mile radius of a nuclear power plant receive an additional 0.009 millirem/year or 0.0025% of their total annual dose from the plant, although that amount is so small that it is impossible to verify by actual measurements”.

            “According to the United States federal government, the health risks from small
            amounts of radiation, if any, are very low in comparison with other health risks. For instance, compared to receiving 100 millirem of radiation every year for your lifetime, smoking a pack of cigarettes a day is 400 times more risky, being 15 percent overweight is 100 times more risky, and driving a car 12,000 miles a year is 40 times more risky. There may, in fact, be no adverse health impacts from low levels of radiation”.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Perhaps this one is easier to understand—-it IS factually correct, so don;t let your confirmation bias get in the way of learning something

            https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

            “What if I took a swim in a typical spent nuclear fuel pool? Would I need to dive to actually experience a fatal amount of radiation? How long could I stay safely at the surface?”

            “Assuming you’re a reasonably good swimmer, you could probably survive treading water anywhere from 10 to 40 hours. At that point, you would black out from fatigue and drown. This is also true for a pool without nuclear fuel in the bottom”.

            “….you could swim around as long as you wanted—the dose from the core would be less than the normal background dose you get walking around. In fact, as long as you were underwater, you would be shielded from most of that normal background dose. You may actually receive a lower dose of radiation treading water in a spent fuel pool than walking around on the street”.

          • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

            The dangerous high emitters have a short half life. Isotopes that have short half lives are high emitters and dangerous. Short half life isotopes decay rapidly to impotence in milliseconds to the odd hundred years. Not over a dozen ice ages. Would be useful burnt generating power in a fifth generation Fluorine reactor if it ever gets built. Do have some concerns about Plutonium 239. It does not seem to be in ‘waste streams, probably too valuable and easily separated(?).
            One miserly metre of dirt stops just about all radiation. On the global scale, which we are talking here, the potential negatives of nukes are so ridiculously TRIVIAL to AGW results, why are we even having this discussion?

          • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

            Swimming in a nuclear pool will not make a Darwinian improvement in the human race? Damn!

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Nor will it lower your sperm count or make you glow in the dark, especially if you haven’t been given any vaccinations against disease. While swimming, you should note that the surface of the water in the pool is FLAT, just like the Earth.


    • Meaningless statistics

      Now try showing deaths per MWh by the various generating methods. Strangely (if I recall correctly figures that I was shown) Nuclear comes very near the top of the list

      Typical cherrypicked data from a nuclear fanatic

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Don’t know why it showed as a new comment at 7:47—-if it’s not obvious, it’s a reply to SG’s “meaningless” maunderings at 6:58

      • Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

        According to the NASA site, you know, the rockets scientists, deaths in Nuclear production per unit output is the lowest from conventional generators by a country mile. Direct deaths are actually below ‘background’ for all industrial processes. Reveal the SOURCE of your cherrypicked data.
        Do not know any nuclear fanatics, just anti nuke ideologues who’s dogma is more important than the world.
        I do not know haw to attach ‘things’ here.


        • Weasel words
          “Direct Deaths”

          Oh, and I cited no figures, only gave my opinion

          So your second fallacy is “Straw Man”

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “Direct deaths” are “weasel words”? LOL Actually, those statistics are far more reliable than the wishful thinking of “everyone’s going to die from radiation” OPINIONS that the Chicken Little anti-nuke fanatics spout. Somebody dies, someone else figures out why, someone else puts the statistics together.and yet someone else publishes them. That’s REALITY, SG, not your imagined BS.

            PS The only fallacy here that I see is that a “steam punk” 19th. century thinker who refuses to accept the science understandings of 2019 thinks his OPINIONS make any contribution to this discussion.


          • Yes “direct deaths” are weasel words as they ignore secondry and tertiary mortality due to pollution/radiation and from the production of the working radioactive material

          • dumboldguy Says:

            If you’re going to try to comment on this topic, you’re going to need to use the same language as those of that are more knowledgeable than you use—-ignorant maunderings are hard for us to address.

            WTF are you talking about with “secondry (sic) and tertiary mortality due to pollution/radiation and from the production of the working radioactive material”?


          • Sorry but you should Google the meaning of the term “Direct Deaths.” In relation to nuclear accidents direct death are those directly attributable to the reactor. The deaths of the first responders, fire fighters and pilots overflying Chernobyl were “direct deaths” The deaths of those in other area’s who died from cancers, cardiac illnesses suppressed immune systems are “indirect deaths” ie e not directly attributable to the reactor melt down but certainly influenced by its effects. There were no “direct deaths attributable to the Windscale fire but there was certainly an increased incidence of cancers in Cumbria and Northern Ireland.

            Oh, and I notice there’s no apology from you regarding my online identity

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I have no need to google the meaning of the term “Direct Deaths.” I understand it quite well, as do you apparently—-“In relation to nuclear accidents direct death are those directly attributable to the reactor. The deaths of the first responders, fire fighters and pilots overflying Chernobyl were “direct deaths”. That’s correct, and the numbers of direct deaths was a few dozen.

            “The deaths of those in other area’s who died from cancers, cardiac illnesses suppressed immune systems are “indirect deaths” ie not directly attributable to the reactor melt down but certainly influenced by its effects. There were no “direct deaths attributable to the Windscale fire but there was certainly an increased incidence of cancers in Cumbria and Northern Ireland”.

            You have a big problem here. Can you NOT understand that you CANNOT say “CERTAINLY influenced by its effects”? And many studies done long before Chernobyl have show that you can get cancer and /or fie from from too much sun, smoking, eating contaminated food, breathing dirty air, and drinking dirty water. You CANNOT say that radiation from Chernobyl caused someone who lives in an otherwise polluted cancer-inducing environment to die. The ONLY cancer that has been conclusively linked to Chernobyl is thyroid cancer.

            Do you understand the word epidemiology? You need to kook at some studies—-do some googling and get educated. Here’s one:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107017/

            And please tell me what I’m supposed to apologize for regarding your “online “identity”?


          • Ahh, so probability and increases in incidence of certain terminal illnesses cannot be attributed to nuclear reactors.

            By that argument you need not believe that HIV causes AIDs because, by your lights, the only evidence is circumstantial and not direct.

            It seem you lack a certain abilities, cognitively

          • dumboldguy Says:

            “Ahh, so probability and increases in incidence of certain terminal illnesses cannot be attributed to nuclear reactors”.

            That’s correct, unless they were caused by exposure to radiation at those reactors—-the “direct deaths” concept that you have so much difficulty understanding.

            “By that argument you need not believe that HIV causes AIDs because, by your lights, the only evidence is circumstantial and not direct”.

            WHAT? Did Bertrand Russell have AIDS? For someone who talks about “logic”, you surely don’t display much of it.

            “It seem you lack a certain abilities, cognitively” says the moron who has TWO grammar faults in one short sentence. LOL (Does he even recognize what I;m talking about?)


          • You seem to lack the ability to read your own, frankly venomous, replies or to note your constant ad hominem attacks.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            That’s it—-I will waste no more time with Steampunk Moron. Since he is a “have the last word, no matter how stupid” type, I’m sure he will be back (wearing his Demented Rooster Suit with pride) but he needs to be ignored.


          • Buh bye

            And good riddance

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Says the Demented Rooster as predicted. LOL

  7. dumboldguy Says:

    Strangely, the recollections of an ANTI-nuclear fanatic are what seems to be faulty here. Instead of blathering about cherry-picking, why don’t you look for the figures yourself. Here’s yet another set of data. Note that it’s per terawatt and that nuclear is most assuredly NOT “very near the top of the list”.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#57dc16bb709b

    Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
    Coal – global average 100,000 (41% global electricity)
    Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)
    Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity)
    Oil 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)
    Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity)
    Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
    Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
    Wind 150 (2% global electricity)
    Hydro – global average 1,400 (16% global electricity)
    Hydro – U.S. 5 (6% U.S. electricity)
    Nuclear – global average 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
    Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity)

    Something that you and the ANTI-nuclear fanatics here seem to fail to recognize is that I and others who defend nuclear power are NOT anti-RE by any means and do not propose that we abandon all efforts to decarbonize the world except nuclear.

    I merely defend the SCIENCE and FACTS of nuclear power against the ignorant and confirmation biased, but do NOT expect that we will make the moves that Hansen and the other letter signers back in 2013 (FIVE years ago). Have you ever read it?

    Here it is—-what do you NOT agree with in it? Remember that in the past five years, CO2 has gone UP, global temperature has gone UP, coal burning has gone UP. We are simply NOT getting it done with RE, and we have effectively destroyed the chance for nuclear to help. Be proud of your part in that.

    https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/

    • Sir Charles Says:

      That 0.1 was that an arm or a foot?

      => Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer

      => Fukushima cancer death toll

      Don’t forget that WHO reports concerning nuclear casualties are being censored by the International Atomic Energy Agency due to a 1959 pact.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          More eyewash from Chucky. A FIFTY year old piece of paper is hiding the truth? The WHO could disappear tomorrow and the many thousands of OTHER relevant science groups and concerned scientists would seek answers. You try too hard to blow smoke, Chucky.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            The Agreement WHA 12-40 between WHO and IAEA:

            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.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Meaningless link. Evidence only of Chucky’s deep narcissism and need to get the last word. What part of my “others fill the need” comment did Chucky not get?

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Yet MORE links to The Centre for Global Research. that tool of Russian Propaganda? Chucky has really exposed himself here by Including the “985.000 deaths” piece, one that has been attacked and debunked by so many REAL scientists? As for Fukushima:

        “Health-care professionals say they are concerned about the physical and psychological state of the tens of thousands of Fukushima evacuees.

        “Amid media reports of alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and suicides among people living in tiny temporary housing units scattered across the prefecture, the mental health impact of the disaster IS A MORE IMMEDIATE CONCERN THAN RADIATION. As is the onset of disorders associated with stress and inactivity among displaced residents, particularly the elderly, such as hypertension and heart disease”.

        “An expert on disaster psychology said a combination of poor public communication by the authorities and Tepco over radiation levels and the danger they present to health, coupled with widespread uncertainty over the future, had created a “mental health crisis” among Fukushima residents”.

        • Sir Charles Says:

          Fukushima 1 March 2012 – ARD

          November 2012: More than 40% of the children in the Fukushima prefecture are suffering thyroid diseases

          To be continued…

          • dumboldguy Says:

            TOTAL BULLSHIT! Two video clips from 2012? And the clip from German news CONFIRMS something? (Other than the fact that sensationalism, not science, boosts viewer numbers)

            Here’s a more up to date analysis from 2018 by “folks who know thyroid”

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770131/

            (Chucky’s incessant spoutings and disrespect for us and the truth are approaching nausea-inducing—I may have to skip lunch)

          • Sir Charles Says:

            You better go and have your lunch, dumb old guy, before you even explode.

            “The careful study of the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima on health and societal issues continues to be highly informative. At this point, there is no clear evidence that the Fukushima accident has resulted in an increased incidence of thyroid carcinomas, a finding that contrasts with the observations after the Chernobyl accident,” says Peter A. Kopp, MD, Editor-in-Chief of Thyroid and Professor of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Molecular Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. “The relatively high incidence of thyroid malignancies detected through the screening of the Fukushima population highlights the challenges associated with screening programs. However, any definite conclusion would be premature, and continuing observation of the Fukushima population, as well as detailed characterization of the genetic and pathological alterations in the detected thyroid carcinomas, remain important. Our Japanese colleagues are to be commended on the rigorous approach to this highly important public health problem.”

            So they detect a high incidence of thyroid malignancies but at the same time claim there would be no clear evidence that the Fukushima accident has resulted in an increased incidence of thyroid carcinomas.

            Interesting. A full study of blahblah, looking very scientific, and then they (of course) don’t draw any conclusion, but “bearing in mind that anyone may have disease or seeds of disease yet live a healthy life”. Super. If something like that had been published by the Heartland Institute you probably would go bananas and jump in triangles, dumb old guy. Go have your lunch now.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            More “blah-blah” from Chucky, showing yet again his lack of science knowledge and his inability to argue FACTS rather than propagandize.

            Chucky conveniently leaves out one word when he offers his “analysis” of the real science in my link. “The RELATIVELY high incidence of thyroid malignancies detected….” was what the piece said, NOT “a HIGH incidence of thyroid malignancies”. Nice try, moron!

            Since thyroid cancer IS a rare disease, and THE most survivable of all the cancers, it matters little that perhaps 100 thyroid cancers were found when 5 may have been expected.

            As a good propagandist, Chucky pooh-poohs a good study from NIH that more than “looks” scientific and is done by REAL thyroid scientists, but loses it when he tries to conflate it with something from HEARTLAND. WHOA!—I hope Chucky’s boss at the Russian Troll Factory doesn’t see that one—it’s beyond weak.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            The video is of the press conference by Dr. Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician, in Tokyo on 19 November 2012, on the situation at the time in Fukushima. English with the Japanese subtitles. 42.1% of the children in the Fukushima prefecture are suffering thyroid diseases. This has been confirmed by a report in the main news of the German public TV channel ZDF. German public channels are not Fox News, dumb old guy, they underlie strict public control. That’s something US Americans hardly know.

            Go to 0:35 and you’ll see it in black and white.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            We don’t want to see it in “black and white” from right after the incident when NO ONE really knew what was happening—-show us some links to statistics that show that “42.1% of the children in the Fukushima prefecture are suffering thyroid diseases” over time.

            The 2018 paper is a far more reliable source of data, as anyone who reads it will see quickly. You again overreach with your trolling. (Or is it that your ego and NPD make you have these fights with people? I am not Throwup, Chucky, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you may escape with your life).

          • Sir Charles Says:

            “far more reliable source of data”, my butt! Why do you think German Chancellor pulled out of nuclear after the Fukushima accident? Sometimes leaders listen to the pubic and to the evidence that nuclear energy is anything but safe. BTW, Merkel studied physics, so she knows a bit about the subject. Compare to you, dumb old guy, who is only a blahblah physicist and doesn’t even know the difference between watt and watt hour. Disgusting to have a debate with someone like you. Now have your last quackquack (as usual).

          • dumboldguy Says:

            As we all know, the Germans pulled out of nuclear after the Fukushima accident because of fear and ignorance. Still waiting for some evidence from you beyond a 2012 video clip. Do you also read Japanese fluently? How do you know what the paper said?

            And why do you keep evading the info in the 2018 article I linked from a bunch of THYROID EXPERTS?

            (and DOGs don’t quack, we WOOF)

          • dumboldguy Says:

            PS Forgot to mention that I’m ROTLFLMAO! over “go to 0:35”

            A view of a document in JAPANESE narrated in GERMAN? And the number (42.1) IS visible but meaningless in that context. Try harder, Chucky—-unless you’re just trying to make us laugh.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Well, compare to you I speak German fluently. I just presented the evidence that Dr. Helen Caldicott was right in her press conference video.

  8. dumboldguy Says:

    Do as he says or else! Of course, we bull-DOGS are not afraid of Chucky—-when he messes with us, we just “show him the horn” (and go WOOF)

    • Sir Charles Says:

      We see how horny you are…

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Took my “old guy nap” and awoke to find THREE “comments” from Chucky in my inbox and NONE on any thread from any of the 9517 amazing people that follow Crock. Just as I did the last time he posted this clip, I’m going to ask Chucky who that’s supposed to be—it’s certainly not me—it looks like a poodle, and I’m more of a cross between a bulldog, a Rottweiler, and a Lab. I am proud to have der Teufelhunden, Jiggs, and Chesty in my lineage.

        Go F**K yourself, Chucky. You’re the one that’s “horny”—-horny for some ind of success. Posting this crap is proof positive of what a loser you are. You can beat up on another loser like Thorpe, but when anyone with half a brain pins you to the wall you just QUIT and start posting dumbass videos. Sad.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yep, Teufelhunden, Chucky, and for someone who supposedly speaks German, I’m surprised you asked. It refers to the name given to the US Marines who fought at Belleau Wood in WW1—-“Devil Dogs”—-and the USMC never missing a chance for good PR, took it on as a nickname. Some Britisher said about that time that the USMC were like bulldogs, so the mascot of the Corps became an English bulldog—among the first was Jiggs, and the latest in the line have been named in memory of Lewis “Chest” Puller, the most-decorated Marine in history.

            You continue to prove what a loser you are with the crap you post here and the losing battle you continue to fight against those of us who are your moral ind intellectual betters. Again, GFYS, you useless wanker.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            That’s “Chesty”, both the man and the mascot. It is difficult to be motivated enough to proofread when responding to Chucky.


Leave a Reply to Sir Charles Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: