Monbiot doing more PR for the nuclear industry
Posted by Ian M on April 26, 2021, 11:27 am
Went back to his twitter account to sea if he had acknowledged the latest development of Fukushima's radioactive water getting dumped in the ocean ( see: https://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/thread/1618921849.html ) and found this thread: |
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot
This is not to downplay the horror of the Chernobyl disaster, but we now have powerful evidence that it didn't cause germline mutations in survivors' children. The rate was no higher than average even among the children of the heroic liquidators.
Lack of transgenerational effects of ionizing radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational...
science.sciencemag.org [full link to paper: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365 ]
This is not surprising – it was the same for Hiroshima and Nagasaki: horrendous as the immediate and ongoing harms to survivors were, there were no detectable transgenerational effects.
Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2
Download a PDF of "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" by the National Research Council for free. nap.edu [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11340/health-risks-from-exposure-to-low-levels-of-ionizing-radiation ]
Children are born with disabilities all over the world. But in the regions close to Chernobyl, children with visible disabilities were sought out by journalists as if at a mediaevel circus. It was grossly unethical and unscientific.
[text: 'It was grim. We went from hospital to hospital and from one contaminated village to another. We found deformed and genetically mutated babies in the wards; pitifully sick children in the homes; adolescents with stunted growth and dwarf torsos; foetuses without thighs or fingers and villagers who told us every member of their family was sick.' ]
Much of the book of graphic photos by Paul Fusco, “Chernobyl Legacy”, with a foreword by Kofi Annan, was filled with black and white horror-shots of children with severe disabilities and “deformities”. There is no evidence that these conditions were linked to Chernobyl.
God knows what impact this exploitative journalism had on the children and their parents. God knows how much terror they spread in the general population. But those of us who objected on ethical and scientific grounds were labelled radiation deniers.
I’m discussing this not because I want to downplay the dangers of ionising radiation, but because, on this and every issue, *we have to follow the science*. Otherwise we spread unnecessary fear. We divert people from useful campaigns into fairytales. And we waste our own time.
And there's an interesting question here:
Why have we, as a society, overplayed the dangers of nuclear power and ionising radiation, while underplaying the dangers of fossil fuels and climate breakdown?
I think there are two main reasons:
A. Understandable concern about the connection in the early days between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
B. It's an alien, novel source of useful energy, while burning stuff is as familiar to us as the backs of our hands.
C. Displacement. When you're faced with something really big, it's tempting to turn away and attack something smaller.
As a result, much of the concern that should have been directed at coal - a far greater threat to human health - was diverted to nuclear
Nuclear scare stories are a gift to the truly lethal coal industry | George Monbiot
George Monbiot: Coal is a much nastier power source than the one we have chosen to fear in a deadly form of displacement activity
theguardian.com [2013 article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/16/nuclear-scare-stories-coal-industry ]
Some people cling to irrational fears, almost as if they were a comfort blanket.
It's a strange and paradoxical phenomenon. The threat they perceive is the threat of someone challenging their fear.
[Image of twitter antagonist, 'Drew' replying to Monbiot with: 'We get it, you're a nuclear power shrill [sic]... Sad that you'd get duped by a blatant whitewash report tho.'' ]
Only one reason he would be bringing this up now, precisely to 'downplay the dangers of ionising radiation' as he says (while denying that's what he's doing) from Fukushima. It's revolting.
Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously