4/21 Discussion on Helen Caldicott Video

Hello Helen Caldicott fans.

Videos of Helen Caldicott were posted on TRL facebook community page for a number of times (yes, exactly the same video). Here's a compilation of discussion on her claims--this is the April 21st version. For part 2 (May 30 version), click HERE or "May 30." Looking for how the TRL community responded on her New York Times opinion article? Click HERE.

Hope you find them helpful--well, at least, able to zip your mouth on TRL page.

Alright, here is part 1.

Maria Aki Dougherty

GLOBAL RESEARCH. Dangers of Nuclear War. Press conference by Helen Caldicott in Montreal. March2011

Press conference by Helen Caldicott in Montreal: The Dangers of Nuclear War. March 18 2011.

Please watch, something you won't see on mainstream news.

Frank Sanns There are so many false statements in this video, I do not even know where to start. It is over sensational journalism.

Maria Aki I'm glad that you say so.

Frank Sanns She also finished it off nicely with her slip of a little misandry in the quote: "the reptilian mid-brain of some men's brains is pathological" .

Maria Aki not nice... mean. Hoping for the best.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Does it make you scared? Scared of nuclear energy and all the horrors it brings? That's what Caldicott basically does. Plays on your fears to push her anti-nuclear agenda. Basically, it's mostly a gross exaggeration without supporting facts. She say "you get a lump in your breast, how can you say it's not from Sr-90 you ate in a fish 20 years ago?". This is vague and sounds scary, but it's just playing on your fears. Like Frank said, too many false statements.

Frank Sanns @Maria, I did not mean an insult to you but this video is not based on scientific facts. Sure there are some facts mixed into there but this is classic smoke and mirrors. Let me give you an example, she mentions that cesium and strontium are around for 600 years. They have a 30 year half life. In 30 years there is half, 60 years a quarter, 90 one eight, 120 one sixteenth, 150 one thirty second up to 600 years which is around one millionth the starting amount. She is exaggerating the truth to make the numbers sound like forever. An the isotopes that she mentions that have millions of years of half life do not emit much radioactivity at all so they are no more dangerous than other heavy metals. Then she says don't eat any food in Europe. Chernobyl was in 1986, did the population of Europe disappear? No, last I looked it was fairly well populated.

Maria Aki Dougherty No, I meant that she is mean... I want to know what you have to say. I am not afraid. This is what is circulating on facebook. Don't really know what to think.  I am glad that you both are telling me that this is a gross exaggeration. Thank you.

Lynn Brogan Sounds like gross exaggeration to me too -compare wth other information about Tokyo radiation levels.If we believe this woman Japan would not have recovered from the atom bombs dropped in world war two

Chris I think most strongly anti-nuclear activists like to stir the pot at times like this... she is well-known for doing all she can to dirty an already taboo subject in nuclear energy so I wouldn't take anything from her on this subject as being gospel ��Ｓ � C � � ��� ��� ;mso-font-kerning:0pt'>
About internal dose and exposure the Europeans (1997): http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/187.full.pdf

WHO report on chernobyl from 1986:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull283/28302792729.pdf

Paper critical of IAEA (2006):
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/187.full.pdf

Decidedly anti nuclear:
Fallout and genetic effects:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/RIGEinEuroandCNPPc.pdf

Health effects of Chernobyl slide:
http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/fairlie.pdf

Tokyo Radiation Levels I just want to add that this is completely my opinion. I've read up on this quite a bit and I've come to this conclusion on my own. I don't want to mislead anyone into making a decision based solely on what I think. I'm also not saying this because I doubt myself either, but I just want to not pass myself off as THE definitive expert on this.

Romain Fair enough :-). I am no expert either. But it is by always listening and criticize each other in a positive manner that we can reconsider our position and understand things better, as long as it is driven by logic. Btw, I have read that radiation in building is 40% of the amount you would get outside. I am really wondering how they get those values considering the half-distance for gamma rays in material. Honestly, a 80% seems a lot more logical to me for typical Japanese houses. (some wood, very light metal plate, etc...) compared to a concrete based building (even in thise case, it really depends on the position of your apartment inside the building)