5/2 Discussion on Helen Caldicott's Opinion on the NYT

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 the thread on the article (Opinion) that appeared on the New York Times in the end of April.  For Caldicott's press confrence video, refer to Part1 and Part 2.

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




Tom Schinaman

TRL and Frank, could you comment on this: "Unsafe at Any Dose--Doctors must do more than treat cancers. We must enter the nuclear debate."? There are some very dire-sounding, sweeping statements in this piece that strike me as running counter to what you've been saying here. While the piece is suspiciously void of citations/evidence supporting these statements, it is still alarming for a layperson to read this kind of thing in the MSM. Thanks very much.

James its the no threshold theory again, yes there is no "safe" level of radiation, but the risks lessen as does the levels of radiation. Also this author is an advocate against nuclear power.

Tokyo Radiation Levels It was written by Helen Caldicott and it's not an article, in the opinion pieces section for a reason. She's a known critic of anything nuclear and she gives false information to make people alarmed. She does things I can't agree with like protesting Australia's only nuclear reactor which is used for producing 100% of Australia's (nuclear) cancer treating medicine and other nuclear medicine (as well as research). I do agree with some of her opinions, especially on depleted uranium munitions used in war. But she's exaggerates to get her point across and it lowers her credibility substantially in my opinions. Please, no more Coldicott posts people as we've discussed her enough in the past.

Having said that Leukemia was the scourge of children after Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, but they were exposed to a lot higher doses of contaminants. True more was release from Fukushima, but it mostly went out to sea. There's not a lot of balance to her writing.

Tom Thanks James & TRL. I understand that this is an opinion piece, not an article. @TRL, apologies, I haven't seen any of the previous discussions of Caldicott and certainly don't mean to perpetuate her views. I was hoping to hear your view on whether there is a scientific basis for her opinions, but if you've posted this info previously I'll look for it.

Tokyo Radiation Levels That's fine. There is some scientific basis for her views, but she over exaggerates the the proportions involved in this situation. If you eat 100g of plutonium you're probably going to die of cancer (or heavy metal toxicity), but she has said in the past that you will definitely get cancer from just 1 atom of plutonium in your lungs. (we are all exposed to plutonium in the soils all over the world thanks to nuclear test and not everyone has lung cancer).

Anna Tom, here's an interesting article written about Caldicott http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/ shame on the NY Times editors for scaremongering.

Charles Thanks for the balance.

Tokyo Radiation Levels The WHO suggested crisis limit is 2000 Bq/kg for water. Since you would get most of your Cs-137 from water and a human drinks about 3 liters a day + 2 kg for food, then 10,000 Bq a day is likely the limit. I've not been able to find a hard limit or a document giving a max but this is based on normal intake and the WHO limits factor in normal intakes. It's my best guess.

Guille Thanks a lot for your information, you can't imagine how I appreciate your work on facebook... I was just thinking about the 'limit' received by air. Anyway, it seems not to be so high and improving (the whole situation). From Tokyo, I LOVE JAPAN.