Friday, 19 August 2016

The False Propaganda Against Nuclear Radiation

After the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant around 300,000 people living within 25-miles of the reactor building were permanently evacuated because of the healthcare related concerns from nuclear radiation.

But the wild animals did not leave with the people, and they began to thrive like never before. Their population exploded. Chernobyl is now Europe’s largest wildlife sanctuary, a home to large numbers of animals, birds, and plants. These creatures show no sign of mutations; they are normal and healthy.

Also, the Chernobyl accident has not led to the rise in instances of cancer or any other medical complication in the populations that were heavily affected.

Around 500 nuclear power plants have been operational in the world during the last 50 years, but there have been only two accidents—Chernobyl and Fukushima. There were no human causalities in the Fukushima disaster. In the Chernobyl accident there were 31 fatalities.

Coal mining kills more people in a month than all the nuclear power plant accidents in history. According to American Lung Association, in America 13,200 deaths a year are caused due to the release of particulates, heavy metals and radioactive elements from coal plants.

The idea that coal-based energy is more dangerous than nuclear energy flies in face of the central tenet of anti-nuclear activism that any amount of nuclear radiation must be lethal for mankind.

The radiation from nuclear power plants is a fraction of what was released into the environment in the Chernobyl accident. People receive much more radiation during medical procedures than what they can get in the vicinity of any nuclear power plant in the world. Yet the anti-nuclear activists are vehemently opposed to new nuclear power plant projects.

The irresponsible propaganda of the anti-nuclear activists has forced the governments to use the LNT model (linear no-threshold model) for evaluating the safety of nuclear sites. The LNT model is ideologically driven and deliberately and deceptively misleading. According to LNT even the tiniest amount of radiation can increase someone’s cancer risk, and that the danger keeps rising along with the dose. But this is not true.

Dr. Carol Marcus, professor of nuclear science at University of California, calls the LNT model a “baloney” of the same category as “the Earth is flat.” In a communication with U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Marcus said:
The LNT is based upon flawed claims, unrealistic models, and bad science. On the other hand, there is a huge body of valid scientific literature supporting thresholds and radiation hormesis. The ICRP assumes the correctness of the LNT. They are wrong.  
The NRC plan to make its radiation protection program closer to that of ICRP has no scientific basis. It is instead based upon the idea that uniformity is a good thing. Uniformity makes no sense if it makes everyone uniformly wrong. It is better to have an outlier that is correct. At least it sets a good example for the others. 
Dr. Marcus also points out that an exposure to a much higher level of radiation than what is mandated by the NRC is not necessarily a health hazard, and this is proved by the fact that people in many professions get routinely exposed to supposedly high radiation but they don’t suffer any ill effect:
Airlines pilots who fly polar routes may receive exposures approaching the present 5 rem limit, even though this is not a radiation regulated activity.  Suggesting that this is dangerous is untrue,because there are no valid data showing that this is the case. According to the radiation regulators of Colorado, the yearly background radiation dose in Copper City, CO is 890 mrem.
Even the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) doesn't believe that low-level radiation can cause cancer. The NRC website declares: “Although radiation may cause cancer at high doses and high dose rates, public health data do not absolutely establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates — below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv). Studies of occupational workers who are chronically exposed to low levels of radiation above normal background have shown no adverse biological effects.”

If the anti-nuclear activists were concerned about human life and the environment, they would be campaigning for the construction of more nuclear power plants which have a long track-record of providing electricity in a safe, clean, and reliable manner. But these activists are not concerned about human wellbeing; they oppose nuclear projects because they are ideologically anti-development.

Most anti-nuclear activists support other leftwing causes. They don’t like modernization and the idea of people having access to cheap and clean electricity through nuclear resources is an anathema to them. They are anti-coal, anti-gas, anti-dam, and anti-nuclear, and this means that they want to stop people from using electricity. 

No comments: