I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Peter,

‘BTW, thanks for clarifying your position on the Stott contention. I wonder why you haven't written it up and submitted it to ASL?’

Because I have had enough of the peer review process. It is designed to maintain the status quo of the peer group.

A lot of the data on radiation effects, as you say, come from the atomic bomb victims. Some also comes from other accidents. All this data is for short term exposures and does not relate to long term exposure to low level radiation. The best data for long term low level exposures comes from the Taiwanese apartment blocks that were built with rebar contaminated with Cobalt 60. Around 10 000 occupants received elevated doses of radiation. As with the atomic bomb victims the doses had to be reconstructed so this brings a significant source of variability but published studies suggest minimal health effects at lower dose’s and some possible health benefits. The data certainly does not support the Linear No Threshold theory and collective dose which are currently used.

This is important as realistic dose limits are required for sensible planning of nuclear power plants and the storage and processing of used fuel.

The British Green Activist George Monbiot had an interesting experience when he started looking into the anti-nuclear movement. They were mostly making it up as they went along with no scientific basis.

https://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/

https://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/

I did challenge George to carry out a similar investigation into AGW but he wouldn’t at the time.

Peter,

‘BTW, thanks for clarifying your position on the Stott contention. I wonder why you haven't written it up and submitted it to ASL?’

Because I have had enough of the peer review process. It is designed to maintain the status quo of the peer group.

A lot of the data on radiation effects, as you say, come from the atomic bomb victims. Some also comes from other accidents. All this data is for short term exposures and does not relate to long term exposure to low level radiation. The best data for long term low level exposures comes from the Taiwanese apartment blocks that were built with rebar contaminated with Cobalt 60. Around 10 000 occupants received elevated doses of radiation. As with the atomic bomb victims the doses had to be reconstructed so this brings a significant source of variability but published studies suggest minimal health effects at lower dose’s and some possible health benefits. The data certainly does not support the Linear No Threshold theory and collective dose which are currently used.

This is important as realistic dose limits are required for sensible planning of nuclear power plants and the storage and processing of used fuel.

The British Green Activist George Monbiot had an interesting experience when he started looking into the anti-nuclear movement. They were mostly making it up as they went along with no scientific basis.

https://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/

https://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/

I did challenge George to carry out a similar investigation into AGW but he wouldn’t at the time.