Over the past fortnight I’ve made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.
I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week with Helen Caldicott(1). Dr Caldicott is the world’s foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize(2). Like other greens, I was in awe of her. In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of radiation. So I did what anyone faced with questionable scientific claims should do: I asked for the sources. Caldicott’s response has profoundly shaken me.
More moonbat epiphany here.
h/t Eric A.
And now, for more revelations, Monbiot should give a serious look at the Anthropogenic Global Warming scam.
You never know, he may turn into evil free thinker, unhampered by artificial constructs.
I was “profoundly shaken” when I found out my parents where just fallible humans, & there was no Santa Claus.
I just wish his kind would realize the same thing about Socialism.
@minuteman:
“The banking crisis was caused in part by government regulations making banks lend money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back and extended by the government bailing out banks and car companies that they should have let die.”
There was never a government making banks lend money to anyone. There were two main issues in the housing bubble, both of which are related:
1. Banks offering “sub-prime” mortgages to gullible and greedy people who couldn’t afford the full mortgage rate.
2. Banks selling “mortgage backed securities”, which essentially encouraged them to offer as many loans as possible in order to sell more securities.
I agree that the Bush and Obama “bailouts” were probably a bad idea, and were almost certainly unconstitutional. It’s still too early to tell whether they may turn out to have a positive long-term results, but I’m not holding my breath. However, the biggest problem for the US right now is sheer debt.
“The US may be the most capitalist country in the western world, but that is not the cause of their economic woes.”
I’m not saying that the US economy is going down the tubes BECAUSE they’re the least socialist – I just find it interesting. However, given the current situation, I’d say any rational person should at the very least be taking a second look at his preconceptions about the benefits of capitalism and the drawbacks of socialism. If this hasn’t made you question your beliefs, then you’re probably not basing those beliefs on real-world data.
“I would also argue that western Europe is worse off than the US.”
I suppose it depends on how which economic indicators you’re looking at. Certainly debt as a percentage of GDP would support your conclusion. I’d say that the EU nations are showing signs of recovery, and reducing their deficits, while the US seems to be hell bent on racking up debt at an unprecedented pace. In any event, even if I grant your premise, saying “look, the US is doing slightly better!” is hardly a glorious victory for capitalism …
@fart:
“Alex. Learn some manners, and stop talking like a liberal. Insults are not arguments.”
I know you’re probably going senile, so I guess it’s normal for you to forget that you threw the first insult. Have the kids institutionalized you yet, or do I need to have a chat with them?
Moonbat is all over the map, with too many moral equivalencies to have any consistent or rational thought.
It’s a wonder he hasn’t ended up in an asylum……..yet….
, I’d say any rational person should at the very least be taking a second look at his preconceptions about the benefits of capitalism and the drawbacks of socialism.
In capitalism, people are free. That is the only justification it needs. Capitalism isn’t so much a “system” as what free people do when they are left alone. Socialism and communism are just points on a continuum of the state having a boot on your neck with varying degrees of pressure. I’ll take freedom, thank you.
There was never a government making banks lend money to anyone. There were two main issues in the housing bubble, both of which are related:
1. Banks offering “sub-prime” mortgages to gullible and greedy people who couldn’t afford the full mortgage rate.
Alex, have you ever heard of the community reinvestment act?
Pretty much covers the whole spectrum eh?
…. I’ll just sit back a savour some schadenfreude.
Maybe with a nice merlot…………….
“In capitalism, people are free. That is the only justification it needs.”
Nonsense. Iran is capitalist. Saudi Arabia is capitalist. China is capitalist in fact, even if they “officially” still cling to communism. I’d agree that capitalism tends to GENERALLY lead to more liberal societies, if for no other reason than that it’s a very good tool for increasing production and raising the standard of living. However, there’s no inherent link between capitalism and freedom. It is quite possible to have a capitalist society where slavery is commonplace, or an oppressive theocracy that allows free markets to operate. Don’t confuse our political system with our financial system.
“Socialism and communism are just points on a continuum of the state having a boot on your neck with varying degrees of pressure.”
The state is always going to have a boot on your neck; it’s just a question of which part of the neck you want it on, and how hard you want them to push. Most “liberals” and “conservatives” have no problem at all with using the power of the government to push their own social goals – they just happen to have different ideas about what those social goals should be.
I guess you don’t realize this, but … the “stateless communism” that Marx talked about is actually a world without governments. I’ve long been a fan of minimal-government, and I’ve always found it extremely funny that my position (minimal government) is closer to Marx’s ideal society than what the Liberals, the NDP, or the Communist Party is pushing for 🙂
“I’ll take freedom, thank you.”
I’m right there with you.
“Alex, have you ever heard of the community reinvestment act?”
Yep. Trust me, I’ve heard the arguments about it, but have yet to run into a compelling one. The majority of the sub-prime loans were made by institutions which weren’t governed by the CRA. Now, I’m sure that the CRA didn’t HELP the situation, but it’s silly to pretend that the CRA CAUSED the situation. And it’s equally silly to claim that the government used the CRA to “make banks lend money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back”. I’d say it probably had no effect whatsoever, but even as a worst-case-scenario it would have been one minor factor amongst many. Paul Krugman did a decent refutation of those claims – google him if you’re interested.
This is a little late to this party but while reading Drudge I found the likely source of Monbiot’s coal stats:
But among the most intriguing stats that Downs includes in his report is that “the average coal plant releases 100 times more annual radiation than a comparable nuclear plant.”
The analyst likely got this statistic from an article in “Scientific American” from three years ago, which used a similar statistic citing work from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and a 1978 paper in the “Science” journal.
“The fly ash emitted by a power plant — a by-product from burning coal for electricity — carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy,” according to the article from the magazine.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42539862
If the 3 year old Scientific America report is using data from 1978 then they have missed 3 decades of improvement in design and operation of coal facilities. This might have been worth noting in his Guardian article.
We had a taste of Marx’s ideal society with the Bolsheviks aka Communists and the Makhnovshchina and it was not an enjoyable experience. Too many people ended up in mass graves.
If you’re lumping in anti-nuclear views, AGW, and Karl Marx all under the category of “typical leftist”, there is something very wrong with your understanding of the world.
Posted by: Alex at April 11, 2011 9:01 AM
See, only a leftist would say something so daft. Typical.
(Saudi Arabia is not “capitalist”, you schmuck. It’s a grossly inefficient kleptocracy that outsources every productive, industrial aspect of its economy (i.e.extracting oil), has no middle class worth the ticks on a camel’s butt and is basically run – and poorly, too, even by gangster standards – for the benefit of one huge, horrible family, sort of a nightmarishly metastasizing al-Kennedy clan. Did I call you a schmuck yet? Schmuck.)
“We had a taste of Marx’s ideal society with the Bolsheviks aka Communists and the Makhnovshchina”
This is rather like “We had enough of that Jesus guy in the Inquisition”. Stupid beyond words.
Are you people feeding Alex the troll?
Why?
now george me boy let’s not waste time here sonny boy…..it’s father Al as i’m sure you knew before you stepped into the confessional last thing on satiday night….i’m sure you’re contrite and i’m sure you realize yer error so i’m going to give ye two rosaries and 4 acts of contrition…
‘oh my Gaia….i am most heartily sorry for having offended you…and etc etc….’
DERP! FEERDING DA TROLL! DERP!!
If you’re lumping in anti-nuclear views, AGW, and Karl Marx all under the category of “typical leftist”,…then you’re aware that the CND(Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament) formed the core of the grassroots AGW movement when Margret Thatcher was Prime Minister and you know that the CND were Marxists.
Monbiot stated publically last year that people’s private homes were a “national resource”.
That’s pretty far Left and ‘NO’ he isn’t going to become a climate skeptic or change his views.
Monbiot is hard core.
Ha Ha. Here it comes… it could be one of those brutal trench warfare, mass infantry charge kind of civil wars! With thousands of non-battle casualties because the greens don’t believe in antibiotics or sanitation. Take no prisoners!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation
One major correction is required in Monbiot’s column.
He says “Like the IPCC, it calls on the world’s leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview.”
It SHOULD read “UNLIKE the IPCC (which discards ANY papers which counter their preconceived outcome), it calls on the world’s leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview.”
There…..fixed.
LC, the radiation from coal ash still exists regardless of electrostatic precipitators. Instead of going into the atmosphere, it’s concentrated with the rest of the clinker and dumped. The total amount of radiation from coal burning doesn’t change; merely its location.
Even though its 100 times the amount from a nuclear plant, the radiation levels are still much less than trivial.
Sigivald, the industrial accident rate for uranium mining is about 1/4 the average for all industry, which in turn is much less than the average for hard rock mining.
Yes, I am aware of the composition of coal ash and how it is stored. Radiation levels of coal and employee exposure times are low (so low they are not included on environmental permits). My point is that older units (pre-1978) were designed and operated very differently than modern units (I’ve worked on types built in the 1950’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s) and most of those older one have been decommissioned or rebuilt. To compare the dinosaurs to modern plants and use it as proof of coals inherent danger is typical environmental hysterics. George is showing his gullibility again.