I’m sick of the “experts” telling us what we should do and what we shouldn’t worry about. Heads of State, monetary officials, the EPA, the FDA, the FAA and an industry spokesman from the nuke industry have all been doing it of late. They should understand that when they say things that are not credible it makes those listening more concerned, not less.
These edited clips are from the weeks following the disaster at Fukushima. Mr. Hore-Lacy is the spokesman for the World Nuclear Association.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Maybe this will make you feel better. The following numbers relate to workers actually inside the facility. From World Nuclear News dated April 3:
ReplyDelete"Among the 370 workers working to bring stability to the damaged reactor units of the Daiichi plant, 21 have so far experienced radiation doses of over 100 millisieverts. Normally nuclear workers are allowed to receive a dose of 20 millisieverts over a whole year, although in practice they often receive very much less. If that limit is exceeded in any year, the worker cannot undertake nuclear duties for the remainder.
In emergency circumstances safety regulators allow workers to receive up to 100 millisieverts with the same conditions applying, that they must leave the site should that limit be reached. The 100 millisievert level is roughly the point at which health effects from radiation become more likely. Below this it is statistically difficult to connect radiation dose to cancer rates, but above this the relationship starts to become apparent when looking at a large group."
If only a small minority of emergency workers inside the facility have crossed the threshold where a statistical correlation between radiation and health effects is possible, maybe your talking head on YouTube is right after all.
PS. I wouldn't necessarily trust a nuclear physicist to offer financial advice. I am conversely a bit skeptical about financial people offering advice on nuclear safety. We all have our areas of expertise, and while I share your caution regarding "experts" on TV news shows, there is something to be said for getting information from a person who has spent his professional life in a field.
ReplyDeleteCP
ReplyDeleteI think what he said was that the workers would not be concerned about their retirement plans. Odd choice of words, no?
Assume I work for a big Walls Street firm and you are my customer. I call you up and say, "buy this stock, you can't lose money". That is a crime. I can't do that and if you lose money you would be able to arbitrate to your advantage. I would lose my license to sell securities for that sort of thing.
What protection do I have from experts who tell me there is no risk? None.
The managing director of WNA was on CNN. He took a very different tune to the events in Japan.
I thought Horey-Lacy was a very poorly timed cheerleader.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpMtnkt8bxg
The following link provides hi-res photo's from drone flyover of the impacted nuclear site. They speak certainly of massive damage, these photos have had little or not MSM coverage.
ReplyDeletehttp://cryptome.org/eyeball/daiichi-npp/daiichi-photos.htm
another expert opinion
ReplyDeletehttp://vimeo.com/21881702
(hat tip: zero hedge)