Last updated on March 1, 2013
George Monbiot, environmentalist and journalist… and once a strong opponent to nuclear power has faced an “unpalatable truth”: the anti-nuclear lobby lied to us.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world
The article is only about 30 years overdue… but I cannot stop smiling when I read this. Monbiot did what everyone should do: check the facts, think for yourself, dare to think you may have been either right or wrong.
The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all
I’ve discovered that when the facts don’t suit them, the movement resorts to the follies of cover-up they usually denounce
- George Monbiot
- The Guardian, Tuesday 5 April 2011
Over the last 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.
Thank yo so much for this George. Along with Mark Lynas and Patrick Moore, you have shown that “green” does not have to mean “unscientific zeal”.
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /var/www/nuclearpoweryesplease.org/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /var/www/nuclearpoweryesplease.org/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
Rebutal from Helen Caldicott to Monbiot’s rant.
“How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation
George Monbiot and others at best misinform and at worst distort evidence of the dangers of atomic energy”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation
Misinform and distort, you say?
Well, that old fraud Caldicott should know. She’s the master of lies. Her books are full of them.
In her “rebuttal,” she cites a non-peer-reviewed “report” as her best evidence, and then she launches into that old “conspiracy” about the IAEA and WHO. How come Caldicott and these other conspiracy idiots never bother to quote the entire article of the agreement? Could it be that they want to hide something?
For the record, here is the entire article, taken verbatim (emphasis mine):
Now, I ask you, does that sound like “subjugation to the IAEA”?
No sane person would think so.
Well facts speak for themselves. IAEA is not the ideal partner for the WHO. As IAEA is not independent of the nuclearindustry and sits on to many chairs for them to be 100% trusthworthy. Which has been proven on several occasions as shown by the flawed and doctored Chernobyl report and their handling of Fukushima and other Japanese plants both before and after the quake.
They do… but you seem disinclinded to believe any fact that doesn’t sit well with you and instead go on to try to bash anyone that says the “wrong” facts by trying to drag their reputation in the dirt.
So you believe that IAEA is the ideal partner for WHO ? IAEA is an organisation which thrives on the nuclear power industry. Most people would see the problem with this, but you don’t?
(Not) Per, you don’t care about that particular issue… you’re just using it as a convenient escape route to not have to answer any claim they make but instead just dismiss them out of hand.
(Not) Per: “I claim X!”
Us: “the UN/IAEA/WHO makes an opposite claim”.
(Not) Per: “Well they’re all corrupt anyway so I’m still right”.
Michael, why don’t you just answer the simple question? Here it is again: IAEA is an organisation which thrives on the nuclear power industry. Most people would see the problem with this, but you don’t?
Johan already answered that:
– The FAA/Luftfartsverket thrives on airlines. Should they be allowed to be a supervising authority over them?
– The national car inspection program/Bilprovningen thrives on the automobile industry, should they be allowed to inspect and approve cars?
…and so on and so forth. The argument fails because it is not the respective industries that finance them, nor would the industries be able to withdraw any funding from them.
It’s just a rediculous and childish way for you to worm your way out of any situation where the facts don’t suit you and you have to contend with the world commuity that is the UN.
(Not) Per – Your paranoia knows no bounds.
The IAEA is governed by its 151 member states and the 35 of these states that sit on its Board of Governors. Most of these states don’t even have a nuclear industry to speak of! Do you really think that, say, the nuclear industry of New Zealand (a board member) is controlling the IAEA’s “untrustworthy” activities?!
Not that any of this matters, anyhow. As I pointed out above, the so-called “sinister” agreement between the WHO and the IAEA expressly prohibits the IAEA from interfering with the rights of the WHO to investigate anything they want, if it concerns public health.
That old bag Caldicott has probably never even read the agreement.
How can you claim that the agreement prohibits IAEA from interfering with the rights of WHO? Thats not quite what it says there.
Caldicott is as reliable when it comes to radiation biology as the flat earth society is when it come to geography.
Well compared to Monbiot she definitively is more reliable or do you really agree with Monbiots unscientific comments?
Monbiot did the most scientific thing you can do: he asked her “Back up your claims. Show me your proof”.
She didn’t… she provided flimsy arguments at best and then went on a tirade that anyone that doesn’t agree with her is an evil lackey of a corrupt industry.
That is not reliable.
Did you even read her comments? The first part here could have been directed to you.
“Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful.
Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: “Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the ‘affairs of Chernobyl’. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation
Yes I did read it. The first part is just an empty claim: “I have people that agree with me!!”.
Well cough them up then! Show the references to this “body of literature”! That’s what Mobiot asked for and that is exactly what she didn’t do.
The second part is exactly what I just pointed to, and which Monbiot also protested against: the standard conspiracy nonsense… “Noone is listening to me; the industry is evil; they are silencing me because I’m a dissenting voice; boohoo sympatize with me”.
HELEN CALDICOTT: Oh, Amy, the whole thing’s nuclear madness, which is what I called my first book that I wrote in 1978. A new report from the New York Academy of Sciences has just translated 5,000 papers from Russian into English. It’s the most devastating report I’ve ever seen. Up to a million people have already died from Chernobyl, and people will continue to die from cancer for virtually the rest of time. What we should know is that a millionth of a gram of plutonium, or less, can induce cancer, or will induce cancer. Each reactor has 250 kilos, or 500 pounds, of plutonium in it. You know, there’s enough plutonium in these reactors to kill everyone on earth.
Now, what George doesn’t understand—and, George, I really appreciate your writing, and I understand your concern about global warming. You don’t understand internal emitters. I was commissioned to write an article for the New England Journal of Medicine about the dangers of nuclear power. I spent a year researching it. You’ve bought the propaganda from the nuclear industry. They say it’s low-level radiation. That’s absolute rubbish. If you inhale a millionth of a gram of plutonium, the surrounding cells receive a very, very high dose. Most die within that area, because it’s an alpha emitter. The cells on the periphery remain viable. They mutate, and the regulatory genes are damaged. Years later, that person develops cancer. Now, that’s true for radioactive iodine, that goes to the thyroid; cesium-137, that goes to the brain and muscles; strontium-90 goes to bone, causing bone cancer and leukemia. It’s imperative, George, because you’re highly intelligent and a very important commentator, that you understand internal emitters and radiation, and it’s not low level to the cells that are exposed. Radiobiology is imperative to understand these days. I do suggest, humbly, that if you read my book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer, which I think I’ve tried to send you once, you’ll learn about that.
GEORGE MONBIOT: I do have a copy, yeah.
HELEN CALDICOTT: And I totally agree, global warming is a terrible, terrible catastrophe. However, I commissioned a study, done by Arjun Makhijani from IEER about three, four years ago, called “Carbon-Free [and] Nuclear-Free.” The truth is, George, that there’s enough renewable technology now, right now, which is relatively cheap, to supply the whole of the U.S.’s needs by 2040 without any carbon and any nuclear. We just need to have the politicians to get out of the pockets of the nuclear companies, the coal companies, the oil companies, and start funding renewable energy. Why isn’t there a solar panel on every single house in America, solar hot water systems, windmills everywhere? You know it would increase the GDP and employ hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world. This is the way to go. That’s the prescription for survival.
Nuclear power, George, creates massive quantities of radioactive waste. There is no way to put it on earth that’s safe. As it leaks into the water over time, it will bioconcentrate in the food chains, in the breast milk, in the fetuses, that are thousands of times more radiosensitive than adults. One x-ray to the pregnant abdomen doubles the incidence of leukemia in the child. And over time, nuclear waste will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease, and random compulsory genetic engineering. And we’re not the only species with genes, of course. It’s plants and animals. So, this is an absolute catastrophe, the likes of which the world has never seen before.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s get George Monbiot’s response.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes, well, thank you, Helen, and thank you for all the work you’ve done over the years, which I think has made a fantastic contribution. But what you’re saying about the impacts of radiation just does not seem to square with the observed cancer rates amongst the populations who have been exposed—
HELEN CALDICOTT: That’s not right.
GEORGE MONBIOT:—to high levels of radiation.
HELEN CALDICOTT: George, that’s not right. George, George—
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, can I just give you a—
HELEN CALDICOTT: That’s not right. You need to read the literature.
AMY GOODMAN: George Monbiot?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, I have been reading the literature. I have been reading the literature, and there’s a very extensive literature—
HELEN CALDICOTT: The medical literature?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Some of the medical literature.
HELEN CALDICOTT: Have you read the New York Academy of Sciences report?
GEORGE MONBIOT: I haven’t read the whole report; I’ve read part of it. But can I just say that—
HELEN CALDICOTT: You must read the whole report.
“http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/30/prescription_for_survival_a_debate_on
Up to a million people have already died from Chernobyl
Nonsense. Mobiot already referenced the debunking of that idiot claim.
and people will continue to die from cancer for virtually the rest of time.
They will, but not from Chernobyl. The I-131 is gone since over 22 years back and the Cs-137 fallout is well mapped.
You know, there’s enough plutonium in these reactors to kill everyone on earth.
A doubtfully truthful claim since the toxicity of plutonium is about that of cadmium and the “hot particle” claim is in serious doubt. Add to that the fact that plutonium is not very mobile in the environment and the whole thing falls apart.
…and so on…
You know, there’s enough plutonium in these reactors to kill everyone on earth.
There are enough nails in Sweden to kill every human being on the planet if one uses a nailgun to shot the nail into every singles persons heart.
That statement is about as valid as Caldicotts considering that she presumes one grounds the Plutonium into fine dust and distributes it evenly to every person on the planet. Something that is physically possible unless one gives every person an asthma inhaler spiked with plutonium.
I wonder how many chemicals produced in sweden where one can claim “there is enough chemical x produced at Preems refinery to kill every single person on earth”.
But then again both Per and Caldicott are immune to those comparisons since they seem to have a deep need to believe radionuclides in general, and plutonium specifically, are the most dangerous substances on earth.
Caldicott and Per are also immune to the fact that the nuclear bomb tests during the cold war very efficiently dispersed several tons of plutonium (same order of magnitude as the plutonium contained in a reactor) into the atmosphere. Despite that, I am still alive along with a couple of billions of other people on earth. Mysterious!
Plutonium release is simply not an issue when it comes to reactor accidents, not even in Chernobyl where the whole god damn thing blew apart.
Speaking of IAEA in AUGUST next year they are going to do this.
“IAEA to hold special meeting on Fukushima nuke plant accident in 2012”
“I think it will (take) quite some time before we will have all the information available”
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/85515.html
I guess you interpret that as meaning it will take a year before TEPCO/NISA tells everything, while the reason for having a meeting in a year is in fact that it will take a long time to analyse everything that happened.
It took 9 months at TMI before anyone even inserted a camera into the containment. It took over 3 years before they had a look inside the core. Before they looked into he core no one even knew how much of the core had suffered meltdown.
So there will certainly be a meeting next year about Fukushima, and the year after, and after, and after. Because there will be enough things to analyse to last years.
Nuclearpower Nothanks:
Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of “without prejudice.” It’s a legal term that means without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges. Thus, the agreement specifically states that the WHO is not giving up the right “to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting, and co-ordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects.”
As long as health is concerned, the WHO has maintained its right to investigate it. If the WHO still has its rights, how can the IAEA interfere?
Brian you obviously feel strongly about IAEAs integrity and professionality. Me and countless others including people who actually have worked for the IAEA don’t, on good grounds. And for the record without prejudice is not exactly the same thing as to prohibit.
WHO should have their own people covering the effects of nuclear power accidents etc.
Heh… Brain explained some legalese to you, and from that you start going on about his personal emotions about the IAEA?! That’s just ludicruous.
Seriously (Not) Per… your actions are bordering on laughable now. Your entire body of arguments is aimed at trying to fling dirt at anyone and everyone that does not conform to your notion that nuclear power is a The Ultimate Catastrophe™ waiting to happen. You havn’t even tried to argue against the facts and reasoning we are presenting here… you just go “well they are poopoo-heads anyway so I’m not listening” or you just plain ignore our answers or try to divert the attention elsewhere.
Your stupidity is starting to try my patience. Look, the claim that was made is that the agreement between the IAEA and the WHO has somehow resulted in “WHO’s subjugation to the IAEA.” If you would actually look at the agreement, however, you would see that this is absolutely not the case. The agreement actually says that the WHO retains the right to investigate anything related to “health work,” and both sides acknowledge this right.
It should be up to you to demonstrate where in the agreement the IAEA is allowed to interfere with the WHO’s work. Where does it say that the IAEA can stop the WHO from performing a study or publishing a document? It doesn’t.
Why are you anti-nuclear clowns all so damn ignorant? The WHO most certainly does have such people.
“Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement”
Sounds like a recipe for corruption.
The people you claim WHO has working checking radiation etc. belongs to IARC, not quite WHO’s own people. And If one searches for Fukushima on their site, the only hits one gets is scientists with Fukushima as surname.
It just means that they agree to cooperate, to better coordinate resources. You’re not against cooperation, are you? If anything, this means that the IAEA needs to consult with the WHO before launching any program related to public health.
If this is all you’ve got to prove your grand conspiracy, then you really don’t have anything.
IARC is part of the WHO. Specifically, IARC is the WHO’s cancer research center. All IARC employees are WHO employees (and UN employees as well). My wife used to work there, so I should know.
They study all potential causes of cancer, including the effects of ionizing radiation. They continue to study the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident and any adverse health effects of nuclear power workers. You can see some of the work that they have done on their website.
There’s no doubt that they will be doing follow-up studies of the Fukushima tsunami as well.