Nuclear industry history of minimizing long-known dangers (i.e. Conspiracy)

Hamblin said nuclear scientists have long decried public concerns over radiation exposure and the safety of nuclear power plants. Yet he says these same issues continue to cause conflict between anti-nuclear activists, scientists and pro-nuclear advocates.

"Science without history is just ignorance," Hamblin said. "Much of the current media debate about the safety of nuclear power and radiation exposure is an echo of conflicts going on since the dawn of the nuclear era."

www.sciencedaily.com...
110405122340.htm

Guys and gals, those of us over 45 or so are probably well aware that most of what is touted as "new" and "revolutionary" is well, um...not. We are the younger siblings of the hippies - we were the nonconformists and reggae-listening new-agers...and now we are the parents, even grandparents, of the up and coming PTB.

Issues like this just get recycled over and over again. The cover-ups get perpetuated by the next generation of cover-uppers (new word?), because they are groomed by their bosses, mentors, corporate say-sos, what have you, to do just that.

I'm hoping my two kids - one of whom is an engineer working on energy cells and research - are part of a generation that finally can say, "Hey, quit that!" Because we, the so-called "hippies", waves one and two - have raised a new generation that, hopefully, can apply critical thinking skills. And when they ask us about our own world-views, and are reinforced that we believed in it, too...

maybe, just maybe, it can change.

Hope springs eternal!

And the scandal goes even deeper. EPA's RadNet radiation monitoring system is severely flawed and was not working correctly on March 11 due to lack of proper maintenance.

Even worse, the company that is contracted to do this maintenance is run by a former DOD Under Secretary.

There are two good articles on this story that hardly anyone is talking about, Spread the word and pass these links around.

RadNet or SadNet? The EPA’s Failed Radiation Detection System

EPA’s RadNet Troubles

This is a conspiracy and here's the proof.

ECRR Risk Model and radiation from Fukushima
Chris Busby
Scientific Secretary
European Committee on Radiation Risk
March 19th 2011
Radioactivity from the Fukushima Catastrophe is now reaching centres of population
like Tokyo and will appear in the USA. Authorities are downplaying the risk on the
basis of absorbed dose levels using the dose coefficients of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection the ICRP. These dose coefficients and the
ICRP radiation risk model are unsafe for this purpose. This is clear from hundreds of
research studies of the Chernobyl accident outcomes. It has also been conceded by the
editor of the ICRP risk model, Dr Jack Valentin, in a discussion with Chris Busby in
Stockholm, Sweden in April 2009. Valentin specifically stated in a videoed interview
(available on www.llrc.org and vimeo.com) that the ICRP model could not be used to
advise politicians of the health consequences of a nuclear release like the one from
Fukushima. Valentin agreed that for certain internal exposures the risk model was
insecure by 2 orders of magnitude. The CERRIE committee stated that the range of
insecurity was between 10 and members of the committee put the error at nearer to
1000, a factor which would be necessary to explain the nuclear site child leukemia
clusters. The ECRR risk model was developed for situations like Fukushima.

ECRR Risk Model and radiation from Fukushima

The ICRP radiation risk model is an outdated pile of garbage and it is still being used by the nuclear industry and governments.