Please share far and wide!

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Nature Bats Last and Goddard Debunks Hormesis

Nature Bats Last

I postulate that 80% of the people here have no idea what the LNT theory says. But in a painfree way, you can get past that hump of knowledge by watching this video.

Codeshutdown feels that by relying on LNT that we understate the damage due to radiation, especially at small doses.   See below

CodeShutdown The ICRP LNT model leads to the conclusion that neither Chernobyl or Fukushima, or even an all out nuclear war will result in significant danger to human health, except for the ground zero explosive damage. Rather than a positive thing, the LNT dose model consistently leads to an underestimation of radiation damage. Linear logic, wrong logic. Why is it a good tool if it lets nuclear off the hook, which it does?
Goddard debunks Busby
Some of Goddards nice videos here on his site
Who is Goddard? He is not a scientist or epidemiologist. Hes an artist and videographer. He merely packages what he thinks is correct and mainly its mainstream. This is common for linear logic thinkers. I bet Busby and Mangano could make mince meat out of Goddard, if they were to offer a rebuttal. Sure, Caldicott and everybody has made errors. ITs unfortunate. But their depth of knowledge is large compared to Goddard, who merely packages information that is outside his sphere of expertise.
The ICRP LNT model is defective from basic principles and source data. It does no favors to the anti nuke community. Its insidious. It should be considered the enemy of the anti nuke movement

damn the LNT model
the dose
response curve — in other words, the shape of the dose response
curve is not a straight line all the way down
And the nature of this curve is such that if you
decrease it by 10, the risk per millirad goes up tenfold. If you
go down another 10, the risk keeps going up, and therefore we
have a strange situation that the weaker the radiation intensity
is, the more deadly it is, and nobody anticipated this and
present radiation standards do not believe in this and have not
accepted this because it goes against the existing regulations,
which govern all uses of radiation everywhere, and nobody wants
to touch this, although the BEIR Committee of the National
Academy called attention to it years ago in the earlier report,
BEIR III, and, so, we now find that we have a situation where we
have far greater health effects than we ever thought.
Moreover, we can tie this directly to Strontium 90
specifically because here we have the relationship which shows
the link between low birth weight and Strontium 90, and this is
human data, not extrapolated from high doses. This was gathered
by the AEC during their early years, where they gathered
skeletons from all over the world that you publicized, and then
you see that the number of babies born under-weight in New York
State is perfectly correlated with an extremely incredibly high
correlation coefficient of .96, which is totally unbelievable.


  1. We debunked Sternglass during a seminar he gave when I was in graduate school. He came off as loopy. Read a trade magazine today and looks like NRC will not rule against LNT yet their advisory panel did make it clear there was no scientific basis for using it. Thus one has to be very careful when making wide sweeping generalizations of excess cancer risks of low low radiation to large populations. I think you know that the application of LNT to estimate risk under those condituons where no data is observed is tenuous at best.

    1. Give me your top 3 debunks on sternglass

    2. The real joke on LNT is that the horizontal axis is labelled mSv

      As if that "calculation" has been done correctly.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. You know, you bring the ugly girl to the dance then you have to dance with her. And LNT is one butt-ugly girl.

    2. Kook, ugly girls need love too, that's why God invented nukists.


Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments