Your response is a mess so I’ll try to pick through the swamp for a moment....
I’ve already pointed out that you deny the basis of scientific research and then declare yourself the winner - wasting my time again.
You are trying to conflate John Gofman with a study on Plutonium ingestion? Well I guess you had to try something because he proved that LOW LEVEL exposure to ionizing radiation causes cancer; there is no safe threshold below which exposure is safe. The National Academy of Sciences latest, state of the art research specifically states in it’s report that despite what the nuclear industry wants to believe ‘there is no safe threshold’ for exposure to ionizing radiation.
You consider Dr. Gofman a boogieman, the nuke industry does, because he had credentials, access, credibility and integrity and it scared them and scarred them and they still haven’t stopped attacking him. Yes - I think it is excellent that we just leave the credibility decision to those reading our posts.
Oh Chimera - scientists and medical people already know that radiation causes cancer and damages cells - that’s why they limit x-rays to necessity etc.
You post an anecdotal story about someone doing calculations on the back of an envelope and then you have the nerve to criticize me for "denying" scientific method? The fact that you'd try to pass off an anecdotal tale as something relevant in a technical discussion proves you wouldn't know scientific method if it came up and whapped you upside the head.
You are trying to conflate John Gofman with a study on Plutonium ingestion? Well I guess you had to try something because he proved that LOW LEVEL exposure to ionizing radiation causes cancer; there is no safe threshold below which exposure is safe. The National Academy of Sciences latest, state of the art research specifically states in it’s report that despite what the nuclear industry wants to believe ‘there is no safe threshold’ for exposure to ionizing radiation.
Hey, you brought up Gofman and the plutonium crap. I swatted it down with a reference to a verifiable study published in the open literature, not some unverifiable tale of someone scratching out calculations and then getting scared talking to someone on an airplane flight. What kind of crap is that?
It's pure, unadulterated horseshit. In fact, the BEIR-VII study effectively threw the LNT under the bus with the introduction of the dose rate effectiveness factor (DREF). The original development of the LNT concept was NEVER intended to imply that there is "no safe dose", and doing so is an example of junk science at its worst. And LNT was NEVER intended to be a vehicle for developing public policy regarding the use of nuclear energy. Doing so is even worse junk science, and I don't have time to dispute your junk science, it disputes itself.
You consider Dr. Gofman a boogieman, the nuke industry does, because he had credentials, access, credibility and integrity and it scared them and scarred them and they still haven’t stopped attacking him. Yes - I think it is excellent that we just leave the credibility decision to those reading our posts.
All you do is post conspiracy theories, that "they" are out to "get him", that "they" are afraid of him so "they" cut his (and others') funding. Tinfoil hat material, man, nothing more. Sure, let the readers decide. I'll take the word of reputable people over crackpot tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists anytime.
Oh Chimera - scientists and medical people already know that radiation causes cancer and damages cells - that’s why they limit x-rays to necessity etc.
You totally ignore the fact that there is absolutely no data at low does that proves a demonstrable harm to an organism receiving the dose, and that is the basis of the BEIR studies. Radiation protection paradigms use the LNT as a basis for developing protection strategies, because it gives a conservative result. That is the only purpose of LNT, to present an overly conservative protection regime. If there was any indication of harm at low doses then there would be NO prescriptions for diagnostic procedures using ionizing radiation, nor would there be radiation therapy protocols, no evidence of curative effects of radiation exposure, no ability of multicellular systems to resist and repair damage, exactly as they do in other instances.
So keep on posting your crap, I don't care, I don't have time anymore for your baloney. You couldn't answer my very simple challenges presented earlier. Until you do, you have no credibility, just technobabble.
Fukushima Reactor 2 RPV Temperature: 79.1 Degrees Celsius as of Noon, February 12, 2012