The Racism of Greenies
and the truth that Green Power has killed at least magnitudes more than Chernobyl
#5 The Irrational World Blog 2011

The Racism of Greenies and Left Wingers
"ugh, of course black people they are all dirty",
"ugh, of course Muslims are all terrorists",
"ugh, of course all women are useless at parking",
"ugh, of course big companies they are all evil ",
"ugh, of course all nuclear is dangerous",
"ugh, of course all GM is a disaster",
"ugh, of course it's the Americans that is the big problem",

- The first 3 statements are quite rightly regarded by society as outrageous and unacceptable : people have the right to be treated as individuals not be discriminated against cos they belong to a particular group... but hang on a moment isn't that what Greenies and Left Wingers do in the following 4 statements ..yet you hear them all the time at meetings they attend.

- Many Greenies seem often like racists both have simplistic emotion generations rather than true analysis .."ugh Nuclear power, GMOs, but green energy is lovely", They have no real understanding of the ways radiation works. Like, because it's mostly bad at penetrating material you could live on top of it sealed in glass . However if somehow it came in gaseous or powder form it would be an entirely different matter as you could breathe it in and then there is a possibility it could penetrate a cell wall and effect the DNA. With that particular problem where it can build up in the thyroid. Similarly there can be a problem with liquids, when fuel rods are cooled in water, radioactive powder would get dissolved in it so if the water entered animals it could enter the food chain and enter human cells that way. However if the water is properly contained and particles filtered out, then it becomes safe. Yes some particles may escape, but not in concentrations much more that natural levels.

Greenies who won’t eat their greens - It's like when your children refuse to eat there greens .. An irrational prejudice based on emo- tion
- ..the adults with greater maturity understand what is good for the child more than the child itself .. the scientists understand better than Greenies who won't respect science.

- I have to thank Dr Karl for explaining it all clearly on the radio
1. he explained the perspective .. actual deaths are onlways hudreds of times smaller than the maximum disaster number the general public think it is.. Unbelievable but listen to the experts explaining why Fukushima manic is completely unjustified REALLY LISTEN TO THIS
- The difference between Radiation and radioactive particles "radioactive and radiation are used interchangeably by activists and the media even though they are very very different"
: Radiation : most radiation is safe cos it gets stopped by a small amount of material like a piece of paper or 2cm of air.
- radioactive particles carry radiation and are mostly harmless to touch, but the danger is when you breathe or eat them, because then the radiation emitted doesn't have to penetrate a material like skin or a piece of paper, but rather can effect internal cells over a prolonged peiod of time. A medical treatment is 50 times the killer dose, but is carefully directed to only kill the cancer cells etc.

- Without this kind of perspective it's easy for people to latch onto the highest number they hear and assume the worst .. remember there have been no deaths so far due to radiation in the long term some people will be effected in a random way by cancer later in their lives, but the risk is much smaller for the same population for things such as car and bicycle accidents.

An avalanche of cranky stories from activists and lazy journalists confuse the public.

A politician and newspapers picked up on a clearly ridiculous story that Fukushima killed babies in America

- no wonder the public is confused there continue to be hysterical reports in the press ..with their sloppy maths on plain sight "oops I was only out by a factor of 1000" why can't they get somebody who understands maths to help the "journalists" ... the public believe air travel is so dangerous, but can't get it into their heads they are really more likely to die tripping up whilst walking walking.

... the truth of nuclear risk isn't that complex, but the public are confused by this avalanche of cranky stories

Public understanding of risk
"All we have to fear is fear itself, not the fearmongers who spread it" - "Candles Kill Many More Than Nuclear Power"

- e.g 1 "but it's the catastrophe risk" .. well in that case"green energy" wins hands down Banqiao Dam The dam failure killed an estimated August 1975 150,000 casualties (Britannica )

- e.g 2 The Chinese government incompetence caused 1million to be HIV positive

- why is a few deaths from nuclear unacceptable when cars do kill 1.25m each year ?

- "I recall a few years ago 4 workers getting killed in a biogas plant here in northern Germany. Yet, the incident went practically unreported in the media. Imagine if these four workers had been killed in a nuclear plant." Yes Yes where is the headline "4 Workers killed It's the End For Biogas" ?

public understanding of risk
- accidental death rate in hospital is twice that of danger for soldier in Afghanistan

- Professor David Spiegelhalter: Communicating risk and uncertainty 1hr video

- It's incredible that they bother to teach us difficult maths like differention in school, but fail to teach the counter intuitive maths of large numbers, unpredicatability and risk ..For God's sake teach the public the maths of risk

Report saying green energy kills far more people than nuclear
- "ban nuclear power cos its dangerous !" ... but shouldn't they ban things which are more dangerous ?

- rank these in terms of deaths per year in the US ...PLACE THE MOUSEOVER XX TO SEE THE ANSWER

a) Nuclear power plants – XX US deaths per year
b) Candles - XX
c) Bicycles 1995 - XX
d) Agriculture - XX
e) Motorcycles – XX
f) Car Phones 2002 - XX
g) Alcohol – XX
h) Tobacco – XX
i) Roller skates - XX
j) Window blind cords – XX
k) Drawstring hoods – XX
l) Dog Bites – XX
m) Skiing deaths – XX ..........................h, g, f, e,d, c, b, m, l, k, j, i, a

So next : Fact Checking

After the Panic Stories
The truth of that Chernobyl killed few people and Fukushima and 3 Mile island none

- "All we have to fear is fear itself, not the fearmongers who spread it" - "Candles Kill Many More Than Nuclear Power"

- Fukushima-is-not-Chernobyl,-wind-power-causes-more-deaths

- Chernobyl killed for sure at least 37 people (wikipedia) , but the figures going into 10s of thousands shouldn't be worried about ..OK I'll explain it each year in Europe there have been 200 extra cancer deaths per year occuring mainly at the end of the persons natural life thats 4000 deaths mostly at the end of the persons natural life. ..that's not half a million Newspapers should be made to put a perspective warning next to every amazing figure in this case remember the extra radiation from granite rock in SW England 1,000 cancer deaths a year.

- Fukushima "As of September 2011, there were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures. Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures cannot be ruled out, but, according to one expert, might be in the order of 100 cases" The Radiation Effects Research Foundation
- yes there will be an increase in cancer, but the typical thyroid cancer was treatable and other cancers won't take tens of years to harm the body typically effecting people at the end of their natural life

- Some people decided to fly out of Tokyo to avoid possible radiation from Fukushima thereby giving themselves a much higher dose of radiation cos the notmal natural radiation in a flight is much more than that due to Fukushima.

- follow the money : will Greenpeace be making millions from compensation for all the deaths ?, no cos the reality never matches up to their disaster hype..

I think there is definite scope to kill all this anti-nuclear hype by offering a half million dollar compensation to every person under 50 years old killed by manmade radiation in a western country.

Hiroshima : The Radiation Effects Research Foundation 's website concludes that the number of excess deaths among 50,000 survivors who got a severe dose of radiation comes to only a few hundred, and certainly not as many as a thousand." ..Their page about Fukushima

- My god a sensible report on BBC about radiation ... ah it's cos he's not a journalist Professor Wade Allison, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Oxford and author of ‘Radiation and Reason

Dr Karls nuclear prog

In contrast, few in the west of England seem concerned at the natural radiation they are exposed to from the earth in the form of the gas radon, even though it is estimated to lead to more than 1,000 cancer deaths a year in this country. excellent article

- There is an article on deaths per kilowat hour shows of course nuclear is one of the safest, but coal cos of normal dust and radioactive dust is 1000 times worse

- There is a strange effect that nuclear workers tend to have lower cancers than the comparible normal population .. perhaps due to activity or perhaps due to a positive effect on small does of radiation or something else.

- Don't Uranium miners die ? - stop . Remember if you closed nuclear and replace it with solar you'd have to cover million of roofs to match a nuclear power station.. and since roof work is very dangerous many more deaths would be recorded This site compares deaths per MW of electricity generated

- In comparison with coal even if uranium mining was incredibly dangerous you'd still lose many times more live days in a coal mine as you need 1000 times more coal to generate the same amount of electricity.. 50 coal miners die per year in America and 2500 in China.
- And don't forget for wind you have to consider all the miners who die in the operation to get all the material and energy in it's construction.
- Although activist sites sometimes mention cancer for Uranium miners ... which does seem to be true. It's perfectly plausible that pre 1995 safety controls weren't what they should be and 20 years of exposure to radioactive particles in your lungs should have effect, but again when put in perspective it's not bad. 20 years in other mining without proper safety gives you a higher than normal chance of cancer. Studies refer to Narajo people pre 1995. ..but remember correlation doesn't establish effect establish cause and effect you'd need a much larger sample size and proper control group to give proper risk statistics e.g. Uranium miners lose an average of 100 days of life compared to a similar group of coal miners It's not like 50% of 40 year old miners who have cancer. The killer statistic is that cos in terms of power generation you need far more coal than uranium for the same power, the number of live days lost due to coal mining, and probably wind farm assembly is far more. ..remember in China coal mines

- Wow BBC Bang GTT gives some real science numbers about nuclear power from nuclear Scientist Gerry Thomas ... 20 minutes into the prog ..then I find months ago in all the hye C4 reported the same story Japan: "Nuclear panic is 'over-reaction' say scientists - Channel 4 News

a Stew Green Opinion
NEXT -->