[onlooker]

just a observation that I heard from someone who has for years been engaged in studying nuclear issues that the Hershey main factory in Pennsylvania was very near Three Mile Island. Yes the very same one that had some nuclear fallout some years back. She strongly advices not to eat anything Hershey because of radiation contamination. I am following her advice. Too bad I used to love Hershey bars.

[Cog]

just a observation that I heard from someone who has for years been engaged in studying nuclear issues that the Hershey main factory in Pennsylvania was very near Three Mile Island. Yes the very same one that had some nuclear fallout some years back. She strongly advices not to eat anything Hershey because of radiation contamination. I am following her advice. Too bad I used to love Hershey bars.

You do realize that extensive sampling of grasses and soils were done in conjunction with the TMI incident in the surrounding area and nothing was found to be dangerous to humans. Also, Hershey immediately stopped using milk from local sources the moment the TMI incident occurred just to make sure there would be no radioactivity in their chocolate. They resumed using local milk once they were assured that it was safe.

Come on folks. Its not that hard to research these things.

Here is a link so you can read more:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/ ... mful-milk/

[onlooker]

Cog, was that the same people who told everyone the air was safe after the twin towers went down. Yes many of those peeps have since died or gotten sick.

[Cog]

Can you find one published article, with some real science behind it, that would indicate that Hershey's chocolate is radioactive?

This whole topic is depressing and it made me glad that I quit being a doomer.

[onlooker]

"Why Hershey's? Because it's 13 miles from Three Mile Island, the richest dairy area in the country, where all cows go to produce the milk. The milk after TMI was so radioactive with radioactive Iodine that Hershey's powdered the milk for six weeks, until the iodine decayed away to nothing. But many other elements got out. So we don't know how many, because the radiation monitors went off-scale within the first few minutes. So no one knows how much radiation got out, and it's a huge cover-up there." I will link to entire article by Dr. Helen Caldicott who I respect very much in respect to campaigning against the nuclear industry. She is by vocation a Pediatrician but has studied the nuclear industry for many years. I guess she was affected by children's cancers. Here is link: http://www.tucradio.org/Caldicott-TUC-2011_03_31.htm

[Tanada]

"Dr." Helen Cladicott is an anti nuclear shill and has been one for the last 40 years. If she reported the sun was down at midnight I would look for myself before taking her word on it.

[onlooker]

"Dr." Helen Cladicott is an anti nuclear shill and has been one for the last 40 years. If she reported the sun was down at midnight I would look for myself before taking her word on it.

Sorry Tanada got to disagree with you on this. To me a shill is one working for or associated with some potent industry or institution. That I know of she is not connected to any in the past or currently. Plus her career vocation as a Pediatrician puts her on the front lines of genetic mutations and cancer among children. So I trust her more then pro-nuclear spokespersons. Here is her Wikpedia biography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Caldicott

[Subjectivist]

"Dr." Helen Cladicott is an anti nuclear shill and has been one for the last 40 years. If she reported the sun was down at midnight I would look for myself before taking her word on it.

Sorry Tanada got to disagree with you on this. To me a shill is one working for or associated with some potent industry or institution. That I know of she is not connected to any in the past or currently. Plus her career vocation as a Pediatrician puts her on the front lines of genetic mutations and cancer among children. So I trust her more then pro-nuclear spokespersons. Here is her Wikpedia biography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Caldicott

So what do you call people who work in advocacy giving speeches and writing books for a nice comfy standard of living?

[onlooker]

an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others. That is the definition I found for shill. More in keeping with my position then just some advocate who has happened to make money from this and who by the way is NOT "an accomplice" for any industry, institution or organization. She simple has devoted much of her life to speak out of her own volition against the nuclear industry.

[Subjectivist]

an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others. That is the definition I found for shill. More in keeping with my position then just some advocate who has happened to make money from this and who by the way is NOT "an accomplice" for any industry, institution or organization. She simple has devoted much of her life to speak out of her own volition against the nuclear industry.

So making a living as an anti nuclear advocate as her whole career is different than making your living working for the industry in what way? The people I have met who work in the industry are all working there because they believe in what they are doing. It sure isn't because they think they will get rich poisoning their friends and neighbors.

[onlooker]

The way that it is different to me is that the Nuclear Industry is just that an industry that needs and wants huge amounts of money. To this end as we see with the fossil fuel industry they will employ others to spread a pro-industry message. Dr. Caldicott is not working for a large industry, she is personally doing this so in that sense I am more prone to believe her claims about nuclear then the claims of the nuclear industry. Similar to the tobacco industry who for years lied about the dangers of cigarette smoking and were finally bought down by whistle blowers. Who you going to believe? Big business or individuals speaking out.

[KaiserJeep]

I have seen Helen Caldicott interviewed on TV at many anti-nuclear protests. When being interviewed about Chernobyl by the BBC she made an unsupported claim of "millions of radiation-caused human casualties". When pressed for supporting facts and statistics she repeated the same words over again, louder. Then she contorted her face and screamed "Millions of dead!" and walked away from the camera. Zero credibility.

[onlooker]

how does being human and having a temper tantrum maybe because she was exasperated with some dim wit make her have NO credibility?

[KaiserJeep]

There were NOT "millions of dead" at Chernobyl. There were 33 men killed by radiation fighting the burning graphite pile. Subsequently another six men died. Ten more died from various accidents including the crew of a crashed helicopter. There are NOT "millions of dead".

Since then, although so-called "experts" confidently predicted another 700,000 would die from the radioactives, the difference between death rates of those living in the exclusion zone and the rest of the country is virtually indistinguishable. Chernobyl supplied the first large data sample that cast doubts upon the "Linear No Threshold" model of radioactive casualties.

Caldicott makes statements without supporting data. That is why she has zero credibility.

As for Three Mile Island, the only radiation released was a bubble of mildly radioactive hydrogen (i.e. hydrogen containing the Tritium isotope in low concentration) vented from the pressure vessel when it was filled with water after the core melted. The containment vessel worked as designed, the gas should have been vented into storage, but was not due to human error. Zero radiation casualties. Ditto for Fukushima Dai-Ichi.

These are facts. We know the names of those killed at Chernobyl. Just as we know the names of the two TEPCO employees who walked through the contaminated water and lost three days of work due to radiation burns on the feet, and the one elderly man who was killed when he fell from the top of the newly constructed contaminated water storage tank at Fukushima Dai-ichi.

The statistics don't lie. Nuclear power is safer than any other form of power generation.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

[onlooker]

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Cherno ... yrsAC.html
This is an article not from Dr. Caldicott which clearly states the magnitude of the disaster. Note the Conclusion section which unequivocally states that studies 25 years hence are showing much more diseases then should exist among pertinent populations. Note that even more of a health problem has been non-cancerous diseases which in themselves could decrease life expectancy and contribute to chronic illness. Especially tragic are health profiles of newborns and infants.

[KaiserJeep]

Those theoretical statistics are based entirely upon an obsolete model of radiation exposure called the LNT (Linear No Threshold) model. This has been demonstrated - by the very lack of real casualties and cancers at Chernobyl - to be an inaccurate model.

The actual statistics for deaths and cancers do not differ noticeably from the contaminated areas and the rest of the country.

LNT unfortunately is the official model used by most countries to regulate nuclear sites. It was created in the 1950's and was never based on any real data, but it was the only model available. Now after Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima Dai-ichi, we have data and it does not match LNT.

For more in depth discussion, I refer you to the Fukushima Dai-ichi discussion thread that oh-so-inaccurately calls it a "continuing catastrophe"

http://peakoil.com/forums/fukushima-the-continuing-catastrophe-t69870.html?hilit=Fukushima

[onlooker]

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... -GM-Foods/
http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/n ... 711012012/
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/ma ... /PT.5.8124
I provide these three links, the first two cite the questionable positions taken by American Association for the Advancement of Science – Then the final link is about dueling studies one coming from this same AAAS and the other from an international group of scientists. AAAS is publishing this study discrediting the Linear No threshold model while the other study backs it. Again who do you wish to believe, big organizations or independent experts who take opposing views. I for one have already seen to many examples of governments and corporations trying to fool people all in the name it seems of the bottom line-profit. I am not so naive and foolish now to believe what I am told to believe. But everyone is free to believe what they want.

[Outcast_Searcher]

just a observation that I heard from someone who has for years been engaged in studying nuclear issues that the Hershey main factory in Pennsylvania was very near Three Mile Island. Yes the very same one that had some nuclear fallout some years back. She strongly advices not to eat anything Hershey because of radiation contamination. I am following her advice. Too bad I used to love Hershey bars.

If you're going to follow her advice, you may as well wear a tinfoil hat. It will do you just as much good. The more fact free stuff like this you post, the less credibility you have.

[onlooker]

Excuse me, she has studied nuclear issues for 40 plus years and she is by vocation a Pediatrician, so why would believing her version of the danger of nuclear be regarded as tinfoil. Just because you wish to believe the establishment ie. MSM and various organization and people probably connected to and shilling for the nuclear industry does not mean we all are so gullible. Time to wake up OS and realize you have been had by powerful interests who we all have been taught to listen too and believe.
By the way you are just helping them by repeating the tiresome mantra that those who differ in opinion must be tinfoil or conspiracy theorists.

[Tanada]

Excuse me, she has studied nuclear issues for 40 plus years and she is by vocation a Pediatrician, so why would believing her version of the danger of nuclear be regarded as tinfoil. Just because you wish to believe the establishment ie. MSM and various organization and people probably connected to and shilling for the nuclear industry does not mean we all are so gullible. Time to wake up OS and realize you have been had by powerful interests who we all have been taught to listen too and believe.
By the way you are just helping them by repeating the tiresome mantra that those who differ in opinion must be tinfoil or conspiracy theorists.

I put it to you this way Onlooker, I believe in Global Warming because I learned about how energy moves around in Physics class way back when in college. I also believe in radiation effects on the human body because of the science of what radiation does and how it does it. I can no more believe that Radiation is the super boogeyman that does what Hollywood says it does than I can believe the movie The Day After Tomorrow is a scientific documentary. The real world works by rules and it doesn't matter if you believe a Creator designed those rules or if you think random fluctuations in the Big Bang created those rules, either way the rules exist and science can figure out what those rules are and how they work.

Read science, not propaganda and you will get a lot further. LNT proponents like Helen Cladicot are spewing propaganda, not science. She is no more valid in her beliefs than Anthony Watts is in his, and for the very same reason. Both use scientific terminology combined with emotional appeal. Using terminology is not science, using math, logic, and test results is real science.