Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,705 posts)
11. Grasping at straws.
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 07:59 AM
Mar 2013

Surely you can do better than a German pediatrician on the board of an anti-nuke organization falsely criticizing a different assessment?

written mainly by the IAEA and collaborating nuclear institutions

The actual report from the OP lists 16 physicians from the WHO and 21 physicians from (among others):

Japan's National Institute of Radiological Sciences
Germany's Federal Office of Radiation Protection
Switzerland's Federal Office of Public Health
The UK's Health Protection Agency
Japan's Radiation Effects Research Foundation
The CDC
Frances's Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire
The National Cancer Institute (US)
The EPA
Finaland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
The Russian Federation's Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine
And the Universities of Utah, Tampere, Wurzburg, Manchester, Bremen and Indiana University.

But by all means... let's listen instead to a pediatrician with no relevant expertise from Helen Caldicott's anti-nuke crusaders. That's where we'll find reality.


And on further review - the earlier piece (the one his reply actually relates to)... only three of the forty people involved were from the IAEA and only one of them was part of the nine primary contributors.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Cancer risk 70% higher fo...»Reply #11