Yesterday, we made sure to note that Dr. Helen Caldicott was set to appear at the University of South Carolina to talk about the health effects of the incident at Fukushima -- all in an effort to point folks to more reliable sources of information on radiation and public health.
In today's edition of The State, there's a profile of Caldicott based on an interview that was done before last night's event. Curiously, the reporter didn't attend the lecture in person, but rather interviewed a local anti-nuclear activist about the event after the fact. And there I found an interesting morsel of information that was found encouraging.
In today's edition of The State, there's a profile of Caldicott based on an interview that was done before last night's event. Curiously, the reporter didn't attend the lecture in person, but rather interviewed a local anti-nuclear activist about the event after the fact. And there I found an interesting morsel of information that was found encouraging.
About 50 people, mostly students, attended the talk, said Clements, a long-time anti-nuclear activist who is now with the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. One student challenged some of Caldicott’s assertions, he said.Indeed. In fact, we're hearing that there were some rather tense moments last night, details of which will be revealed elsewhere later in the week. Good to see that Caldicott's assertions aren't going unchallenged. Please stand by.
Comments
I am not at NEI, but Dr. Gofman was one of the few anti-nukes who was honest enough to admit that natural background radiation has the same health effects that he claimed for man-made radiation. He didn't follow through, though, and advocate the immediate evacuation of Colorado and Wyoming. I suggest that you apply his radiation health effects claims to Kerala Province, India; Ramsar, Iran or Guarapari, Brazil and then figure out why there are still people alive in those places.
D. Kosloff
http://nuclearliteracy.org/caldicott-encounter/