tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post4277646277949332906..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: Why Arnie Gundersen’s Claims on Low Level Radioactive Waste Are BafflingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-44241011370208156542012-06-06T09:09:20.706-04:002012-06-06T09:09:20.706-04:00Anonymous - No. As the reports from the World Heal...Anonymous - No. As the reports from the World Health Organization have clearly shown — citing numerous sources in the <i>respected</i>, peer-reviewed scientific literature — <b>irrational fear</b> of low level radiation from Chernobyl has lead to massive public health problems. These problems have manifested themselves as depression, alcoholism, and other types of substance abuse.<br /><br />Sadly, this irrational fear has been exacerbated, and even actively promoted, by corrupt governments hoping for additional international aid money and corrupt organizations, such as Greenpeace and the various "Green" parties, who promote this fear for their own ideological and political reasons.Brian Mayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962229896535398120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-83835828369367848572012-06-06T07:13:21.159-04:002012-06-06T07:13:21.159-04:00This blog would be hilarious if it wasn`t so sad. ...This blog would be hilarious if it wasn`t so sad. You ignore the dozens of papers and studies that show low level radiation of Chernobyl has lead to massive public health problems. You promote an industry that is a ridiculous monster. Look up what happened in Kiev then and now, at the thousands of sick children. How can you all ignore the thousands of dead in that area? Or the hundreds of thousands of children moving back into the communities around Fukushima?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-91855430433777600402012-04-01T10:49:00.944-04:002012-04-01T10:49:00.944-04:00Are you kidding? You want to give Gundersen and Ca...Are you kidding? You want to give Gundersen and Caldicott a boost in publicity <i>and</i> make martyrs out of them in one badly miscalculated stroke?<br /><br />Forget about any ideas of "bleeding them of funds" this way. The increased attention that they would get would surely result in increased book sales for Ms. Caldicott and increased business for Fairewinds (Gundersen's gun-for-hire PR firm) that would more than offset any legal costs.<br /><br />Don't forget that they make their money <i>selling</i> their message of lies and misinformation. The last thing that you want to do is to help promote their product.Brian Mayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962229896535398120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-86287450485302182232012-04-01T09:48:50.885-04:002012-04-01T09:48:50.885-04:00So…. Why doesn’t the NEI or a plant or company sla...So…. Why doesn’t the NEI or a plant or company slandered or libeled by the Gundersens and Caldicotts just haul them into court and demand they either prove their statements or retract them, with damages pending if they can’t or don’t?<br /><br />I’m serious – use the legal system to bleed them of funds, just as they try to increase the cost of nuclear by litigation at every opportunity.Atomikrabbithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378221046939835905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-1931310486881694992012-03-31T10:46:54.854-04:002012-03-31T10:46:54.854-04:00Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, trad...Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed.Atomikrabbithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378221046939835905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-51359871822693235172012-03-29T13:53:37.250-04:002012-03-29T13:53:37.250-04:00Gundersen is a professional fear-monger. That is ...Gundersen is a professional fear-monger. That is literal ... he earns a living by selling fear. Why he gets any respect is sad/mysterious. Rod Adams has done a fair amount of digging on Gundersen's 'credentials' ... it's appalling (read by going to atomic insights and searching Gundersen).SteveK9noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-46909117983551854022012-03-29T05:28:39.429-04:002012-03-29T05:28:39.429-04:00What REALLY gets to me is how Arnie (and most anti...What REALLY gets to me is how Arnie (and most anti-nukers) get away with being virtually totally unchallenged by any critical reporters, much less pro-nuke professionals, who seem to roll out a red carpet to these media darlings while sealing pro-nuke opinions in the closet. A nuclear truth squad ought be Arnie's back like white on rice before they spread their poison. How about a YouTube video rebutting this, NEI and ANS??<br /><br />James Greenidgejimwghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06964988758509076556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-20250719859029207862012-03-28T21:00:40.454-04:002012-03-28T21:00:40.454-04:00I haven't read any articles on this or seen th...I haven't read any articles on this or seen the Gunderson videos. My understanding is that the classification of low level radioactive waste (LLRW) is purely regulatory. The term is used in US law to determine acceptable disposal locations for material produced by licensees of the NRC or agreement states. Only licensees can produce LLRW. In theory, a non-licensee could produce extremely radioactive material (i.e. many orders of magnitude more radioactive than any of the soil around Fukushima) which could not be classified as LLRW. If the Fukushima accident had happened in the US, then anything contaminated by radionuclides of plant origin would be considered LLRW. The level of radioactivity has almost no meaning in the context of LLRW. Any articles or claims using this language are meaningless and should be scorned for lack of honesty.kickbundlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951990495664049183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-63334611619860490562012-03-28T16:38:31.034-04:002012-03-28T16:38:31.034-04:00I also have a question about the report that Mr. G...I also have a question about the report that Mr. Gunderson "took the samples in Japan." This seems to imply that he personally collected the samples and then brought them back to the US for analysis. If he thought there was even the slightest possibility that they reached the criteria for rad waste, what was he thinking to carry this material with him on commercial transportation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com