Re: 3 items of interest

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

on 7/7/02 9:04 PM, Norman Cohen at ncohen12@comcast.net wrote:



>> HI Jim

> 

> Just a clarification that Dr. K. from the know_nukes list is NOT an

> anti-nuker. And that I posted these items because they looked interesting, not

> to advance any particular point of view. If I had, I'd added some of my own

> comments.



Comments based on facts and knowledge always help, even if they're wrong,

they lead to understanding and constructive discussion. But opinions and

misinformation are just a waste of time. Better to do something useful.



> I never realized I was a shill for the NRC and the rest of those alphabet

> agencies. Wonder why I never see a paycheck from any of them??? ;-)



Really talking about the organizations and leaders. Grants, studies,

appointments, keeps the coffers supplied. Of course, if they can "stimulate

volunteers" to believe the fraud, at very little cost, so much the better

(for them, despite the cost to real people trying to live honesty,

hard-working lives to pay the piper, and to the detriment and conflict in

society as a whole. But the rich get richer, and politicized science pays.)



As you know over the years, I'm not concerned about the people who don't

understand, nor those who see "letters to the editor" as relevant to

addressing a problem that's at much deeper and more committed level of

fraud.  It's the self-serving cabal that feeds the disinformation that you

simplistically believe/use to help them keep the political campaign to base

policy on fraudulent facts that are the enemy that must be addressed.



Media and politicians live in a world that rewards falsehood as "sound

bites" to be digested by the gullible. "Scientists" and bureaucrats do not

have the same ability to live without any consequences on such fraud without

some consequences for the misconduct and illegal actions from intentionally

producing the fraudulent results that we are currently living by the $100s

of billions being "thrown down the rat hole." But as Ted Rockwell (Admiral

Rickover's Technical Director during the development of the Navy Nuclear

program, where being rigorously honest about science and facts meant the

real lives of real people), the $100s billions don't just go down some rat

hole, they really go into some rat's pocket.  (As I said to an anti group

here, where their efforts led to $100 million more going to the utilities,

from their neighbors' electric bills, "maybe you should request a "finder's

fee." As always, the utility didn't fight them, or present data that would

have put the case in context. Instead, it was like Bre'r Rabbit begging

Bre'r Fox: "Don't throw me in that briar patch, Bre'r Fox, PLEASE don't

throw me in that briar patch!" :-)



Like, when have you heard anything from PSE&G telling the truth about the

extremely low doses and the known (lack of) health effects in real people

that are exposed to variations in background radiation over of range of more

than a factor of 100 (say 60 mrem to >>6,000 mrem per year), while Yucca

Mountain has a (high cost) drinking water limit of 4 (FOUR) mrem (by the

EPA, DOE, NRC cabal) in this ocean of natural radioactivity?



And the COST of YM, specifically the gold-plated, highly-profitable, waste

packages, is driven by 4 mrem that could happen to someone who drank well

water 100s of thousands of years from now in just the wrong place on the

planet. 



The utilities also pretend it's their money being used for YM. It's a direct

charge on you electric bill. If anything, they make money on processing this

tax for the Feds. 



There's no incentive for DOE to get the job done. With a delay, more $100s

millions will be spent on fuel storage. But we can't make that "long-term"

or the costs of transportation (casts and political/anti-nuke battles) won't

be getting into some other rats' pockets, with states lining up for the Fed

funds to track and "monitor" this great hazard (while the solid, aged fuel

in its casks, and the very few shipments, has much less hazard than the

diesel fuel in the tanks of the trucks/trains - but they don't say that

either since someone may wonder why we're doing such a stupid thing.  You

can see shy you are needed to keep the political initiative and

disinformation campaign going? You are right to ask "where's my cut!?"

Consider that if/when your campaign makes them spend millions at the power

plant, which will be charged to the electric bills of all of your neighbors,

why shouldn't you get a cut? Why should you be the only one NOT getting a

cut in this campaign to defraud your community of $ millions!?  :-)



When I worked in nuclear power in the '70s, it was clear all the time that

spending more $$ on nuclear power plants was a money-maker for "everybody"

except the ratepayer who got stuck with the charges in the ratebase. And if

"the AEC said so" the state regulatory agency couldn't say "No." Instead of

fighting a totally unnecessary $25 million expenditure, the response was

"call it pollution control equipment when you put it in the ratebase, we get

a higher rate of return on that from the ratepayers than if it's power

generation equipment. Any unnecessary overhead costs were avoided! If good

management would save plant construction costs, it would be taking money

from the stockholders to save money for the ratepayers. What kind of

rational incentive is that!? Not.



So; the anti's, the media, and the politicians are NOT the problem. But

claiming that they are is the fig leaf that the leaders of the rad is bad

campaign hide behind. After all, no one in their right mind would claim that

the trivial noise-level doses from atomic weapons in the 50s-60s (outside

immediate downwind areas) would add any "risk" to people getting large

variations in radiation doses from natural background and medical uses. But

disinformation by the establishment, instigating anti-war/weapons activists

around this disinformation, to be misrepresented by officialdom, to feed

ignorant and gullible politicians and media who have no standards except

"what sells" (as a NYT journalist said about reporting data that he knew to

be fraudulent about the risks of trivial environmental contamination, "I

won't tell you how to do nuclear physics, and you won't tell me how to do

journalism" in his ability to get a story on the front page).



I figure it's much more likely you, like many 'activists' before you, will

begin to realize the fraud on these matters by many self-serving interests,

who are lying to you for you to repeat to the media and politicians, and

because you don't have a career commitment to it, will have to decide to

walk away from the dishonesty at some point. I have no such hope for most of

the people who know the fraud they produce with full knowledge and

commitment to extract funds from the ratepayer and taxpayer.



Note also that you must do a lot of the public outreach and political

rhetoric on behalf of these guys. Most know when they are providing

disinformation. If/when they do that in front of knowledgeable people, as

they have done with us, they get caught in their carefully-crafted

misrepresents. When they get you to say something equivalent, you have no

official standing to be held accountable, and you don't know enough to know

you've been found out, so you just blast ahead carrying their disinformation

anyway in whatever erroneous form it comes out (just louder, getting more

media/political attention in the process). And they don't even have to pay

you. But if you're really good and get a following, you can achieve success

by being invited to "participate" in various workshops and committees (where

you'll be carefully evaluated for any weaknesses in your commitment to

blindly carry their water) which can lead to grants and other rewards.



Note also most people in this (nuclear/radiation) business have essentially

no knowledge of the underlying science and the intentional disinformation

being promulgated, and when issues like Chernobyl and other cases of the

plain fraud surface they have to deny it because it conflicts with their

training. This includes even M.D.s who are trained like mechanics, not

scientists (when such scientists training is "good," but it is not in this

subject - like DOE giving an LNT advocate $5 million to conduct a program to

train the next generation of radiation biologists). So they accept the

"given wisdom" of the pharmaceutically-driven medical establishment, e.g.,

the textbooks, hospitals, advertising, the Journal of the American Medical

Association, etc., so they must convince themselves that this must not be

true, and that they "just don't have enough time to look into it

personally." 



A senior radiation biologist (among other things) told me in 1978 that "the

best and the brightest don't stay in radiation biology, because they see

what funding pressure is to produce politically acceptable results. As a

senior NRC person said (when we there showing an NRC advisory committee why

NCRP would not produce an honest report in response to NRC's funding for an

assessment of the LNT in March 1996, and on the meeting transcript,

paraphrasing) "at the lab [Oak Ridge] in 1958 cells were studied with

potassium from which the radioactive radionuclide had been removed [in the

calutrons, machines used to centrifuge elements for isotopic separation] the

cells looked ok but didn't function, and it was the LNT paradigm that kept

this research from being published."



His work was also suppressed in many instances. Following a meeting on

radiation health effects to be used in nuclear power environmental impact

statements, that included then working senior AEC and senior Oak Ridge

persons (along with a former senior AEC official and people involved with

early research) the discussion led to "putting people to work doing other

things," etc. when their scientific interests led them to want to pursue the

beneficial effects of low-dose radiation (factually known and confirmed in

thousands of experiments and medical applications since 1896, and terminated

in science when pharmaceutical interests and profits were pushed starting in

the mid-1930s). 



But another case happened when the AEC needed to respond to NEPA (initiated

by Congress and Nixon in 1969) and the 1972 court determination that they

had not done an adequate job with NEPA-required EIS's for nuclear power

plant EIS's. This included the matter of very low doses. The licensing side

of AEC initiated a study of the health effects of the US population as a

function of the variation in background radiation doses. (It is virtually

certain that the research side of the AEC that would have clearly known the

expected result, after all they had been suppressing such data since during

the Manhattan project when many initial studies that did have the

appropriate very-low doses showed health benefits and longer life spans with

low-doses - internal, i.e., ingestion/inhalation, and external, i.e., x-rays

and gamma-rays.)



His preliminary 1973 report A summary on our web site) reported the

consistently lower cancer rates in states that had higher background levels

(with rigorous analysis, including the then new use of Monte Carlo

analysis). But the radiation background data was limited to only

state-aggregate average doses recently produced by EPA. Cancer and other

data was very good by county. So the plan, following this preliminary

assessment, was to get better background radiation data by county, which

would have much more extreme variations and much more effective correlation

with health and demographic data by county.



However, in 1973 the study was killed by the AEC. It was not considered by

ERDA/DOE and NRC. A 1976 IAEA scientific proceedings on natural radiation

background data and health effects was the only time that he could get the

results published (in a brief form). It was promptly buried by the rad

protectionist club.  The study of the "radium dial painters" had the same

result. Get "wrong results," the program gets killed. Of course the opposite

is even more true: Get the "right results," no matter how, is a ticket for

the Fed agencies to give you, no matter how deceitful or inept, a department

chairmanship at a prestigious university, and other lucrative and powerful

appointments and honors.



Of course, as with Norm Frigerio, the real pressure comes when real people

see real risks to their jobs and careers for questioning the regulatory and

biased-science funded results, and the work that their

companies/organizations (esp. the national laboratories) get from the $100s

billions going to the rats' pockets.



> Peace,

> 

> Norm





Regards, Jim

 



> Mucherheide wrote:

> 

>> We're in the transition from "laugh at you" to "fight you." Winning will be

>> earlier rather than later. The anti-nukes are just shills and puppets for

>> the political initiatives of the ICRP/NCRP/EPA/DOE/NRC et al.

>> 

>> Regards, Jim Muckerheide

> 

> --

> Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave.,

> Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537;  ncohen12@comcast.net  UNPLUG

> SALEM WEBSITE:  http://www.unplugsalem.org/  COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE

> WEBSITE:  http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org   The Coalition for Peace

> and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.

> "First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then you

> win. (Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?"  (Mary Chapin Carpenter)

> 

> 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/