Top UCLA Doctor Denounces HBO's "Chernobyl" As Wrong And "Dangerous"

Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,006
#25
There's a diffs between exposure and contamination. Both of the examples in the quote are contamination.

If, in the former example, he was coughing up sloughed off lung then he had been inhaling contamination for long enough for tissue necrosis to have occurred. In the latter case: entirely possible that there was highly active dust was on Sashenoks hand

Just speaking as a radiation worker of 20 plus years..
Makes sense thanks.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,006
#26
If it was an HBO series on the wonders of not being vaccinated, would you have a different tone.





Hmm...

https://www.emedicinehealth.com/col...should_you_call_a_doctor_for_a_collapsed_lung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_involvement_in_the_Chernobyl_disaster#Vladimir_Shashenok




Lobbyist how? He makes the point for nuclear power based on evidence. I haven't really found him making campaign contributions...




The same doctor has consulted on a lot of other Nuclear incidents. Where those bankrolled by spies as well?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Peter_Gale
This is how he is a lobbyist -

http://environmentalprogress.org/

Environmental Progress (EP) is a research and policy organization fighting for clean power and energy justice to achieve nature and prosperity for all.
He runs this organisation. It lobbies for Nuclear Power, it is in their statement on their front page.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,006
#27
Ah, thanks. So we can discount academics who promote solar PV and other "renewables" because they're apologists for the "renewables" industry. Got it.
Possibly yes. Everyone has bias, so it needs to be assessed accordingly.

I am pro-nuclear. I believe it is the safest and most environmentally friendly way to generate electricity.

My only reservation is around the capital costs to build these plants can be exorbitant and that may not necessarily be sustainable going forward and may actually be what stops nuclear going forward.

I am so pro-nuclear, I moved to a different country to go build one. The view outside of my office, right now of a reactor under construction. 20190612_141203.jpg
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
1,362
#29
When Chernobyl happened radiobiologists celebrated. It seems morbid but the Chernobyl incident filled in the missing part of the graph. Prior to Chernobyl all the data we had about the biological effects of radiation was acquired from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and involved obscene doses. The important conclusion from Chernobyl is that a bit of radiation *might* be a good thing. The official line is that we don't take that risk.

See: Linear no-threshold model.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
1,362
#30
My only reservation is around the capital costs to build these plants can be exorbitant and that may not necessarily be sustainable going forward and may actually be what stops nuclear going forward.
A lot of the costs are incurred by regulatory constraints.

I am so pro-nuclear, I moved to a different country to go build one. The view outside of my office, right now of a reactor under construction.
Hinckley?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,592
#33
This is how he is a lobbyist -

http://environmentalprogress.org/



He runs this organisation. It lobbies for Nuclear Power, it is in their statement on their front page.
What do you mean by lobbying?
If you are using it as in the US, where EP is based, it means a very specific thing:
Lobbying in the United States describes paid activity in which special interests hire well-connected professional advocates, often lawyers, to argue for specific legislation in decision-making bodies such as the United States Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States

If you look on opensecrets, they are not mentioned. The only apparently pro-nuclear lobbyist is the Nuclear Energy Institute, and they are small fry compared to oil and gas.
https://www.nei.org/home
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000555

If by lobbyist, you mean he is presenting information to achieve a certain goal, he is no different than any other type of activist (other than making his argument based mostly on facts)
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
6,490
#35
very
Possibly yes. Everyone has bias, so it needs to be assessed accordingly.

I am pro-nuclear. I believe it is the safest and most environmentally friendly way to generate electricity.

My only reservation is around the capital costs to build these plants can be exorbitant and that may not necessarily be sustainable going forward and may actually be what stops nuclear going forward.

I am so pro-nuclear, I moved to a different country to go build one. The view outside of my office, right now of a reactor under construction. View attachment 671173
Very cool. What country be that?

Quick one. The nuclear process around the Chernobyl reactor: was it a correct summary?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,592
#36
When Chernobyl happened radiobiologists celebrated. It seems morbid but the Chernobyl incident filled in the missing part of the graph. Prior to Chernobyl all the data we had about the biological effects of radiation was acquired from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and involved obscene doses. The important conclusion from Chernobyl is that a bit of radiation *might* be a good thing. The official line is that we don't take that risk.

See: Linear no-threshold model.
I don't think the hormesis model (a little bit might be a good thing) is correct either. I rather think that a position of "we don't know" is better representative of the actual risk.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,006
#38
very


Very cool. What country be that?

Quick one. The nuclear process around the Chernobyl reactor: was it a correct summary?
I am in the UK.

It was made far more simplified so that most people could get an understanding of what went wrong. I am a bit rusty on how it went down and i am no nuclear scientists so there is that. The extent of my nuclear science training is this -

https://www.citb.co.uk/standards-an...riple-bar-nuclear-new-build-sites-e-learning/

Edit - I think he got the basics right, especially the effect of the insertion of the rods and the positive reactive effect that the graphite had, which resulted in the massive energy spike and creation of steam. The actual event was slightly more detailed, I can't remember, but I think the rods stalled halfway through the insertion? I don't recall them mentioning that?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,592
#40
With radiotherapy however, the radiation dose is not in the hormetic zone, rather it is a high dose that is restricted mostly to the tumour.
Beat me to it.

Radiotherapy would be useless if it was in the "safe" zone as the intention is to kill as many cancer cells as possible.
 
Top