Archives for posts with tag: false

– – – – For kilder og henvisninger:
– – – – Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.
___________________________________________________________________________
Den oppustede frygt for det ukendte kan have katastrofale konsekvenser.
Frygten for bivirkninger har reduceret antallet af vaccinationer med HPV-vaccinen.
Dette kom frem på Videnskab.dk der skriver:
“Mediernes dækning af HPV-vaccinen kan blive skyld i over 100 kræfttilfælde”.
ELLER
“Piger vil få kræft på grund af journalisters ønske om at fortælle noget rædselsvækkende.”

På verdensplan har man i årevis været tæt på at udrydde polio.
MEN
I Nigeria og Afghanistan forhindrer religiøse fanatikere at vi kan nå målet.

Og nu, i lange tider, har en rædselsvækkende frygt for alt med atom godt i gang med at føre verden ind i en uhelbredelig klimakatastrofe.

Hvem kom med denne frygt?
– – – Kullobbyen – måske også det gamle Sovjet.
Hvem fastholder denne frygt?
– – – Vindlobbyen og journalister.
– – – Godt hjulpet af Greenpeace og den nu heden-gangende OOA
Desværre må det konstateres at den Danske befolkning er forblændet af dygtige løgne.

Du kan finde dokumentation min påstand om usande ”oplysninger”
Både dem fra Greenpeace og fra OOA.
Begge disse organisationer skriver normalt så uklart og så rodet at det er svært at påpege faktuelle fejl.
Alligevel kan den opmærksomme læser ikke undgå at se hvorledes deres troværdighed kan ligge på et meget lille sted.
Greenpeaces troværdighed er en myte: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-p2
Myten om Plutonium: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1VN

Fra World Nuclear citeres: (Oversættelse)
Industrien kan acceptere, at nogle mennesker vil have forskellige synspunkter om kerne-kraft og uran.
Industrien respekterer disse synspunkter.
Men når det viser sig at være ensidigt, eller er på grundlag af løgn og fordrejet fremstilling vil denne accept og respekt fortabes.

Anti-vaccine Italien 2918
Antivaccine-tosser har taget magten i Italien.
Fra Jyllands-Posten
Fakta og videnskab er under angreb fra den yderste højrefløj.

Fra en lang og grundig (norsk) e-bog
Radon, lung cancer and the LNT model
(52 sider) citeres:

Det fikk vi klart demonstrert etter Tsjernobylulykken da en rekke land i Vest-Europa introduserte maksimalverdier for innholdet av Cs-137 i matvarer.
Her i Norge har vi til nå brukt mer enn 500 millioner kroner med det formål å redusere en stråledose som akkumulert over 50 år er av størrelsesorden 1 mSv.
Fra et strålebiologisk synspunkt er dette fullstendig bortkastede penger.
Men langt alvorligere enn de penger som er kastet bort, er at restriksjoner av denne art har ført til en redsel for stråling hos en hel generasjon av mennesker.
Det er nok en større belastning for befolkningen enn det økonomiske.

Vaccinemodstand 1885

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/viden/kroppen/vaccinemodstand-er-en-gammel-ide-i-1885-demonstrerede-tusinder-friheden-til?SNSubscribed=true

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
__________________________________________________________________________
Now and then we see alarming reports concerning an imminent danger that terrorists will gather radioactive material and use conventional explosives to spread it over a large area, which then will be uninhabitable for a long time.
Apparently nobody has taken the trouble to go into details, except for example to tell:

“They [Isis] are working on a series of attacks with radioactive substance.
A ‘radioactive tsunami’ of Europe which would remove millions of people from the earth.
The largest religious Holocaust the world has seen. “

Source: Jürgen Todenhöfe, who, according Den Korte Avis, has been “voluntary prisoner “for ten days by Isis.
Apparently in order to disclose confidential, but probably carefully selected, “information”.

BUT
Although such a radioactive tsunami has been mentioned many times, it is not possible.

Long before this potential terrorist has collected just 1% of the required radioactive material, he will die a miserable, but not that glorious death from acute radiation sickness.

Thus, this aspiring terrorist be the first and probably the only victim.

Of course there are several reports that radioactive material has been stolen or “lost” and that it comes to eg 50 kg uranium.
Although uranium is not the best material for a dirty bomb, yes it sounds rather deterrent.
If there is to be made more than panic, then there will be need for much more than one ‘can just’ find in hospitals and the like.

Allow me to raise a number of questions, to which I unfortunately can not provide complete answers to – but better than most.

But first:
The many confusing units is a recurring challenge.
Therefore:
Milli Sievert is the unit for biological effects of ionizing (radioactive) radiation.
There has never been found injuries after brief irradiation less than 100 mSv
If the exposure is spread over a longer time, the damage will be noticeably reduced.
500 mSv will cause minor symptoms of acute radiation sickness, but will not call for shorter lifespans.
500 mSv is 100 times the normally permitted.
3,500 mSv will cause half of the irradiated to die and that the survivors will have an average life span three years less than the general population.

Bq Becquerel is a radioactive decay per second and is a very small unit.
We all carry around with some 4,500 Bq from natural sources.

Unfortunately, there is no clear relationship between mSv and Bq

Alpha and beta radiation can cause severe burns – as in severe sunburn.
But otherwise, it will only be dangerous if the radioactive material is eaten or inhaled.
Neutron radiation causes severe radiation damage, but will be found only in connection with a nuclear bomb explosion.
A dirty bomb must thus be based on substances emitting gamma radiation.
.
BUT THEN

How dangerous is ionizing (radioactive) radiation?

  • It is known that populations have lived for generations in areas with fairly high natural radioactivity.
    Far more than the “permissible”.
    However, without the injury has taken place.
    Most pronounced is the area around Ramsar in Pakistan.
    Over 200 mSv/year, mostly from radon.
  • According to The Guardian “Return Movers” (‘babushkas’) live in areas near Chernobyl designated as “Strictly Controlled”.
    Here, the contamination exceeds 555 kBq/m^2
    Number is not stated. But elsewhere is mentioned 270,000, who apparently include people who have moved to areas with only
    37 kBq/m^2

I reject numerous, obvious forgeries atrocity stories which probably comes from Greenpeace or stooges.

  • For political reasons there has been set unrealistically low values ​​for permissible radiation. Both at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
  • But now to the point.
    How much does it take to make a large area uninhabitable?

    And how many kg / ton material will be needed?
    Here I am answer guilty. But it will need much more than a terrorist
    ‘so just’ find in hospitals and the like.
    Of course, you need much more than 555 kBq/m^2
    Presumably tenfold.
    If you want to inflict damage before people will have time to flee – then there will be need for even much more.
    My guess is that it will be necessary to break through the
    two-meter-thick reactor containment and collect more than a ton radioactive fuel.

But now comes the real question:

How should this terrorists protect themselves from radiation while this radioactive material assembled and before it has been spread out?

  • Although you see pictures of “green activists”, wearing white suit with breathing apparatus, then these very large amounts of radioactive material has to be handled by remote control behind a wall of lead.
  • The white suit seen in many images is completely ineffective against radiation, but may give (false) credibility.
  • Do not forget that it is assumed that this radioactive material must be sufficient to kill “countless people” and that it will be necessary to have something that is far beyond a mere bagatelle.

Finally, we wonder:
How will this terrorist distribute this radioactive material so that it can get out and kills many, instead of being concentrated in a limited area?

BUT

A realistic “dirty bomb”, which to our knowledge has never been tried, is something quite different:
It is an ‘ordinary nuclear bomb’ that is surrounded by a second material,
eg cobalt.
It will be radioactive by absorbing some of the neutrons left over from the explosion of the atomic bomb.
But even this will not be enough to create a “Radioactive Tsunami”.

Now if this terrorist mysteriously manages to collect sufficiently high enriched uranium or plutonium of ‘weapons-grade’, it can be assembled and you will get a ‘criticality’ that will cause less harm than you would get by detonating a regular grenade.
In order to have a nuclear bomb to work, it will be necessary to have a very special igniter (Initiator) and a very complicated geometry.
.

  • At a later stage there were some “reasonable people” who found out that biological and chemical weapons are easier to produce and handle than radioactive materials.
  • Possibly the fright value of radioactivity is greater.

.
Now I think, we should leave all further talk of a dirty bomb to the professional horror prophets who ignores the realities, but uses the subject to spread fear, where everything that is dealing with radiation or nuclear distorted to be a high risk .

This of course does not mean that we should neglect the fight against the use of nuclear bombs.
.
More: See:
From Wikipedia: About nuclear safety and security.
Greenpeace’s credibility is a myth.
And if you are not tired, too:
Radiation and Cancer.
Check the facts.

Greetings from Thorkil Søe

PS
If you, my unknown reader, have relevant additions, modifications or factually reasoned objection, I ask you to write to me at thorkilsoee@gmail.com

Postscript

  • In an attempt to find a response it has been argued that just “the threat of radioactivity will cause panic and will thus be even more terrible than a dirty bomb”.
    In a way it is true. But here it is easy to point out the guilty.
  • But all this is nothing compared to the many thousands of children who have to go into adult life as a blind because – – – –
  • Or the millions of orphans who must live in an existence that is not worthy for humans because – – – –

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
_____________________________________________________________________________

For years we have been told that plutonium is one of the most dangerous substances found.
This has been repeated so many times that it has developed to be an undeniable truth.

Ralph Nader, is a noted activist and lawyer.
He was a candidate for the presidentiancy in USA’s in 1996 og 2000.
He once claimed that plutonium was “The most toxic substance known to mankind.”
The Danish anti-nuclear organisation OOA claimed that only one atom of plutonium may cause cancer.

.

BUT

In the following I will show that these claims have very little hold in reality

Isotopes

There are 21 different isotopes of plutonium, which chemically behave alike.
In nuclear respect they behave very differently.
All these isotopes are radioactive, and are produced in one way or another.
The two most important are:

  • Pu239, which has a half life of 24,100 years.
    This highly publicized isotope can be used for nuclear bombs and as fuel in nuclear reactors.
  • Pu240 has a high probability for spontaneous fission and is an unwanted contamination if one wants to make nuclear bombs.
    Les than 7% Pu240 is still “wepons grade”

Both these isotopes are formed during the normal operation of nuclear reactors.
The dangerous reactor at Chernobyl was intended to make both power and wepons grade Pu239
Outside the old Soviet, wepons grade of Pu239 is produced on small special reactors.

Danger

Plutonium can damage in different ways:
blank– Biological, as an ordinary toxin.
blank– Radiology, as a result of ionizing radiation.
blank– In connection with an accident – A so-called Criticality.
blank– And of course, in connection with nuclear bombs,
blank– Purely speculative as “Dirty Bomb.”

Biological, as an ordinary poison.

From Atomic Insights I refer the following:
During the Manhattan Project in 1944 and 1945, 26 men accidentally ingested plutonium in amounts that far exceeded what is often considered to be a lethal dose.
There has been much interest in the health effects of this new substance.
Therefore, these men were carefully monitored for medical studies.
And then: Forty years later:
In 1987, more than four decades later, only four of these workers had died, and there was only one death caused by cancer.
The expected number of deaths in a sample of men with age as those in the group is 10.
The expected number of deaths from cancer in a similar group is between two and three.

AND
It should be considered important to note that at least 22 men have been able to live more than 40 years after taking “the most toxic substance known to man.”

If plutonium is absorbed, it will be up-concentrated in the kidneys and may, as well as all heavy metals, cause damage.

Radiological influence

First, I will highlight that in the case of a half-life of 24,100 years, the radiological effects will be spread over a long time correspondingly.
Unlike ordinary misinformation this will mean that the instantaneous impact is little.
It thus means that about 90% of the plutonium absorbed, it will
‘just naturally’ be deposited on the cemetery long before it will cause any harm.

Naturally occurring radium is about 200 times more radioactive than plutonium.
More about the (lack of) connection between radiation and cancer:
See another post: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-1iq
For the record I will mention that the human organism contains so much natural radioactivity that we, every second, are exposed to more than 4,000 radioactive decays.

Either Or

It is often heard that a material will be highly radioactive for a long time.
However, this is impossible.
The radioactive material can either use its resources in a short time and be highly radioactive.
Or the radioactive material can spread it for a long time.
But not both.

CRITICALITY

If enough plutonium assembled, we will get a nuclear reaction that, despite horror stories, will cause less damage than by detonation of an ordinary hand-grenade.
See about Cecil Kelley.

Plutonium for nuclear bombs

Unlike ordinary misinformation is not that straightforward to use plutonium for nuclear bombs.
Besides needing enough plutonium of weapons-grade, it is necessary to have a very special initiator together with a very complicated geometry.

Plutonium is a by-product from nuclear reactors.
But this plutonium is contaminated wit another isotope Pu240
It is impossible to separate the Pu240 from the weapons grade Pu 239
For details I refer to a rather messy page: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-TE
Or a more scientific set of pages: http://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Spontaneous_fission.html

How much is absorbed?

According to Wikipedia more than 99% of what is ingested through the digestive system, it will just naturally be deposited on the toilet.
If it is taken up as dust through the lungs, much more will be absorbed.

There has been several (irresponsible ?) attempts to see how the human body reacts to plutonium:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v180/n4587/abs/180651b0.html
https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00326640.pdf
As far as can be seen, there was no (serious) injuries.

Dirty Bomb

In the struggle to demonize nuclear power, it is suggested that plutonium can be used as a dirty bomb that would contaminate a large area with deadly radioactivity and render it uninhabitable for long periods.
HOWEVER
The two isotopes, which are part of the “nuclear waste”, have half-lives of several thousand years.
Thus, the radioactive radiation will be spread over similar time and the hopeful terrorist will have to get quite a lot of plutonium before it will have any effect beyond the psychological.
The long term effect:
Even if you are exposed to 1000 mSv/year, and it is evenly distributed over the year, the body will be able to do the repair and the effect will not be harmful.
Thus, even here, the hopeful terrorist will fail – Postmortem.

Corresponding:
The clean-up at Tule (Grenland) after the “loss of a nuclear bomb” can hardly been justified by anything other than a wish to show that “something is going to be done”.
Here it must be remembered that there was, and still is, an accumulated fear of everything that just contains the word plutonium.

Conclusion

It is easy to see that plutonium is far from being “the most dangerous substance known to mankind.”

The old myth about just one atom of plutonium can cause cancer
Yes, this – together with so much else – it should be hunted back to
where it belongs
As the goast in the bottle.

BUT
Perhaps more significantly, it can be seen that all this counterfeit “information” about an enormous hazard
Yes it puts the sources’ credibility on a very severe test.

Greetings and good reflection
Thorkil Søe

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
__________________________________________________________________________
Greenpeace has seen itself as the international voice for the protection of nature and people.
Often, their struggle has been legitimate, but unfortunately it must be noted that they also have struggled against self-invented ghosts and sometimes used methods not worthy of an organization wanting to be regarded as being honest.
Primarily this is seen in the fight against nuclear power and against GMO crops.
At least here you can see how this merciless struggle has caused great harm, both to the environment and to poor people’s living conditions.
In the following, I refer to these two causes.

In addition there is a section on demonstrations, which in my view, went rampant.
Finally, there is little about defectors: Senior figures – most from Greenpeace – who saw how what they initially believed was harmful to humanity – Actually is the road to protecting the climate and to better life for people.

The fight against nuclear

Usually, the ‘information’ from Greenpeace is so vague that it is not possible to point out factually wrong information.

On this website (in the Danish language) ”Safe nuclear power is a myth “ Greenpeace – probably accidentally – come to write something that promotes the attentive reader to point out how factually incorrect ‘information’ is presented as indisputable facts.

For details I refer to another post: Greenpeace and Nuclear.

If you read this post, it is easy to see that a heavy responsibility restes on the shoulders of Greenpeace and other no-sayers.

GMO

It is impossible to say whether any GMO at all could be potentially damaging to the environment.

It depends of course on the actual GMO. Therefore it is totally irresponsible to cut everything together.
The starting point is that millions of people – perhaps an entire billion – are using GMOs in their daily food, with no apparent harm.
In relation to this, I want to mention that it has not been possible to find factual information on specific cases of claimed injuries caused by use of GMO
Of course, it must be emphasized strongly that the use of GMOs has never prevented the use of other crops.

For details I refer to another post: Greenpeace and GMO.

Politicians

Apparently it is in such a way, that the livelihood of several “green organizations” depends on them to appear as those protecting humanity from something dangerous.
If there can not be found a factual danger to protect against against, so an imaginary danger can very well be used – as elaborated in the above links.

At the same time it must be understood that it will be a political death sentence for a politician, if he be accused of exposing people to danger. So, better to howl with the wolves you are surrounded by.

This, at last, is clearly seen by the prolonged evacuations in Japan and, more homely by the ridiculous discussion about the nuclear waste from the abandoned Danish nuclear test site at Risø.
That way I come to the burning question:
Is it possible to think clearly and beat some cold water into the blood?

Demonstrations

Greenpeace Klatretur

Many of the demonstrations officially launched by Greenpeace have been on the edge of the permissible and can perhaps best be described as children’s illegal game.

A large demonstration in Peru degenerated into beginning destruction of a historical memory.
Greenpeace first tried to prevent a subsequent lawfully aftermath.

Drabsforsøg på politiBy all accounts, Greenpeace has been behind many, almost ridiculous, attempt of vandalism or have been behind the demonstrations that have become coarse attacks on experimental fields of GM crops.
.

In one case even the attempted murder of police.

Defectors

It is very rare to see how determined activists in political or environmental organizations change their mind, and have the courage to realize that they have cheated themselves and others to follow a false ideology.

In politics, I have only two examples.

Axel Larsen Aksel Larsen was the leading activist in the Danish Communist organization and one of those who risked their lives in the struggle against Nazism.
He broke with ‘all the old’ in 1956 after the Soviet invasion of Hungary.
After being almost friendless, he returned to politics under a democratic banner.

Mikhail Gorbatjov Grobachevwas almost born, or at least brought up to believe in the Soviet system. Later, he had the courage to initiate a fundamental change.
Here I think about both the moral and personal courage.

So far I can only refer to three prominent members of Greenpeace, who have left the organization in protest.

Patric Moore was one of the founders of Greenpeace and was elected president of the Greenpeace Foundation in early 1977. Later he left the organization, to criticize its anti-human agenda and development with the statement:Patric More
“In the mid-1980s, this environmental movement abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.”
Moore was active against nuclear energy in the 1970s, when he thought that:
“Nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear bombs and the Holocaust” and
“Everything with nuclear was evil.”
Since he came to support nuclear.

Stephen Tindale was Executive Director of Greenpeace in England until 2005.
Along with three others who also was active in environmental organizations: Chris Smith, Mark Lynas and Chris Goodall. Now he strongly recommends nuclear.

Paul Watson was active as crew and skipper aboard several of Greenpeace’s travels in the mid-1970s. He considers himself as a co-founder of Greenpeace.
In 1977 he was expelled from Greenpeace and formed Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which fights for animal rights, especially the protection of whales.

Several other prominent environmental environmentalists, who first took part in the fight against all that just contains the word ‘Atom’, has since actively supported nuclear power as a solution to the human need for energy and protect the environment.

Mark Lynas, is an English journalist and a known previous anti-GMO activist, mostly focused on issues related to climate change.
He now criticizes Greenpeace and other organizations with which he was previously associated and is sorry to have led to the destruction experimental fields of GM crops.
In January 2012 he wrote in defense of the nuclear power he had previously fought with the words: “- – – that’s why I want more nuclear power, to prevent further releases of CO2”

James Lovelock announced in 2005 his support for nuclear power, with the statement:
“I am a Green, and I ask my friends in the green movement to drop their mindless opposition to nuclear”.

Stewart Brand suggested among other things that environmentalists should embrace nuclear power and GMOs as technologies that provide more benefits than risks.

George Monbiot is known for his work as anGeorge Morbiot
environmentalist and political activist. He has written that climate change is
“The moral question of the 21st century”.
Monbiot originally expressed deep aversion to nuclear energy and related industries.
He has, however, had other ideas and advocates now for its use.
He became convinced of nuclear energy’s relative safety after what he describes as the limited damage at reactors after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
Thus, he later strongly condemned anti-nuclear movements and has written:
“It has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health and made claims ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged and wildly wrong”.

Hugh Montefiore acted as trustee for the Friends of the Earth for two decades, but was forced to resign in 2004, after expressing support for nuclear power as a means of preventing climate change.

Below mentioned are few of the many others who initially were against nuclear power and GM, but later saw how these technologies should have a prominent role in the work against climate change and malnutrition.

Carol Browner
James Lovelock
Stewart Brand
Christine Todd Whitman
James Hansen
Baroness Worthington
Gwyneth Cravens
Richard Rhodes
Michael Shellenberger
Ben Heard

Postscript

In a way, I was sorry to write this ‘Bull’. On the other hand, I can say that as time has passed and I have seen so much, that at best is obvious nonsense, then something must be done.

As it can be seen from the above, I am interested in nuclear power and has written a little more on http://wp.me/p1RKWc-cM
Most in order to wash away some of the mud that has been thrown on this power source.
In relation to the many conflicting peices of “information” about radioactivity, especially radon, I have written the following: http://wp.me/p1RKWc-ec

If you, my unknown reader, should have any, hopefully constructive, comments I ask you to write to me.
Yours impatiently waiting
Thorkil Søe
thorkilsoee@gmail.com