Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
There are problems with Giambrone's attack on Monbiot, which is that he himself doesn't understand the things that he accuses Monbiot of not understanding.

Joe Giambrone: The UN Would Never Lie to George Monbiot

Monbiot and his cult of technofascism either fail to understand the difference between radiation that is outside the body vs. radiation that is trapped internal to the body, or else they know full well and just don't give a damn.

Dr. Caldicott:

"You don't understand internal emitters. ... They say it's low-level radiation. That's absolute rubbish. If you inhale a millionth of a gram of plutonium, the surrounding cells receive a very, very high dose. Most die within that area, because it's an alpha emitter. The cells on the periphery remain viable. They mutate, and the regulatory genes are damaged. Years later, that person develops cancer. Now, that's true for radioactive iodine, that goes to the thyroid; cesium-137, that goes to the brain and muscles; strontium-90 goes to bone, causing bone cancer and leukemia."
But then Giambrone accuses the IAEA:
In their own words:
"Because many organs and tissues were exposed as a result of the Chernobyl accident, it has been very common to use an additional concept, that of effective dose, which characterizes the overall health risk due to any combination of radiation. (emphasis in original)" (U.N./IAEA, 2006, p.12)
This statement reveals an unscientific bias, straight off the bat. Why should the U.N., while finding out how many people actually died from Chernobyl, need to rely on a fictional concept called "effective dose?"
The point is that the fact that Plutonium is more toxic inside the body than outside the body is captured by the concept of an "effecive dose". You can't both chastise Monbiot for failing to make the distinction and then the IAEA for weighting different sources of radiation acting differently on different tissues.

Not to speak of the fact that this is a filmmaker insulting a journalist over which experts to trust, which ends up being just a contest in argument by authority between two laymen, for the lay public.

What was it we were saying about those pesky little things called facts yesterday?

Facts by themselves are rather useless: only when supporting an argument do they become useful. And most of the arguments made every day are essentially 'emotional'. Whether or not we accept an argument is often an intuitive estimation of whether or not acceptance will make us feel better.


Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 4th, 2011 at 04:44:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series