Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The 3rd article I listed already mentions meltdowns at the No 1 reactor.

My last link is the video of Prof. Christopher Busby. He is active with interviews these days. In the following clip (watch from 2:20) he envisions three scenarios, two of them very bad, and the most likely is one of those. That likely scenario: the radiation at the plant gets so high that work is abandoned (and the work is already desperate nonsense), leaving a China syndrome meltdown (without Hollywood actors to save us) and the stuff would just (mainly) poison the northern half of Japan. But more terribly, MOX plutonium may cause a critical reaction - and that would be an unimaginable problem for the whole globe. And the milder scenario is that they manage to pour water forever.

by das monde on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 05:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The 3rd article I listed already mentions meltdowns at the No 1 reactor.

But there is no suggestion that it melted through the pressure vessel into the containment vessel (the drywell part), and indeed that's the one reactor still under pressure.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 06:09:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem with Christopher Busby is that he's hardly an impartial opinion. According to the wiki article you cite: Busby is the author of two self published books on cancer incidence in Wales, Wings of Death and Wolves of Water, and according to CERRIE "articles and research papers on low level radiation." The books were criticised in papers published by the Journal of Radiological Protection , which described their analysis as erroneous in consequence of various mistakes. According to the editor-in-chief of the journal, and fellow CERRIE committee member, "much of Chris Busby's work is self-published and difficult to access; he seems mainly to avoid publication in the recognised scientific literature, which presents difficulties for a proper review of the evidence underlying his conclusions."

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 04:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Who are the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Radiological Protection, and the "fellow CERRIE committee member"? The editor-in-chief is Richard Wakeford, and here is what Busby himself saying about him and some other colleagues:
What these people have in common is ignorance. You may think a professor at a university must actually know something about their subject. But this is not so. Nearly all of these experts who appear and pontificate have not actually done any research on the issue of radiation and health. Or if they have, they seem to have missed all the key studies and references. I leave out the real baddies, who are closely attached to the nuclear industry, like Richard Wakeford, or Richard D as he calls himself on the anonymous website he has set up to attack me, "chrisbusbyexposed".

I saw him a few times talking down the accident on the television, labelled in the stripe as Professor Richard Wakeford, University of Manchester. Incidentally, Wakeford is a physicist, his PhD was in particle physics at Liverpool. But he was not presented as ex- Principle Scientist, British Nuclear Fuels, Sellafield. That might have given the viewers the wrong idea. Early on we saw another baddy, Malcolm Grimston, talking about radiation and health, described as Professor, Imperial College. Grimston is a psychologist, not a scientist, and his expertise was in examining why the public was frightened of radiation, and how their (emotional) views could be changed. But his lack of scientific training didn't stop him explaining on TV and radio how the Fukushima accident was nothing to worry about.

Then he mentions George Monbiot, and gets so juicy:

So what about Wade Allison? Wade is a medical physics person and a professor at Oxford. I have chosen to pitch into him since he epitomises and crystallises for us the arguments of the stupid physicist. In this he has done us a favour, since he is really easy to shoot down. All the arguments are in one place. Stupid physicists? Make no mistake, physicists are stupid. They make themselves stupid by a kind of religious belief in mathematical modelling. The old Bertie Russell logical positivist trap. And whilst this may be appropriate for examining the stresses in metals, or looking at the Universe (note that they seem to have lost 90% of the matter in the Universe, so-called "dark matter") it is not appropriate for, and is even scarily incorrect when, examining stresses in humans or other lifeforms. Mary Midgley, the philosopher has written about Science as Religion. Health physicists are the priests.

An exciting fields for name calling.
by das monde on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 06:27:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
das monde:
Stupid physicists? Make no mistake, physicists are stupid. They make themselves stupid by a kind of religious belief in mathematical modelling. The old Bertie Russell logical positivist trap. And whilst this may be appropriate for examining the stresses in metals, or looking at the Universe (note that they seem to have lost 90% of the matter in the Universe, so-called "dark matter") it is not appropriate for, and is even scarily incorrect when, examining stresses in humans or other lifeforms.
That doesn't prevent Chris Busby quoting models done by a colleague of his who works at CERN on the effect of Uranium as an absorber and re-emitter of background radiation inside the body.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 06:40:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He is not entirely a hypocrite here, as he is basically saying:

whilst [math modelling] may be appropriate for examining the stresses in metals, [absorption and re-emission of background radiation] or looking at the Universe [even with the 90% punch] it is not appropriate for ... examining stresses in humans or other lifeforms.

So he has an excuse of distinguishing a couple of kinds of intelligence.

by das monde on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 06:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, but I think Frank Schnittger got the tone exactly right with his
anthropogenic background radiation exacerbation (none / 1) the new global warming, complete with deniers
This is so uglily political it's not even funny.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 07:05:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Crank alert..

He makes me think of Helen "Crazy" Caldicott and her strontium baby-teeth road-show.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sun Apr 3rd, 2011 at 09:11:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Seems it was Joseph Mangano who ran that road show (and claimed that nuclear power plants give you "Breast Cancer, AIDS, Low Birthweights" etc. But anyway, you get my meaning.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sun Apr 3rd, 2011 at 09:18:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Seriously doubt "crank alert" applies to Dr. Caldicott. Nor to the debate over the literature from Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Mon Apr 4th, 2011 at 02:12:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here is a video of the Monbiot - Caldicott death match, excepted down below.
by das monde on Mon Apr 4th, 2011 at 02:27:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's a single-issue blog (it consists of exactly one blog post, on Chris Busby)

Chris Busby Exposed | Just another WordPress.com site

Chris Busby Exposed Posted on March 11, 2008 by junksciencewatch   CHRIS BUSBY EXPOSED  http://chrisbusbyexposed.spaces.live.com

"Chris Busby"

Have a look at some of these links which expose the ineptitude and conduct of Chris Busby, so-called "scientific" advisor to, and aspiring MEP for, the Green Party. 



Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 4th, 2011 at 05:55:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So that is the anonymous website of Wakeford, as Busby claims. The style is rather vapid, and the shot at the Cancer Incidence Temporality Index defined (by a misprinted formula) as 1 in this article abstract is cheap enough for anonymity. But right, Busby is not a paragon of diligence, even if inconvenient still.
by das monde on Mon Apr 4th, 2011 at 07:19:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series