Poor Pliny - Doesn't understand simple concepts - like that the idea of just attacking a person's reputation just doesn't really cut it- not even in the case where the attacker is So important and So busy that of course, we must all defer to his opinion.

No - sorry - what counts is the old maxim from the old TV show "The Untouchables" - "Just wanna get the facts Ma'am, just wanna get the facts"

Giday Pliny de la Perth

We Plantagenets were, of course, a proud dynasty, much schooled in nuclear fysiks, particularly as it pertained to submarine propulsion.

But for the untimely death of Richard III, not far from the sea (in Australian terms) the Spanish Armada and combined French-Spanish fleet at Trafalgar would o been despatched by torpedo, long afore they knew wot hit'em.

Poida de la Drake-Nelson

//So it looks as though they relied on nuclear physicists for their information on ionising radiation.//

Yeah, because what would a committed, hard-working academic know about his own field of study that an amateur, arm-chair expert with a background in changing bedpans and checking blood-pressure can't tell them?

Actually, probably a hell of lot. I'd bet my last dollar that Noel or Christina or some faceless anti-nuke-spruiker from Greenpeace or whoever they may be has never actually studied any nuclear physics because they are intimidated by the level of mathematics involved, so they're not in a real good position to be levelling criticism against people who know what they're talking about.

//"Just wanna get the facts Ma'am, just wanna get the facts"//

Except when those facts are delivered by a physicist. Because we all know you can't trust nerdy old greybeards with too much intellectual curiosity. They're all part of a vast government conspiracy to kill everyone with radiation poisoning. The people with the deepest fascination for what makes the universe tick have no interest in truth, accuracy or fact: they just want you irradiated till you glow like a Christmas tree.

Hi Noel-ChristinaMac1

Nautilus just sent an excellent article on radioactive waste approaches in South Korea (31 August 2015) http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0de7e0e84dc3aff619f936a70&id=70900dcf63&e=ae85b3aafb . This includes:

"South Korea’s earlier failure could thus have been foreseen when the South Korean government excluded local communities in its unilateral siting drive. South Korea’s previous approach was a typical example of what in the UK is called the “DADA” or “decide, announce, defend, and abandon” process."

Poida's Cherenkov Glow

from Noel Wauchope
Thank you, plantagenet, for the information from Nautilus on Korea.

The subject of ionising radiation seems to be the main point of contention regarding "The Dragon's Tail".

Ionising radiation is covered very thoroughly by Stephen Starr, Director, University of Missouri, Clinical Laboratory Science Program ,in his article The "Implications of The Massive Contamination of Japan With Radioactive Cesium"
at http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Fukushima/StevenStarr.html

In particular, he demolishes the "banana" comparisons.

Why did Noel quote the extremists? Why not the more cautious peer reviewed work of UNESCAR? They follow the largely *unproved* Linear No-Threshold (or no safe level) theory of radiation exposure, so it is a very conservative, careful, slightly paranoid measure of concern about radiation exposure. And even they concluded that while Chernobyl only killed 64 at the time, the longer term exposure might only kill another 4000 people. And that's according to the *unproven* and highly conservative LNT! So these authors estimating a million or so are *way* out there!

As the wiki on Chernobyl says:

“The number of potential deaths arising from the Chernobyl disaster is heavily debated. The WHO‘s prediction of 4000 future cancer deaths in surrounding countries[152] is based on the Linear no-threshold model (LNT), which assumes that the damage inflicted by radiation at low doses is directly proportional to the dose.[153] Radiation epidemiologist Roy Shore contends that estimating health effects in a population from the LNT model “is not wise because of the uncertainties”.[154]“

But why quote a radiation epidemiologist when you can quote a paper by a Greenpeace biologist and a psychologically traumatised nuclear engineer (and hero!) of the "Battle of Chernobyl"? Why quote calmer, more objective sources when you can turn to known anti-nuclear activists with (understandable but misleading) emotional biases on the subject of Chernobyl?

Indeed, if Noel had even bothered to read the wiki on the book, she would have understood that it is full of vague terminology that does not quantify doses properly, has poor referencing, and inconsistent results. As M. I. Balonov, Institute of Radiation Hygiene, St. Petersburg, said:

"The value of this review is not zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists, while inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error. ... Yablokov's assessment for the mortality from Chernobyl fallout of about one million ... puts this book in a range of rather science fiction than science."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment