mhaze,

If pointing out that recycled tactics don’t work on me counts as “arrogance,” then I’m afraid you may see a lot more "arrogance" from me yet.

You've accused me of deflection, yet it was you who responded to a point about Tuvalu losing habitable land - due to saltwater intrusion, crop damage, freshwater contamination, and population displacement - with a link about landmass change. That’s not clarification. That’s changing the subject, then calling it victory when I don’t follow you off-topic.

//Tuvalu isn’t sinking below rising seas and I pointed that out.//

Sure, but who claimed it would? Because the whole “Tuvalu will disappear” line you’ve been pushing has always been a caricature. The IPCC never predicted full submersion by 2024 or 2050. What climate science has said, consistently, is that Tuvalu is highly vulnerable to sea-level rise and that this will increasingly impact livability, not just geography. That’s the actual case - and you haven’t touched it.

//I showed that Tuvalu isn’t a climate case study by linking to actual science.//

That’s not what you were doing. You were trying to use Tuvalu as an example of a failed climate prediction, and by extension, to undermine the credibility of climate science more broadly. Only now, when the article you linked doesn’t support that conclusion, you’re trying to recast your goal as something smaller and more reasonable. That’s not a correction - it’s a retreat.

//The alarmist community said…//

That’s another retreat. If this prediction is so central to your argument that it disproves a major thread of climate science, then you should be able to name a source. Was it the IPCC? NASA? A peer-reviewed study? Or are you just pointing to media exaggerations and activist slogans, then smearing all of climate science by association?

You’re not pointing out a weakness in the science - you’re attacking marketing material, then pretending it invalidates the field. And when you’re called on that, the story changes again.

It's like a game of Whack-a-mole with you.

Festering ...

Causation around radiation is difficult to prove definitively, but there is definite correlation. Multiple studies have proved that children living near nuclear reactors suffer higher rates of cancer than those that don't.

You're a nasty piece of work and I'm not wasting my time responding to you again.

Bronwyn,

Yet another lie and more abuse from you. Let me expose your dishonesty and contempt.

The idea has a history which is well summarised in this review from 2014, after the idea was debunked in a paper published in Nature.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4146329/

That an additional radiation exposure of 1/200th natural background radiation causes no harm is no revelation, yet it was supported by exhaustive research by many epidemiologists over decades. The authors of the review concluded:

"Regardless of the results of the future studies it can already be responsibly asserted that a lifetime residency close to a normally operating modern NPP does not pose any specific health risk to people, and certainly that IR emitted thereof cannot cause cancer. What’s more, even the greatest nuclear accident that happened in 1986 at the Chernobyl NPP, accompanied by the massive release of radiation and radionuclides to the environment, has not resulted in the increased incidence of leukaemia and other neoplasms (with the only exception of thyroid cancers in those who were below 18 years of age at the time of the catastrophe and accumulated >100 mGy of radiation from I-131 in their thyroid glands) among the populations of even the most contaminated regions of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia, including the local children who were exposed to radiation before and after birth (UNSCEAR 2008)."

Like IBM, I suspect that you do not value truth and share his contempt for the forum and its members.

Fester,

You accuse Bronwyn of lying. But the only dishonesty on display here is your own.

You claim the idea of increased cancer risk near nuclear plants has been “debunked,” and cite a paper that does nothing of the sort. It discusses documented childhood leukemia clusters near multiple nuclear sites. It treats those clusters as statistically significant and worthy of continued study. It questions causation, but explicitly acknowledges the observed correlation Bronwyn referred to:

“Children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23429#398653)

That’s not a lie. That’s a documented trend - one your own source acknowledges. She didn’t say “caused by radiation,” and she didn’t pretend it was settled science. You either misunderstood the article or hoped no one else would read it.

Instead of correcting her, you went straight to abuse. You accused her of lying, compared her to Wakefield, and claimed she was insulting the forum. That’s not intellectual debate - that’s moral theatrics built on a selective reading of your own evidence.

You don’t get to wrap yourself in the flag of science while misrepresenting it. You don’t get to demand “truth” while distorting what was actually said. And you certainly don’t get to call someone dishonest for referencing a well-documented correlation that even your hand-picked article doesn’t dispute.

The only apology due here is the one you now owe to Bronwyn.

John,

You are a shameless pathological liar. Is there an increase in childhood cancer and leukemia around the Lucas Heights reactor? Why aren't childhood cancers elevated around every nuclear reactor? That is what you would expect if the statement were true. They were cancer clusters, and was no link to radiation as a cause. And how many did Fukushima kill for that matter? I'm with Monbiot on the nuclear question and not with unhinged and deranged people. Here is a classic debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p0d05M5JpY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb5HItRpDY8

Keep up your incoherent and deranged drivel IBM.

Fester,

You called Bronwyn a liar for stating that “children living near nuclear reactors suffer increased risk of leukaemia, lymphoma, and other cancers.” You then linked to a paper that explicitly acknowledges multiple leukemia clusters near some reactors. It questions whether radiation caused them, but it doesn’t deny the correlation. That’s exactly what Bronwyn said.

Now you’re moving the goalposts again, so let’s address your frantic list:

//Is there an increase in childhood cancer and leukemia around the Lucas Heights reactor?//

Not that we know of, and nobody claimed there was. Localised cancer clusters near some plants do not mean it should happen everywhere. That’s not how epidemiology works. So this question is irrelevant.

//Why aren't childhood cancers elevated around every nuclear reactor?//

Because not every reactor has the same emissions, design, monitoring, population density, or local environmental. Some plants are newer. Some are inland. Some are better shielded. Again, no one said it happens around every plant.

//...there was no link to radiation as a cause.//

Incorrect. There’s no proven link to radiation as the cause, but that’s not the same as “no link.” Scientists have said the cause is uncertain and still being studied. That’s the difference between science and spin - you’re doing the latter.

//How many did Fukushima kill...?''

Fewer than you might think so far - but again, no one claimed otherwise. Thyroid cancer rates rose dramatically among exposed children. Evacuation, trauma, and long-term exposure risks are still being studied. And even if fatalities are lower than Chernobyl, “less bad” is not the same as “harmless.”

As for Monbiot, he argues that nuclear is safer than coal, not that it’s risk-free. He acknowledges radiation risk. He just believes it’s manageable. That’s a reasoned position - not a license for you to shout down anyone who disagrees.

You’re not debating. You’re dodging behind noise and rage. You call others dishonest while cherry-picking evidence, distorting what was said, and ignoring your own sources.

This isn’t about facts for you. It’s about trying to punish people for disagreeing. And the more you shout, the clearer that becomes.