Thank you, John!

Hats off to your patience ... and to your razor-sharp rebuttal ... a real pleasure to read!

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

And you keep fabricating moles and failing to whack 'em.

John,

Your repeated distortion and lies on the forum are just grubby and tedious. Zero honesty. Zero integrity. 100% grubby.

The nub of the matter was that the radiation exposure was about 1/200th to 1/1000th of natural background radiation in Germany, way too low to cause harm. The result prompted many studies in other nations which gave no clear or consistent indication of harm. Further, the kikk study results were negated if one of the reactors was excluded, and further analysis showed that there was a higher childhood cancer rate around the reactor site before it was commissioned. There is a discussion of the study's shortcomings in the following vid along with an expose of an antinuclear activist who even makes Bronwyn seem rational and balanced:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vr7QmbSZZ8

But that brings up another of Bronwyn's lies:

"9. Nuclear industry workers suffer increased risk of cancer, heart attack and stroke."

Yes, you would think that they would be dropping like flies given all the kiddies being killed, yet nearly all the research suggests longer and healthier lives than the general population. Lucas Heights reactor workers have been monitored since 1958. The authors of a paper from 2005 found and concluded:

"Results: All‐cause mortality was 31% lower than the national rates; all‐cancer mortality was 19% below the NSW rate. Of 37 specific cancers and groups of cancers examined, statistically significant excesses relative to NSW rates were observed only for pleural cancer mortality (SMR=21.11; 95% Cl 8.79‐50.72).
Conclusions: The observed increase in the risk of cancer of the pleura was probably due to unmeasured exposures, given the lack of an established association with radiation exposure and the strong link to asbestos exposure."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020023048082

Fester,

You keep throwing out accusations of lying, but once again, your own sources don’t back you up.

Bronwyn made a general statement about increased risk - something documented in multiple studies, especially involving long-term or high-level exposure. You responded by pretending she claimed nuclear workers are “dropping like flies,” then cited one cherry-picked cohort to “debunk” her. That’s not evidence. That’s deflection.

The Lucas Heights paper doesn’t say nuclear workers are universally healthier. It says that in this one cohort, all-cause mortality was lower - but also found a significantly elevated rate of pleural cancer, likely due to unmeasured asbestos exposure. And the authors themselves say the findings should be “interpreted with caution” due to the small sample size.

That’s not a clean bill of health for the nuclear industry. It’s one data point with multiple caveats. You know that. Or at least, you should.

Pointing to a low mortality rate in a specific cohort doesn’t invalidate the body of research into reactor radiation exposure as a whole. There are studies showing increased risks for certain groups - especially in earlier decades. The industry bodies don’t pretend the risk is zero - they manage it because it exists.

And as for your latest YouTube video - it’s just another screed against Helen Caldicott. Critiquing her rhetoric doesn’t erase legitimate concerns raised by scientists and medical organisations about long-term radiation risks. It certainly doesn’t justify calling Bronwyn a liar.

You keep piling on volume, rage, and distractions. But you still haven’t disproven a single one of Bronwyn’s claims. You’ve just shouted past them.

John,

Bronwyn claimed:

"9. Nuclear industry workers suffer increased risk of cancer, heart attack and stroke."

The burden of proof is with the person making the claim. Disproving the claim merely requires an example of where the claim is false. The Lucas Heights data shows lower mortality with the exception of asbestos related cancers, clearly contradicting Bronwyn's claim. Nor did I claim that Lucas Heights workers lived longer and healthier lives, but the data does not suggest otherwise.

Fester,

You’re misunderstanding how burden of proof and statistical evidence work.

Bronwyn’s statement was general: that nuclear industry workers suffer increased risk of cancer, heart attack, and stroke. That’s a claim about population-level patterns, supported by multiple studies and medical bodies over time.

You posted a single cohort (Lucas Heights) with lower overall mortality, but even that study had statistically significant elevation in pleural cancer, and the authors themselves urged caution due to the small sample size and unmeasured exposures. That doesn’t “disprove” Bronwyn’s point. It just shows that some nuclear workers, in some conditions, may have lower risks - which no one contested.

And yes - you did claim nuclear workers live longer and healthier lives. You said “nearly all the research suggests” exactly that, and then linked the Lucas Heights study as your proof. If you’re walking that back now, fine - but let’s not pretend it wasn’t said.

Finally, “disproving” a general health risk doesn’t mean finding one dataset that contradicts it. It means refuting the broader trend. You haven’t done that. You just cherry-picked a favourable outlier, ignored its limitations, and then declared the debate over.

If your argument hinges on one carefully selected study, that’s not science. It’s spin.