A dialogue with A. Nitkin from Bellona versus nuclear-news.net

My response to Alexander Nitkin`s interesting and provocative article from Bellona http://tinyurl.com/zscma85 on Russian anti nuclear activists strategies and engagement with the Russian nuclear industry (Found n the comments section.)

Hi Charles and Alexander.. Just thought I would wade in with some thoughts.
As an anti nuclear activist and blogger of one of the biggest anti nuke sites in the west nuclear-news.net (about 30 percent of our readers are nuclear workers), I can see where you are coming from. However, this article does not really look into the issues of how might an anti nuclear group or individual might challenge the “voluminous response” that comes from a well organised and well funded nuclear industry.

First, their is a need for education that can sometimes be complex and time consuming. This can be achieved by the dissemination of thoughts and ideas via the blogs and internet forums.

However, in my experience on a global outlook there are many pressures that stop discourse because nuclear industry workers are not allowed to challenge the status quo and activists are targeted by security services. That means it is up to a hand full of individuals (mostly or entirely non paid) to look into the technical issues and find a way of talking plainly to all.

For instance, at the moment there are some real challenges to the nuclear industry such as the financial and safety issues. The industry covers many of these issues up using groups like the IAEA, ICRP, WPP LLC (The Japanese subsidiary is DENTSU) and a host of Nuclear Health Physicists (well paid and organised) and then there is UNSCEAR where these groups meet and challenge one another n a technical basis (CRIIRAD, ACRO, SAFECAST etc on the soft anti nuclear side) .

Civil societies anti nuclear movement in some countries have Greenpeace on their side (France and Germany) and many others do not (Norway, UK, Ireland etc) . And then there are people like me with quite a reasonable knowledge.

Amongst the voluminous material are some points that get overlooked such as the ICRP dose model that does not explain the effects health effects thoroughly in Chernobyl, Semipalantisk, Fukushima etc ..

You might be aware of Watanabes etc study that trashes the ICRP dose models basic science but there is no real discussion on these anomalies and that is why people like John Simpson have disregarded the NHP from the pentagon that had the “voluminous” material thing happen on his report on Fallujah but he decided to forward with the evidence he could see in front of him instead of all that statistical modeling. If I lived in Mayak and was getting all the reassurances that come from the likes of Richard Wakeford and Geraldine Thomas I would be flipping furious as well btw.

When the nuclear industry decides to admit that the real on the ground evidence should be taken into account with the statistical modelling and not ignored because of unknown “viruses” etc then I think we all can sit down and have that love in that would achieve results for all concerned. It is not good enough to have an industry that allows damage that we see in Flint Michigan with lead Pb because of the need for profit and whilst the nuclear industry uses the founding ideals of Euratom (1957 unchanged) as a basis for todays nuclear industry that allows cancers (whilst ignoring all other effects) because of potential net social and profit orientated benefits based on the 1950`s situation. In fact all potentially polluting industries worldwide should take note!
My fingers are bleeding and I await your request for evidence of my position on the nuclear industry (Russia works closely with the western industry on health effects at least ie the flawed ICRP dose model)
Merry Christmas Shaun

This comment is on the comments section at our long time friends at Bellona.org

Who’s to blame and what to do? Rosatom and the No Nukes movement

The relationship between Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom and environmental groups has never been stable: Opposition, mistrust, non-transparency and antagonism – the mutual accusations have rained down from both sides. But Rosatom’s transparency has led to schism – a crisis – within Russian environmental organizations themselves. More here;

http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2016-12-22569http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2016-12-22569

December 22, 2016 - Posted by arclight2011part2 | Uncategorized