[Marxism] [pen-l] Fwd: Is a Controversial Nuclear Plant to Blame for Soaring Thyroid Cancer Rates in New York? | Alternet

DW dwaltersmia at gmail.com
Thu Dec 7 07:34:08 MST 2017


Louis wrote "
You simply don't understand a thing I wrote. Smoking does damage to your
lungs. Asbestos is a carcinogenic just as much as the interiors of chimneys
that caused testicular cancer in the boys who swept them in Charles
Dickens's day. "

"But when it comes to nuclear reactors or the crap that Monsanto sells,
there is much more difficulty in establishing an open-and-shut case as
there is with tobacco. And even with the case of tobacco, it took decades
to finally nail the tobacco companies."

Louis, I would was responding to YOUR comments about your claim regarding
the difficulties "proving" dangers of carcinogens. I'm saying I believe you
are confusing "proof" with "liability" and they are completely different.
What is known the the medical community based on evidence, that is, it's
"proved" is entirely different when it comes to "nailing tobacco
companies", the legal framework for "proof". I'm only and have really only
dealt with the medical side. There was NEVER any doubt as to the effects of
tobacco. It took 40 years to prove it in court, but that is a different
issue.

Your false amalgam of  nuclear reactors with Monsanto still shows you don't
understand either about radiation or "proof". This goes to Jeff's fear of
radiation as well: there is no evidence that small dosages of radiation
that exist at background levels have a thing to do with cancer. Jeff is
wrong when he suggest people might consider moving from areas of high
levels of background radiation that occur naturally in many areas. Why?
There is simply no evidence whatsoever that people who live in higher area
of background radiation are at all at risk for higher rates of cancer. And
this is what I'm talking about. Jeff's view, to say nothing of Louis', is
like 30 years out of date. So much has been done in terms of the
statistical and geographic locations of "high" radiation areas as compared
to low areas as to show that cancer rates are hardly impacted by such
things as higher than average background radiation levels (for those that
are curious...we are *bathed* in radiation very minute of our lives. Oceans
in particular have higher than average radiation levels do to the large
amounts of uranium dissolved in seawater: 1 ton per km3).

Louis...radiation studies...unlike those around Monsanto and other Big Ag
polluters and insecticide/herbicide/pesticide producers...are well known
and fully vetted. We *know* that nuclear power plants do not cause rates of
increased cancer. Certainly not beyond what is occurring already due to
capitalist enterprises like coal, gas and industrial production in general.
Fully 45% of US residents will contract cancer in their lifetimes. Even if
overall mortality goes down from cancer it an alarming number. If you
totaled up the number of produced child hood leukemia and breast cancer due
to the claims of living near a nuclear power plant, it would amount to
about .0001% of all cancer cases. Yet coal kills, very years, 16,000
Americans...minimum...and probably 20x that number who contract respiratory
diseases. Yet nuclear is the surest way to get rid of coal plants, just as
they replaced oil generation power plants in the 1970s here in the U.S. and
in France. the radiation phobia of the left as I noted in my previous
message is doing real damage considering what does face us in terms of our
tasks in phasing out fossil fuel (especially the greenwashed natural gas
industry). It means shuttering the worlds *largest* source of low carbon
energy in favor of fossil fuels. And this is why the politics of energy are
so important and why the left, at least in developed countries, are
ass-backward on their priorities.



More information about the Marxism mailing list