>Dr. Helen Caldicott is a well-known and well-respected physician and anti-nuclear activist from Australia. She’s written many books about the dangers posed by the nuclear energy industry to human (and non-human) health, as well as its long-term and permanent effects on our very planet, itself. Although we’ve been hearing less and less in the news about the situation concerning the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan as time passes, it’s become clear in the few reports that are still being published and aired that the earthquake and ensuing tsunami which devastated Japan back in mid-March has had more dire consequences than officials or the Japanese government were at first willing to acknowledge. What at first came to be revealed as a series of meltdowns as various reactors blew are now being referred to as actual melt-throughs. Essentially, the rods in the reactors have not merely melted, but have melted through their inner containment vessels.
Where officials have finally come to describe the situation at Fukushima as “the world’s worst since Chernobyl in 1986″, Dr. Caldicott explains at a press conference in the video below how the situation and its ramifications far exceed anything seen at Chernobyl (information concerning which has barely trickled into public hands until recent years, before which there was mostly downplaying by officials of the effects on the human population in the general area).
We need to work harder to inform ourselves — to seek out information without waiting to be spoon-fed by mainstream media whatever they’re given to spoon-feed us by those in charge who have a vested interest in our continuing to support nuclear energy. Most importantly, we need to reduce our energy consumption on every level we can in terms of direct use and indirect use through our consumerism. Will doing so change what happened at Fukushima? No. But at a time when we’re seeing our waters — the habitats of so many non-human animals — poisoned for want of cheaper fossil fuel, and catastrophes such as what happened at Fukushima (or earlier Chernobyl and Three Mile Island) which are literally killing us and other living beings around us, should we not hold ourselves accountable for providing the demand for cheap energy, so much of it wasted in the first place?
Please think about it.
>Gee, if only there were a declared Anti Nuclear nation, that all the Vegans of the world could flock to en masse, preferably the very bottom point…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Nuclear_Free_Zone,_Disarmament,_and_Arms_Control_Act_1987
>The Japanese government and TEPCO have misrepresented and, according to some, outright lied about the Fukushima disaster and continue to mislead the Japanese public despite the protests of nuclear experts. However, Helen Caldicott can not be counted among those experts. She has no credentials in the nuclear field, has never been published in any scientific journal, and is not associated with any scientific body that studies the effects of radiation.I am most often on the other side of George Monbiot, but I think he has it right here:http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/13/why-this-matters/
>TRV, is there anything specific in Caldicott's video you are refuting? Or are you just dismissing her for her lack of credentials in the nuclear field or in the realm of academia?I'm not a nutritionist or dietitian. I'm no published scholar and have neither a graduate degree in philosophy, nor even any sort of science degree. I'm not associated with any large animal advocacy group. Would this mean, then, that you dismiss my blog as irrelevant and my writing as the unreliable words of a non-expert? Should I just do everybody a favour and shut things down and leave the real animal advocacy to the scholars, the professionals and the career animal advocates?
>For those who are curious about Dr. Caldicott's work and achievements:http://www.helencaldicott.com/about/cv/
>We non-experts examining claims require only the skill of critical thought. If we make claims though, they need to be backed up by evidence. As we are not dietitians for example, we rely on those who are to provide us with a baseline to work with. I would never claim on my own that a vegan diet is 50% healthier than an omnivorous one. I could speculate, but I'd want studies and experts backing that finding before I advanced that view.Caldicott too is a non-expert, but she has been making claims for decades that are not backed by evidence and are not supported by the medical or scientific communities. One that really stands out is her claim that space shuttle launches have destroyed 10% of the ozone layer. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and she's never provided any.She starts out this press conference on the "cover-up" of Chernobyl. Monbiot looks at this claim in the links I provided. I don't have the knowledge to examine many of the specifics, but one thing I noticed right off the bat is that she seems to be saying that Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl because six reactors melted down, when in fact one was not fueled and two were shut down. That doesn't give her claim in this instance much credit. Beyond that, severity should be determined by which released more radiation or caused more sickness. A six car fender bender is not worse than a one car fatality.Hiroaki Koide is a long time nuclear opponent who is an expert in the field. Here's one of his videos on Fukushima translated:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBVQ3B-JvrwWe don't have to be experts to consider his presentation. We can take his views, contrast them with other expert views, and come to a conclusion about what side seems to be correct. I often converse with someone that is very familiar with Koide's work and makes good arguments based on his knowledge. I can't say the same for Caldicott because she doesn't start from an credible position of knowledge or, lacking that, offer evidence to support her views.
>TRV, I'll weigh in on this a little later in the week. I haven't had a chance to check out your links yet.
>No problem. Some further explanation–It's not so much her position, but rather her overt disregard for science and expert opinion on all sides of the debate that I find objectionable. She's been going after Monbiot recently because he's not a scientist. I find that a bit ironic. He's at least been doing his research and showing proper sources.
>You wrote: "she seems to be saying that Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl because six reactors melted down, when in fact one was not fueled and two were shut down. That doesn't give her claim in this instance much credit."I am at work and cannot watch her video at this moment to see whether your assertion of the number of reactors she provides is in fact what she provided. I do know, on the other hand, that there are six reactors there now and that three reactors of those are now being described by authorities as possibly having not just melted down, but melted through (http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110607005367.htm) and that a fourth reactor suffered an explosion and that it is quite likely contaminated and that there have been overheating issues with units 5 and 6 in March, as well as problems with unit 5 again in late May. You seem to question her assertion that the disaster at Fukushima is worse than that which occurred at Chernobyl, yet as of mid-April, authorities had already put in on par with Chernobyl and the news concerning conditions at Fukushima have gone downhill since.I'm not sure when Caldicott's press conference was given or of what the most up to date information available would have been at the time. But if she stated that six had actually melted down at the time of her press conference and this contradicted the actual information being circulated at the time, then feel free to dismiss her and anything she has to say based on her 30+ years of involvement in anti-nuclear advocacy as you see fit.Basically, you're taking issue with the fact that I posted a video by *her*. I didn't post the video because it was by Caldicott; I posted it because it reflected my concern over all of the literature I've been reading from numerous sources about the downplaying of the seriousness of events in Fukushima. I also posted it to ask people (vegan or otherwise, really) to seek out information and to read critically, rather than to accept everything they're getting from their governments or mainstream media (or from this blog, even) at face value. My intention, also, was to ask people to, given the fact that *we* are the ones providing the demand for cheap energy and that we have the ability to change that, to consider scaling back their energy consumption and overall consumerism. Instead of acknowledging this, you're choosing to attack the validity of my post based on your view that Caldicott doesn't have as much credibility as someone like George Monbiot, another "non-expert" who is an investigative journalist with an MA in zoology (whose work you appear to endorse and who I sense from what you've written has a sort of public rivalry with Caldicott — I really have no interest in having this post used as some sort of chip in whatever game of posturing they may or may not be playing). From your latest comment, it appears that your focus is really on undermining her and therefore any subsequent information which she provides. You say that at least *he* does his research and provides sources, when the fact is that I have not read any of her books (nor any of his writing) and can't weigh in on what is a general and obviously intentionally defamatory statement. I'm not interested in championing Caldicott or in debating her credentials with you; it's the message which was conveyed that I wanted to share. Obviously, it seems that you're asking that *I* should cite sources like a nuclear energy expert myself to merely be allowed to say on my own blog: "Heads up folks — question the information you're being given on Fukushima, 'cause we're not getting the whole story and, while you're at it, consume responsibly." Funny that I thought my message was pretty simple and reasonable. I'm going to lock this thread for now and may pick up the topic (i.e. pertaining to nuclear energy or to Fukushima more specifically) down the road. Cheers.M