THE ELECTION
This is seen by many as a highly contentious mid-term US election, and not just for the people of the United States.
People in other countries like Australia watch apprehensively as the US political system is on the verge of unraveling and landing in the hands of people who have shown little in-depth understanding of the inordinate power and scientific sophistication of the present day world.
Indeed, will this election introduce a political climate conducive to a Sarah Palin presidency in 2 years?
From my perspective as a physician, deeply concerned about species extinction including that of homo sapiens over the next century, I can't imagine how we will survive should these political prognostications be fulfilled.
Three issues which have worried me for decades now haunt my thinking.
1. Global Warming. The profound manifestations of ongoing global warming include permafrost melting, which could release millions of tons of trapped methane and carbon dioxide and double the present estimates of unmitigated temperature elevations. To add fuel to the global warming fire, the Tea Party and Republicans are now hugely funded by foreign and national corporations fanning the flames of climate skeptics.
2. Nuclear Winter. It is almost beyond belief to imagine the fair finger of Sarah Palin accessing the nuclear button but as Commander in Chief, that would indeed be her position. Does she know or understand that the US and Russia still have thousands of hydrogen bombs on hair-trigger alert ready to be launched with a three minute decision time by the US or Russian President? Does she understand that the almost simultaneous release of the these bombs would initiate the end of most life on earth through massive radiation doses, extreme catastrophic fire storms, virtual disappearance of the ozone layer and a short ice age induced by nuclear winter?
3. Nuclear Power. A huge conspiracy of silence has been perpetrated by the global nuclear industry in its quest to build hundreds more nuclear reactors around the world as a solution to global warming. Aside from the fact that the generation of atomic electricity adds substantially to global warming, an alarming recent publication by the New York Academy of Sciences titled "Chernobyl, the Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" documented that the accident in 1986 has so far killed over 985,000 people from cancer in all nations affected by the radioactive fallout. Whereas the International Atomic Energy Agency which represents the nuclear industry predicted only 4000 deaths from Chernobyl. Have the Tea Partiers and Republicans read this report? Are people aware that the Academy of Sciences only printed 700 copies in 2010 of this outstanding scientific publication for which they charge $150 and they are reluctant to print more? Why?
It is imperative in this day and age that politicians understand the outstanding ecological threats to the planet.
* the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)
* the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)
* the OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs)
* the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
* the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)
* the UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation)
* the WHO (World Health Organization)
* the World Bank.
If as a so called scientist Caldicott has an issue with it's methodology she should; actually read the report, document her criticism and let them respond rather than ignore it's findings and then quote a heavily biased assessment by three obscure Russian dudes who actually require you to buy their findings.
Meanwhile the work of Professor Wade Allison, eg http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/nuclearsafety/webpptMay07.pdf page 39-41, building on the real data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suggests that the more likely total for eventual radiation-induced deaths from Chernobyl is around 120. Bad enough - but not an unprecedented figure, and one that should inform the scale of response to any future radiological releases up to the same scale.
The translated report was made possible due to significant involvement in both time and money by Greenpeace. Therefore their involvement must be viewed through the lens of a possible political agenda.
NYAS is not a political group by any means. They state they did not intend to influence legislation through the publication of this report. This implies the NYAS is taking a second look at the scientific accuracy of the report due to the significant involvement of a known anti-nuclear advocacy group. Seems like a prudent action on the part of the NYAS since it is their reputation at stake.
The report is receiving scrutiny because the report attempts to redefine scientific consensus. A radiological dose does not automatically lead to gene mutation. However, the report states that exposure to Chernobyl radiation automatically leads to gene mutation no matter how little dose was actually received.
If a radiological dose automatically resulted in gene mutation, then every medical procedure involving x-rays would automatically lead to cancer. Since that is not the case, the report is scientifically suspect from the very first page. Once again, it seems prudent on the part of the NYAS to reevaluate their involvement in the publication of this report.
Rod Adams discusses this subject in an article he published on Sept 13, 2010,
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/09/chernobyl-consequences-myths-and-fables.html
Imagine New York, Washington, D.C., Boston, Chicago, Seattle and most of the Eastern U.S. without power for a period of several weeks or months. Cities around the world could suffer the same fate.
Recently, a new 11 year sunspot cycle began. So far, two solar threat events missed earth. NASA suggests, if either had hit earth's geomagnetic field, 130 million Americans might lose power for many weeks. The cost the first year might equal that of both current wars!
See: http://wwwÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ.ÂÂÂaÂÂÂeÂÂÂÂsÂÂÂÂoÂÂÂÂÂpÂÂÂÂÂiÂÂÂÂÂÂnÂÂÂÂÂÂsÂÂÂÂÂÂÂtÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂiÂÂtÂÂÂÂÂÂuÂÂtÂÂÂÂÂÂÂeÂÂ.ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂoÂÂrÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂg
The steps necessary to rapidly reduce dependence on power grids can accelerate development of little known, slowly emerging, potentially extremely exciting, green systems.
This remarkable new science will accelerate the development of cheap green power.
It provides a strategy that can supersede the fruitless debate over climate change.
And effectively fight Global Warming, boost the economy, generate lots of jobs and reduce dependency on fossil fuels and unstable areas of the globe.
The Aesop website outlines presently hard-to-believe, very low-cost, alternatives that are expected to power homes, businesses, automobiles and trucks.
Future vehicles might become power plants when suitably parked. No wires needed. They will become alternatives to coal and nuclear plants. Even better, they could pay for themselves!
Imagine what could be accomplished once compelling new science and technology opens cost-competitive paths that prevent the little recognized threat of massive power failures!
As for Russia...well, Sarah Palin can see it from her porch, so we're all OK, right?