Greenpeace are fucking tossers, aren’t they?

The country’s health ministry said Monday that a former Fukushima worker has been diagnosed with leukemia.

The unnamed man in his 30s worked at the plant from October 2012 to November 2013.

“This is a massive blow to the IAEA, which stated in September of this year that no discernible health effects due to the exposure to radiation released by the accident are to be expected,” Greenpeace said in a statement.

Good grief, the crude incidence (crucially, not age adjusted) is 16 cases per 100,000. Per year. And 45,000 people worked on the clean up. Not to have a case would be the surprising thing.

Plus:

The man who was granted compensation, whose identity was withheld, was diagnosed with leukemia after working at the plant for 18 months from 2011 to 2013, the ministry said.

But a connection between his cancer and his time at the plant hasn’t been established, the ministry said, noting it is difficult to prove a link between cancer and radiation exposure of less than 100 millisieverts a year.

The man was exposed to a total of 15.7 millisieverts of radiation through his routine work at the plant, the ministry said. He also worked at other nuclear plants, bringing his total exposure to 19.8 millisieverts, it said.

25 thoughts on “Greenpeace are fucking tossers, aren’t they?”

  1. Depends on your definition of “tossers”.

    They’re pushing a party line, one concerning which most people are shockingly ignorant and will believe anything at all.

    So practically anything can be used to advance the “party line”, and that’s what they are doing.

    Liars, possibly; propagandists, certainly. But not stupid – after all, it works: people believe them, and their support, power and wealth increase. That’s their aim, obviously.

  2. Agree that Greenpeace and FOE are fucking troughers, but

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/article4579144.ece

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/study-shows-alarming-thyroid-cancer-rates-in-children-living-near-fukushima-q14640

    The paper (paywalled):

    http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Abstract/publishahead/Thyroid_Cancer_Detection_by_Ultrasound_Among.99115.aspx

    Biologist on impacts around Fukushima:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xnj5QYBzLs

    Some Russian propaganda:

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/319053-fukushima-fallout-radioactive-japan/

    You can believe the line that “It is fossil fuels that are destroying the planet. Nuclear power is clean and safe.” You can believe Hillary Clinton – the reactors are in “cold shutdown”. Not me. I like CO2, and I like fossil fuels.

  3. That Greenpeace statement on Moore looks like a straightforward libel to me:

    ‘While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.’

    How do they propose to prove that he’s lying for personal gain and doesn’t really believe the positions he adopts?

  4. So there’s only money to be made on one side the argument? Or is anything they earn ‘good’ money not like the ‘bad’ money the other side uses.

  5. Interested: “How do they propose to prove that he’s lying for personal gain and doesn’t really believe the positions he adopts?”

    Duh! The rightness of the ‘progressive’ / ‘liberal’ view of all things is so obvious that those who argue against it are either evil conspirators, shills for evil conspirators or blind sheep who do not realise they are being manipulated.

    just as Tory voters are either guffawing Bullingdon bankers, or their dupes…

  6. Andrew Duffin, there’s no “maybe” about the lying, Greenpeace lie as a matter of policy. It is far less common for them to tell the truth than it is for them to lie, distort, misrepresent, or simply invent.

    In short they are amongst the most dishonest, and mark this, knowingly dishonest, group of people in the world. Any Greenpeace member or supporter is ethically challenged to say the least.

  7. eco Pol-Pot-erie really acknowledges no limits – the BBC take on this on radio (R2 + R4) – in the car this afternoon was if anything even more souped-up (if that’s possible).

    My resentment of the state broadcaster and their fellow travellers simply ratcheted up several more notches – they know what they are doing and “tossers” seems quite lame really…

    The Luddites were trying to protect their livelihoods these assholes are in a different league altogether.

  8. I object!
    Calling Greenpeace tossers is extremely unfair… to wankers.
    Vilely dishonest sheepshaggers might be closer to the mark.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth have claimed that the sand used in fracking is carcinogenic. Very fine silica dust irritates the lungs (and possibly leads to cancer), but not sand.”

    Anyone told them that solar cells are made of sand?

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    From Wikipedia:

    The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends limiting artificial irradiation. For occupational exposure, the limit is 50 mSv in a single year with a maximum of 100 mSv in a consecutive five-year period, and for the public to an average of 1 mSv (0.001 Sv) of effective dose per year, not including medical and occupational exposures.[3]

    For comparison, radiation levels inside the US capitol building are such that a human body would receive an additional dose rate of 0.85 mSv/a, close to the regulatory limit, because of the uranium content of the granite structure.[26] According to the conservative ICRP model, someone who spent 20 years inside the capitol building would have an extra one in a thousand chance of getting cancer, over and above any other existing risk.

    He was not remotely close to what the ICRP thinks is a problem. They use the Linear no-threshold dose approach when in fact low levels of radiation are probably good for you.

    [email protected] is too kind. They are the sort of people who would enjoy violating their grandmother’s dead body if it got them some headlines.

  11. “Greenpeace are fucking tossers, aren’t they?”

    Tim – never interfere when the enemy is making a mistake.

    Greenpi&& and the DECC where the similitude is as striking as it is supremely vexatious to all taxpaying consumers.

    Greenpi77 and the DECC both are, organizations replete with humanities [crap degrees] indoctrinated student Socialists and various other mentally impaired geeks – who believe fervently that, the other guy must always pay up in order to:

    A) keep ‘them’ in jobs and the trappings of the good life 4×4’s and all and ooooh the other thing ….

    B) using CO2 emissions propaganda and the great green scam – to cause the west to judder to halt, via the vehicle of de-industrialization.

    Here’s the thing tho’,

    You can’t have A – by implementing B – because by implementing B – it brings about financial meltdown and societal collapse!

    But – never mind – the shit heads green blob with the UK civil service and Westminster wankeratti never do any realistically costed, strategic real world thinking – do they?

  12. TomO: not all of Radio 4 is mindless panic-mongering. Programmes like More Or Less do a good job of tearing apart unsubstatiated declarations of authority and showing the real facts,

  13. There was a time when I thought that environmentalism would end up being put down by a Thatcher-like figure. And good riddance to it.

    But greenism becomes more impudent and malign by the day: it really is no longer an exaggeration to call it ecofascism. Dealing with the greenshirts will require someone even more forthright and determined: another Cromwell.

    There is, of course, no sign of such a person emerging.

  14. Pingback: On The Beach | The Actinide Age

  15. Pingback: Everyone knows now. | The Actinide Age

  16. Pingback: Fukushima Fear-mongering: The Party’s Over | The Actinide Age

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *