/

Anti-nuclear firebrand’s case heads to Canadian court over death threats against Fukushima environmental scientists

by

Staff Writer

An activist who alleges a global cover-up over the extent of pollution from the Fukushima No. 1 disaster is due in court in Victoria, Canada, on Wednesday over threats he allegedly made against the lives of two environmental scientists.

Dana Durnford is charged with two counts of criminal harassment for online videos attacking researchers Ken Buesseler of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts and Jay Cullen of the University of Victoria in British Columbia.

In expletive-laden recordings available until recently on the Internet, Durnford rails against the pair and other leading scientists and calls for their deaths.

“Every university, every academic, every nuclear scientist will be hunted down and f—-ing murdered,” he declares in one video. “We want you dead.”

Durnford alleges a conspiracy by corporations and academics to cover up radioactive damage from the Fukushima plant in the oceans off Canada.

Neither Buesseler nor Cullen could be reached for comment.

A third individual involved in the study of radiation from the plant also reported receiving death threats from Durnford. That scientist declined to be quoted for this report.

Buesseler and Cullen are respected environmental researchers whose studies of radioactive particles in seawater show material from the plant on the coast of Fukushima Prefecture has limited impact when diluted in the ocean. One study shows that radioactive particles are undetectable in fish in the eastern Pacific.

Durnford disagrees. He has a following on the Internet, where he rails against mainstream scientific researchers in videos apparently recorded from his couch and kitchen.

“They are liars, they are mass murderers, they are the most disgusting part of our society,” he declares in one video.

The case touches on a type of fringe activism that is frequently a counterpart to rationally argued debate.

Mark Lynas, a writer and environmental campaigner based in Oxford, England, says criminal harassment of the kind alleged is “all too common.”

“This extreme is where the environmental movement goes pathological,” Lynas said. “Some activists are so ideologically blinkered in their attitude to things like nuclear power that in essence their worldview is faith-based, and they cannot conceive of the possibility of any scientific evidence challenging their worldview.”

Lynas said such activists tend to find that anything contradicting their belief that radiation is uniquely dangerous is evidence of a criminal conspiracy. He underscored that he was not commenting on the specifics of this case.

Since his arrest and release on bail, Durnford has posted a new video in which he asks for money to help pay his legal fees. He complains of bail conditions that require him to purge videos and comments from the Internet.

“I’m exposing people for committing crimes. How am I the bad person?” he says.

  • robrob

    Durnford disagrees. He has been up and down the Canadian west coast these past months documenting the tide pools from a crowd funded 25 ft Zodiac Life boat….they are all devoid of the rich life that should still be there (according to the experts.) The Science is now meaningless as offered.

    • neutrino

      Nobody should care if Durnford disagrees with scientists. Being a salvage diver for years does not put him on par with the scientists he wants killed. I’ve been walking on the earth all my life, that doesn’t mean I’m on par with geologists, qualified to judge them as liars and demand their execution.

      • Factcheck

        Neutrino is too kind. Anyone with an iota of commonsense and basic civil scruples can see that Durnford is a run-of-the-mill con man. Many people have shown that his “evidence” is faked, and his donors have given hard-earned money to an abusive fraud who threatens to kill people. Good luck getting your money back!

      • robrob

        What an odd argument you present?? Your ability to walk is as a result of many forces and other considerations, any of which could become a study in their own right. Perhaps ‘swimming’ would be a better activity to explore for it could lead one to examine the risk of swimming by the Fukushima reactors for the day! Which Dr Brian Hanley stated is just fine!

    • Bob Smithers

      That proves nothing, just points in time.
      There’s plenty of sealife, his observations are just self-serving BS

      • robrob

        The nonsense here is just endless…..’points in time’…lol am i supposed to ask ”source? citation needed!”

  • A Green Road

    Just curious… did your paper ever interview Dana and ask him why he is so angry? Maybe he is actually finding something that would cause this level of frustration and despair. Why is it is easy to dismiss someone who spent their whole life on the ocean, and who has thousands of hours of documented evidence around the death of the Pacific and sterilization of the coastline? True journalism is about showing BOTH sides of the issue. This article seems to be assassinating his character and denying he found anything worth talking about.

    QUOTE BY DR GOFMAN MD PHD

    “Licensing a nuclear power plant is in my view, licensing random premeditated murder. First of all, when you license a plant, you know what you’re doing—so it’s premeditated. You can’t say, “I didn’t know.” Second, the evidence on radiation-producing cancer is beyond doubt. I’ve worked fifteen years on it [as of 1982], and so have many others. It is not a question any more: radiation produces cancer, and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest doses.”

    • neutrino

      What Green Road is saying is Durnford has just cause to call for murder. What you guys need to do is advocate for changing the laws that prohibit inciting violence. Until you achieve your barbarian utopia, you should abide by current laws.

    • Ace

      There’s plenty of youtube videos made by Dana, and about Dana, that demonstrated his anger towards others and the establishment long before the triple meltdown.

    • Starviking

      Why is it is easy to dismiss someone who spent their whole life on the ocean, and who has thousands of hours of documented evidence around the death of the Pacific and sterilization of the coastline? True journalism is about showing BOTH sides of the issue.

      It’s easy to dismiss Dana’s work because it ignores reality. Death and devastation on the Pacific Coast of North America, no problems on the Pacific Coast of Japan? If events were unfolding as he said, marine biologists would be flocking to the NA Pacific Coast – they’re not. Scientific journals, newspapers, and TV stations would be reporting on it – they’re not.

      This “report BOTH sides of the issue” rubbish is the same tactic as that used by climate deniers – they know their “science” is crap, so they appeal for “balance”. True journalists have a duty to report the facts – not bilge like Dana’s crazy ramblings.

      • Dustoff

        climate deniers.

        *************************************
        Climate changes day after day. So I don’t buy into the warming part as if we all will cook.

      • Starviking

        No, weather changes day after day – climate, which is the average of weather over the years, is different.

        Climate tells us what we can normally expect on a summer day in London, or a winter day in Vancouver. When climate changes, our expectations are often wrong.

        We have been having more hottest years ever and hottest months ever in the recent past. Those, and other indicators tell us that our climate is changing. The background science tells us it is almost certainly from out activities.

    • https://atoms4ca.tumblr.com Atoms for California

      “Why is it is easy to dismiss someone” who makes public death threats? Because death threats are illegal. In general, there is a stigma around criminal behavior. A social taboo, you might say. Furthermore, use of violence specifically to promote an idea has been frowned upon since the Enlightenment, or so.

    • Bob Smithers

      Because he is an idiot. And now, the court system is going to smack him on the head, for being an IDIOT

    • 3GSimpleton

      I find it quite easy to dismiss raving lunatics.

    • greenthinker2012

      “sterilization of the coastline” ?!?!
      GRP…your comment pretty much sums up your hyperbolic, evidence-free bull.
      I live on the west coast and the ocean and coastline is still amazingly fecund. Every nook and cranny is brimming with life.
      I scuba dive regularly and we have some of the most beautiful and abundant undersea life in the world.
      I know you feel compelled to just make stuff up and tell scary stories, but this is even too low for your regular “standards”.
      Anyone reading this can simply ask someone they know on the west coast to look out their window and report what they see.
      If there is a threat to our oceans, it comes from ocean acidification and warming caused by fossil fuel burning.
      Nuclear power is a powerful tool that can replace fossil fuels.

      • robrob

        Dana was careful to record the GPS using actual screen shots to indicate the exact areas examined.TAKE YOUR PICK Please feel free to go yourself with your face mask and flippers, prove him wrong! Walk the walk!

      • Factcheck

        Actually, there have been so many local reports from the region flatly contradicting Durnford’s claims including by First Nations, that everyone felt free dismissing him as a nut and figured he’d go away as soon as the people who have been sending him money wised up. It’s so obvious that people got tired of debunking him. From what I’ve seen his photographic evidence just shows that no matter where you go, you can find some bare rocks point the camera at.

      • robrob

        You will have to go a bit further as the situation unfolds. No one has directly contested Dana in any way shape or form.
        The attempts to do so have involved coercion and at times violence but never a dignified look at the reality. It is only now that he is in a position to conduct a meaningful opposition to the establishment line that he has been heavily sanctioned and perhaps criminalized, imprisoned and silenced. As regards the North Pacific, naturally…all will be revealed in good time.

      • Jag_Levak

        “No one has directly contested Dana in any way shape or form.”

        I’ve seen a number of people do exactly that. The most you can claim is that you haven’t seen it.

        “The attempts to do so have seemingly involved coercion and at times even violence but never a dignified look at the reality.”

        That is a nearly perfect inversion of reality.

        “It is only now that he is in a position to conduct a meaningful opposition to the establishment line that he has been heavily sanctioned and perhaps criminalized, imprisoned and silenced.”

        He hasn’t been silenced at all, not even after being charged. He was always, and still remains, free to post whatever lies and preposterous claptrap he wants to, and even though he was basically perpetrating fraud by lying for dollars, I seriously doubt he would ever have been charged for that. It was purely the criminal threats on the lives of others which got him into trouble here.

        “As regards the North Pacific, naturally…all will be revealed in good time.”

        It already has been. I have a couple of posts which are being held up in moderation, but they have more than a dozen links showing the rocky beaches Dana photographed looked the same as five years ago, and showing many examples of abundant marine life from the exact region Dana claimed had been devastated and made barren, dating from the same time as Dana’s tour or thereafter. Either Dana lied about his knowledge of sea life in the area and having actually done any diving to look for life, or he lied about the state of marine life in the Pacific northwest. I can think of no innocent explanation for how dramatically and emphatically wrong he has been on this. (But if you can think of one, I would, of course, be interested to hear it.)

      • Factcheck

        Actually, there have been so many local reports from the region flatly contradicting Durnford’s claims including by First Nations, that everyone felt free dismissing him as a nut and figured he’d go away as soon as the people who have been sending him money wised up. It’s so obvious that people got tired of debunking him. From what I’ve seen his photographic evidence just shows that no matter where you go, you can find some bare rocks point the camera at.

      • greenthinker2012

        Like I said rob, I scuba dive regularly and am “walking the walk”.
        Is Dana saying there are some isolated rocks that do not have sea life on them?
        That is very different than what he is claiming which is widespread desolation.
        I can tell you from first hand experience that Dana is wrong.
        In this conversation it is you who is believing something without “walking the walk”
        Come out to the west coast and see for yourself what a deluded lunatic Dana is.
        Or phone someone you know out here and ask them to go look.
        I am predicting that you will not do so, and will simply continue to believe what you choose to believe while avoiding any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

  • GBR48

    Rational argument, scientific analysis and political discussion are fine. Death threats cross the line. They have no place in civil society and are quite rightly a serious offence. Anyone who makes threats in such a manner deserves to go to prison. He is damaging the credibility of the anti-nuclear lobby and environmental movement. He is not a martyr. He is an idiot for failing to moderate his behaviour within civilised boundaries.

    If you want someone to listen to what you have to say, don’t shout, don’t swear, don’t use ALL CAPS and don’t make threats.

    • Bob Smithers

      Many people, with little to no education or knowledge in science (FORMAL training, not envirowhacko propaganda), think that radiation is all or nothing, where, that is far from the truth.
      We have lived with NATURAL radiation all of our lives, from space borne gamma rays, radon, bananas (K14), naturally occurring Carbon 14 (and many other NATURALLY radioactive isotopes), without keeling over dead immediately.
      High school chemistry, peeps.
      Fukushima, while a localized disaster, is far from the end of the world.
      More people died in traffic accidents today, than the day of Fukushima, and ever since, from the accident (ZERO)

      • neutrino

        What you’re saying is exactly what enrages Durnford more than anything. Most of his calls for violence are for his followers to punch anyone in the face who brings up natural radiation sources.

      • thedudeabidez

        While I disagree with his threats, it is true that the “Fuku radiation is no more harmful than eating bananas” line has been an industry-promoted talking point from the start. it’s also a falsity: the ability of the body to quickly process naturally occurring radiation has adapted over millennia, resulting in a short biological half-life. The same is not true of the contamination spewing from Fuku- Dai-Ichi.

      • neutrino

        Citation needed.

      • thedudeabidez

        The amount of potassium (and therefore of 40K) in the human body is fairly constant because of homeostatsis, so that any excess absorbed from food is quickly compensated by the elimination of an equal amount.

        It follows that the additional radiation exposure due to eating a banana lasts only for a few hours after ingestion, namely the time it takes for the normal potassium contents of the body to be restored by the kidneys.

      • neutrino

        That completely fails to support your claim that the body quickly processes naturally occurring radiation. What you’ve shown is that potassium — all potassium, radioactive or not — is kept at a constant level in the body. That is called potassium homeostasis, and it has nothing to do with radiation. A wide range of natural radionuclides are not kept in check internally by any homeostatic system.

        Your error is being so gullible as to believe listening to Durnford constitutes getting educated. Believing him constitutes getting more stupid.

      • thedudeabidez

        >That is called potassium homeostasis, and it has nothing to do with radiation

        It does if we are discussing the banana equivalent dose, which is what we are discussing, no?

        >That is called potassium homeostasis, and it has nothing to do with radiation.

        Incorrect. I repeat from above:

        “the additional radiation exposure due to eating a banana lasts only for a few hours after ingestion, namely the time it takes for the normal potassium contents of the body to be restored by the kidneys.”

        >A wide range of natural radionuclides are not kept in check internally by any homeostatic system.

        Right, and I do not dispute that, but we are discussing the banana equivalency concept being a crock. But, it’s also worth pointing out that a wide range of natural radionuclides are also site specific, exposure to which can be much more limited than constant internal emitters. But that’s another topic isn’t it?

        Finally, I have never even heard of Durnford until reading this article, so don’t imply that I endorse his theories, From what I’ve seen since, he’s fairly over-the-top. But I do dispute the idea that natural radiation exposure from bananas is something that can be used to explain away the very real risks associated with contamination released by accidents like the one at Fukushima Dai-Ichi.

        I guess your error is being so gullible as to believe propaganda spouted by the nuclear industry, … if I were to reply in the same tone you chose to use with me for no good reason. On the other hand I could I hope that you’re not an ideologue and that we’re actually having a dialogue about this stuff …

      • neutrino

        Sorry for assuming you’d heard of Durnford prior to this report. But you made the exact same error he repeats ad nauseam when you said:

        “the ability of the body to quickly process naturally occurring radiation has adapted over millennia, resulting in a short biological half-life.”

        That is wrong because the body quickly processes all potassium isotopes, not just radioactive 40K. Potassium homeostasis has nothing to do with processing radiation. And the body does not process any natural radionuclides because of their radioactivity by any adapted response.

        You are correct in that the Banana Equivalent Dose is clumsy for the reason of potassium homeostasis, but its underlying intent is reasonable. A better comparison might be to some average expected level of natural polonium in fish, as Po is not kept under homeostatic regulation.

      • Thomas Ackermann

        What a peculiar discussion on this thread. If naturally occurring radiation and man made elements like Pu 239 et al (in the 1000ands) are not of interest or deserve our “extreme” attention (Dana Durnford) – why do we have terrorist laws and extreme regulations in handling this material. I have not heard of applying to the DHS to buy or handle bananas. Fukushima is a direct and immenent threat to all life.

      • Michael Mann

        Fukushima is not a “threat to all life” you have been misled, I hope you aren’t one of the people who have been duped into donating money.

      • Thomas Ackermann

        Tell that to the 600 helicopter pilots and all the other conscripted soldiers that died attempting to entomb Chernobyl. P.S. They have to do it again, apparently. You need to get caught up on current events.

      • Michael Mann

        Fukushima is not Chernobyl. Even at Chernobyl the fear and anxiety caused more health problems than the radiation did.

      • Michael Mann

        Your attempts to use hyperbole and ignorance to create more fear and anxiety are disappointing…Knowledge is better than fear, get educated ,not scared,

      • Thomas Ackermann

        Answer the question – why are they erecting another Billion $$$$ cover over Chernobyl?

      • Michael Mann

        What does it have to do with Fukushima or the person advocating murder of scientists for telling the truth?

      • Thomas Ackermann

        You figure it out. Fukushima – 3 Full-core Meltdowns (confirmed), Chernobyl 1/3 the size of one of the Fukushima reactors. Almost 5 years of continuous haemorrhaging. Where is the cover over the stricken Fukushima plant?

      • Michael Mann

        In other words you have no understanding of the fundamental differences between an RMBK with no containment structure having a reactivity accident causing the reactor vessel head being blown in the air and dispersing highly radioactive material high into the atmosphere and 3 already shutdown reactors with intact containment losing cooling and melting within their containment. You really should do some study so you don’t look so foolish.

      • Thomas Ackermann

        I understand 400 tonnes of radioactive water flowing from under Fukushima into the Pacific for over 1700 days. Confirmed! Keep digging into your whole of lies and subterfuge without addressing my points.

      • Michael Mann

        400 tonnes of water, a few grams of radioactive material don’t be so gullible. I think your attempts to shift the conversation are amusing. You obviously just repeat the propaganda you read on conspiracy websites as you have no understanding of the words you are spouting. The Pacific is just fine.

      • Thomas Ackermann

        You need to declare a conflict of interest in this forum as i suspect you are likely a recipient of a pay check from the nuclear industry. You continuously skirt my serious concerns and ridicule my comments. Archetypal shill/troll behaviour.

      • Michael Mann

        I knew it was just a matter of time before you played the “shill gambit” anyone with actual knowledge must be a shill… I am not a paid spokesman and no-one tells me what to post. I post my opinion based on over 35 years as a qualified radiation worker. 8 years as a reactor operator in the US Navy and 27 years as an I&C technician at a commercial nuclear power plant. My interest is in the well being of humanity and the environment, that is not a conflict of interest. Nuclear energy can improve the standard of living while cleaning up the environment and reducing carbon emissions…..

      • Thomas Ackermann

        Thank you for admitting your conflict of interest in this discussion. Nuclear provides less than 6% of energy, world wide and has created enormous environmental concerns in regard to the waste that has accumulated over the last 60 years. If you truly were on the side of life (instead of your pay check) you would admit that we don’t know what to do with the over 300,000 tonnes of nuclear waste sitting in nuclear spent fuel pools in 400 + nuclear plants world wide.

      • Thomas Ackermann

        Thank you for admitting your conflict of interest in this discussion. Nuclear provides less than 6% of energy, world wide and has created enormous environmental concerns in regard to the waste that has accumulated over the last 60 years. If you truly were on the side of life (instead of your pay check) you would admit that we don’t know what to do with the over 300,000 tonnes of nuclear waste sitting in nuclear spent fuel pools in 400 + nuclear plants world wide.

      • Michael Mann

        You have a reading comprehension problem, I have no conflict of interest. You sound like you promote fossil fuels, why do you want to destroy the planet and people’s health?

      • Thomas Ackermann

        you obviously have nothing better to do than work for your nuclear pay check. This is a circular “he said she said session, a, who will have the last word wins internet campaign. Get a life. Good bye. You don’t answer questions you make pronouncements. You are a Nuclear PR dogmatic degenerate. You wasted my precious time.

      • Michael Mann

        Your imbecilic attempts at creating fear don’t work when people have actual knowledge, trying to discredit people with knowledge by calling them names is not very effective either. Take a few classes at an accredited school and stay away from those conspiracy websites.

      • Michael Mann

        Is English your second language? I am not paid to post my opinions. Is it your contention that anyone with knowledge or experience is a shill and cannot be trusted? The next time you’re seriously ill make sure you ignore your doctor and listen to the wack job on the corner with no medical training instead. Good riddance.

      • Michael Mann

        Thank you for admitting you don’t have a clue. It’s amazing that you anti-nuclear people believe that first hand knowledge is a handicap.

      • Sam Gilman

        Thomas,

        You’ve reproduced a few factual errors and missteps here. Chernobyl was a horrible mess, but your claim that 600 pilots died isn’t true. Your comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima based on the number of reactors involved doesn’t really make any sense. The Chernobyl reactor vessel blew open and sent core material directly up high into the sky. That didn’t happen at Fukushima. In general, the releases at Fukushima are much less than at Chernobyl, and the nature of the leaks doesn’t require Chernobyl-style entombment. You claim 400 tonnes of radioactive water are going into the sea. It’s actually been 300 tonnes, and the level of radioactivity in the sea outside the artificial bay is very low. It’s true that nuclear power provides only 6% of final energy, but that actually makes it one of our major sources of low carbon electricity, far outstripping sources like wind and solar. I hope like me you are concerned by the prospect of global warming.

        Could you give a source for where you’re getting your information? It’s just that the spread of uncorroborated and false rumours does great damage to the rehabilitation of the region and the welfare of the population affected by Fukushima.

      • Jag_Levak

        Do you likewise dismiss the positions of people who derive an income or livelihood from their activism against nuclear power? At most, conflict of interest provides a possible alternate account for why someone might say something they don’t actually believe to be true. But it does not establish that anything they say is untrue. I’ve been on both sides of this issue and I have found that the positions of professionals cannot automatically dismissed, and the positions of sincere and well-meaning amateurs cannot automatically be accepted. Claims should be evaluated on their merits irrespective of our feelings about the people making them.

      • Jag_Levak

        “I understand 400 tonnes of radioactive water flowing from under Fukushima into the Pacific for over 1700 days.”

        The Pacific now has roughly 730 quadrillion metric tons of radioactive water. Before the Fukushima meltdowns, it contained only around 730 quadrillion metric tons of radioactive water.

      • Michael Mann

        I figured it out, you have absolutely no understanding yet you pretend to know everything, try to get information from real sources and not the crazy conspiracy websites.

      • Thomas Ackermann

        There you go – the archetypal default response – Conspiracy

      • SA Kiteman

        Yup, it is the fallback position of effectively every anti-nuke in the world. I think that is now to be listed as Anti-Nuke Standard Lie #10: “Any good news is a conspiracy”.

      • SA Kiteman

        Good Reader:
        Chernobyl didn’t have a containment vessel, or building. So AFTER the fact, they tried to build one.
        Fukushima had, and still has its primary containment vessel and secondary contaiment buildings. The units that lost their tertiary containment structures had temporary covers constructed right away.

        Oh, and I wonder, “WHAT is “haemorrhaging”? Not Fukushima. If TA thinks so it is another indication that he goes to the wrong sources for his information. The reactor buildings have been well contained since mid-2011. They have released effectively nothing since that time.

      • SA Kiteman

        How else is Russia going to get Billions in hard currency given to them by western states?

      • SA Kiteman

        How else is Russia going to get Billions in hard currency given to them by western states?

      • Jag_Levak

        “Tell that to the 600 helicopter pilots and all the other conscripted soldiers that died attempting to entomb Chernobyl.”

        I think that figure is high, but even if it had been 10 times that amount, that would still be a pittance compared to the death toll of the worst hydroelectric disaster. So in your view, would the high death toll from hydropower justify calling for the murder of people who provide accurate information about the reasonably low risks from hydropower?

      • Michael Mann

        You seem confused….

      • SA Kiteman

        Since only ~30 people died from Chernobyl directly, and other than thyroid cancer, no distiguishable increase in radiation related diseases have manifest, I must take your “600 helicopter pilots to be the result of lying yourself, or simply repeating lies you hae been told.

        Now, in the 30ish years since Chernobyl, a goodly number of first responders and liquidators have died due to stress related diseases, so it seems that the anti-nuke fearmongering has again claimed more lives than radiation.

      • SA Kiteman

        Since only ~30 people died from Chernobyl directly, and other than thyroid cancer, no distiguishable increase in radiation related diseases have manifest, I must take your “600 helicopter pilots to be the result of lying yourself, or simply repeating lies you hae been told.

        Now, in the 30ish years since Chernobyl, a goodly number of first responders and liquidators have died due to stress related diseases, so it seems that the anti-nuke fearmongering has again claimed more lives than radiation.

      • SA Kiteman

        Good Reader:
        The threat is all in Tom Ackerman’s over active and under educated imagination.

      • Thomas Ackermann

        What a peculiar discussion on this thread. If naturally occurring radiation and man made elements like Pu 239 et al (in the 1000ands) are not of interest or deserve our “extreme” attention (Dana Durnford) – why do we have terrorist laws and extreme regulations in handling this material. I have not heard of applying to the DHS to buy or handle bananas. Fukushima is a direct and immenent threat to all life.

      • jimhopf

        Sigh….

        The science is very clear that there is absolutely no qualitative difference between “natural” and “man-made” radiation sources (isotopes) with respect to biological impact.

        All isotopes, natural or man made, emit either alpha, beta, or gamma particles at various energies. They all have a certain biological half-life (residence time in the body). Different isotopes may concentrate in different organs, but for every organ, there are both natural and man-made isotopes that would concentrate in it.

        Dose is a measure of biological impact. For every isotope, the resulting dose for every curie that is either inhaled or ingested has been accurately calculated. Those calculations account for residence time on the body (biological half life) as well as the isotope’s behavior in the body (e.g., concentrating in any given organ, etc..) This is well known science.

        So, the fact is that dose is dose, period. A millirem is a millirem. Same biological impact (any cancer risk, etc..). We can calculate how much dose you get from eating a banana, or from ingesting a given amount of Cs-137. If the doses are the same, the biological impacts are the same, period. There is no disagreement within the scientific community on this.

      • Michael Mann

        Well said…

      • greenthinker2012

        The “banana equivalent dose” was invented to help non-professionals get some sense of the amounts of radiation that are normally discussed using confusing terms like Sieverts and Becquerels.
        Is anyone arguing that the Banana Equivalent Dose be used by scientists or medical doctors in their rigorous analysis of radiation?
        No, of course not.
        Getting into highly technical arguments about potassium homeostasis is silly because it misrepresents the purpose of the Banana Equivalent Dose.
        Is the B.E.D. scientifically rigorous? Of course not.
        Is the B.E.D. useful for helping people get a feeling for the numbers being discussed? Yes.

      • SA Kiteman

        What I obect to is the contention that a mSv of Cs137 exposure is any different from a mSv of K40 exposure. What makes it “special” just because it is anthropogenic?

        I know the answer, do you?

      • robrob

        This is exactly the type of science that Durnford so easily contests as regards the unfolding Fukushima realities. Your ‘crossing the road’ stats are perhaps missing one added criteria, suppose you had been told that ‘if you cross this road you will be hit by a bus!’
        This variation demonstrates the gap between Durnford and the mainstream Science well! As for these death threats, i might have been more worried in Toronto about infamous The crack head mayor who once boasted of his abilities in this field and begged to be let at a the person being discussed ‘for one hour’! Durnford’s emotional outbursts may have been cringe worthy, but it was always about opening up public debate and nothing more seems to me.

      • Jag_Levak

        “His ‘Expedition for Life’ will go down in what ever history remains to humanity as a valiant effort to save the Oceans…”

        In the larger context of history, his Expedition for Dollars will quietly slide into oblivion. When it becomes obvious to all but the most blinkered that it was nothing more than a fundraising pack of lies, then only fringe cranks as demented as Dana will continue to bring it up. At most, it might wind up as an obscure footnote when historians look back in puzzlement at the bizarre and irrational social phenomenon which was “environmentalists” opposed to nuclear power at the height of the Age of Coal.

      • thedudeabidez

        Tell me what the plan here is for long-term storage of nuclear waste, how much that is going to cost, and how it’s going to be safe from earthquakes, and maybe I’ll take you seriously in presenting nuclear power some sort of “greener” alternative to coal.

      • Jag_Levak

        There are multiple plans for the spent fuel. Over the course of the next few years or decades, the main repository is most likely to be the on-site cooling pools or dry cask storage. There are no serious technical problems with that approach, and that could easily see us through the remainder of this century. If you can think of any respect in which contained spent fuel with its ridiculously tiny geographic footprint is not massively greener than coal, I’d be interested to hear about it.

        For intermediate term storage, I expect several underground repositories will be set up and those might see some use for another 2 or 3 centuries.. But spent fuel is only “spent” with regard to the current class of reactors. Even high-burnup spent fuel has only extracted about 5% of the energy potential of the fuel. There are multiple teams working on developing fast, mixed, or epithermal spectrum reactors which can make use of the rest, and most of them would operate in a temperature range which makes the heat produced more useful, so these reactors should deliver between 20 to 30 times the amount of usable energy that we got from the fuel on its first pass through current reactors. Final burnup will convert all of the transuranics into fission products.

        The fission products themselves will be divided into three categories. Around 80% of it will go into well-shielded short-term sequester for up to ten years while it drops down to or below background radiation levels. There will be 7 very long-lived fission products, some of which have uses, or can be converted into stable and even valuable elements by transmutation, and the remainder of which will be very mildly radioactive, easily-shielded beta emitters, in very small quantities. Around 17% of the fission products will have intermediate half-lives–up to around 30 years. In three or four centuries, they will be cold elements, all of which are usable. These might wind up in a recoverable sequester, or we might just vitrify them and drop them down deep boreholes–whichever turns out to be cheapest at the time. Earthquakes would pose no problem for borehole disposal. They might collapse underground repositories rendering the fission products unrecoverable, but posing negligible risk to anyone above ground, and Australia is currently investigating setting up a global nuclear waste repository, and Australia has some of the most tectonically stable land on the planet. The net long-term risk from earthquakes would be trivial compared to the risks posed by the energy alternatives.

        As for cost, a metric ton of spent fuel easily has the potential to produce a gigawatt-year of electricity. At a wholesale rate of, say, 3 cents per kw hour, that would translate into revenues of over a quarter billion dollars. Even a metric ton of gold is only worth around 35 million. So let me turn your question around. If someone were to dump several tons of gold dust in your front yard, how much do you think it would “cost” you to dispose of it?

      • Michael Mann

        Great explanation!

      • Jag_Levak

        Whoops, missed the addendum on this. I consider all my Disqus comments to be in the public domain. Use any of them as you see fit.

  • Al_Martinezz

    People like Durnford are just as bad as creationists. Unfortunately, you have people like Harvey Wasserman who have made their careers feeding off anti-science nuts like Durnford, and exacerbate the situation with non-science-based claims.

    • neutrino

      How has Wasserman been feeding off Durnford?

      • Sam Gilman

        I don’t know if Wasserman or Michael Snyder feed directly off Durnford, but the same kind of material (the oceans are dying, there’s a conspiracy to hide the truth) comes out in their work. For example, Wasserman’s fifty reasons to fear Fukushima, and Snyder’s 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima.

      • Sean Mcgee

        Hi Sam , I responded yo your point on another thread concerning Thyroid issues but the comment was removed and the reply blocked .. Just wanted to mention the Tsude Study that collated the data and proved my point .. to talk more email arclight2011@riseup.net regards sean

      • Sam Gilman

        Tsuda’s study and methods have been criticised by leading researchers, and are profoundly at odds with mainstream science.

        Would you like to explain why you want to put so much store in a clearly outlying study?

      • Sam Gilman

        (And I’d prefer to have a public conversation, thanks)

      • Sean Mcgee

        i suffer from deletion syndrome Sam, I would have (with your prmission) put it up on the blog http://www.nuclear-news.net (some articles i put up there about Dana including aninterview with an activist – still managing to stay on topic).. Have you any other recent studies on the full stats from Fukushima if you have one? thxs)

      • Sam Gilman

        This is a summary of a presentation given by the thyroid screening people. The brief version is that the current data look nothing like an outbreak of thyroid cancers from radiation exposure:

        http://www.cancernetwork.com/ata-2015-thyroid-cancer/role-fukushima-radiation-unclear-pediatric-thyroid-cancers

        This is a good, well-sourced video – by an anti-nuclear blogger – making it very clear why Tsuda’s interpretation is bogus. He provides references for all his statements in the description to the video.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztg29UGIO2s

        I am surprised Tsuda’s study even got published, it’s that bad. It looks possibly to have been a political decision to “get discussion going” as it were. It was accompanied by a piece in the same journal quietly trashing it.

      • Sean Mcgee

        thanks i will look into these.. I should contact Prof. Tsude and let him know that his work is being challenged. And get a response.. I will post it here if i am not blocked etc.. or i will catch you on another thread .. Thanks sam

      • Sam Gilman

        He knows his work is being challenged. It’s been challenged for a couple of years.

        If you have Tsuda’s ear, here are some questions to ask him:

        1. Why did he ignore the age profile of tumour sufferers? If the headline rate of tumours were caused by radiation, then it should be the very youngest in the screening programme with tumours. Yet the Fukushima group tumours are concentrated in the highest age group.

        2. When he did his internal comparison, why did he exclude west Fukushima? If West Fukushima is included, the relationship between distance from the plant and rate of tumours seems to disappear.

        3. Why did he assume a very low latency period for thyroid cancer? His paper assumes a latency period of 4 years, but the literature shows a latency period of between four and thirty years. A longer latency period means a much bigger screening effect. (And evidence from Korea indicates it can be a very large effect).

        4. Why did he ignore the evidence from analyses of tumours that show no signs of the markers of radiogenic thyroid cancer, and most show the markers of regular adult thyroid cancer?

        5. Why does he think Gerry Thomas, the head of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, described his study as “not a good study to base opinions on”?

        6. How far does he see his work as contradicting current mainstream scientific opinion on the relationship between dose and response in radiogenic thyroid cancer?

      • robrob

        Lol…The very SAME Gerladine that stated ‘the containment around the reactor core remains largely intact’. Gerald suffers from a kind of tourette’s syndrome where by she she repeats ”..not statistically significant..” over and over again!
        ”Cup of Tea Jerry?” we asked.
        ”NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT” she screamed.

      • Sam Gilman

        Er, robrob, in the real world, the containment structures around the reactor cores are largely intact.

        In the madcap world of Dana Durnford, who knows what the truth is.

      • robrob

        The important word is ‘containment’. The many layers that form the protective barriers between what is on the inside and the what could be termed ‘the environment’. Geraldine Thomas from Imperial College London,which has now been tasked with further involvement at the Fukushima site going forward, implies that containment has remained largely intact.
        By this she means the reactor core as clearly the layers beyond that were all but destroyed entirely. Her wild assumptions regarding the actual releases were on display from the get go and have formed the core of her approach over the last 5 years and no doubt the next. Meanwhile the North Pacific Ocean’s once magnificent creatures appear as poor starving wretches all along our coast lines? Salmon have arrived in the low thousands rather than the Millions and the rarest of the rare are coming up from the deep to die. It is not a mere ‘coincidence’ that blow for blow this has all been accompanied by a triple meltdown in another part of the same Ocean. ‘Who knows what the truth is?’ you quite rightly ask!

      • Sam Gilman

        Dear me, you really are a flummoxed bee. The reactor cores are within the containment structure. That means they’re not exposed to the open air and they’re not spewing out lots of material into the environment. From a health perspective, Professor Thomas is quite right to say what she did, as it’s pertinent to her work. She’s looking at this as a health researcher. The engineering task is another matter, and she is not talking about the engineering issues in clean up. She’s not an engineer.

        As for sea life: Tell me, and this is entirely relevant, do you believe in global warming or do you think it is a scam thought up by government elites?

      • Sean Mcgee

        Done.. I will drop a reply here if the comments are not closed
        Namaste!

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve just seen the alleged reply posted on your blog.

        I don’t believe it was written by Toshihide Tsuda. Not least because it mis-spells his name and that he also claims not to have heard of Geraldine Thomas. It also contradicts his own paper on dosing and the meaning of latency period. In general it’s a feast of incompetent amateurism.

        Nice try.

      • Sean Mcgee

        his email is on the post and you can ask him yourself :) Why did I have to ask him? Whats wrong with Peer review? Ian Fairlies evidence of leukemia around nuclear plants in children was strenously tested and found to be bullet proof (loads of downloads of his research) .. But thank you for your response.. and for your questions..

      • Sam Gilman

        I’ve just seen the alleged reply posted on your blog.

        I don’t believe it was written by Toshihide Tsuda. Not least because it mis-spells his name and that he also claims not to have heard of Geraldine Thomas. It also contradicts his own paper on dosing and the meaning of latency period. In general it’s a feast of incompetent amateurism.

        Nice try.

      • Sean Mcgee

        You mean Geraldine Thomas of the UK Sciemce Media Centre (owned by F Fox the climate denier) now called Sense About Science.. The one that Reuters doesnt use because the “charity ” gets most of its money from … large energy corporations, big Agri and the unbiased UK government.. LOL What a mob! really Biased imo

      • Sam Gilman

        No, she works for Imperial College London.

        By the way, the rest of your post is also a mess of garbled misinformation. The Science Media Centre is a different organisation to Sense about Science. It’s a charity established by the Royal Institution. It’s not owned by Fox.

        This is why I want correspondence with you in public. People can see the tricks people like you try to get up to.

      • Sean Mcgee

        “The Science Media Centre is a different organisation to Sense about Science.” google this for, shall I say, A tacit connection :) i have investigated alot and Sense About Science “experts” are working in the UK alongside SMC UK with similar experts ..
        snip
        In a critique of the SMC in Nature journal, the science policy
        journalist Colin Macilwain said the SMC “offers the media a clearing
        house for scientific briefings and packaged quotes from scientists” and
        commented on plans to set up a Science Media Centre in the US:

        The London SMC’s narrow approach to risk assessment — if you
        want to hear about the risks of nuclear power, say, just ask your local
        nuclear engineer (see Nature 471, 549; 2011) — sits happily with the
        prevalent ethos of British journalism end snip

      • Sam Gilman

        You’re getting garbled. You said they were the same organisation. You got that wrong. Your slur now seems to be that SMC is compromised by, er, relying on eminent scientists.

        In any case, Gerry Thomas – who doesn’t work for the SMC – isn’t a nuclear engineer anyway. She focuses on health and radiation. So you’ve got that criticism wrong too.

        And it’s not just Gerry Thomas who’s cast doubt on Tsuda’s study.

        Could you state your criteria for what is a good source? It looks like you’re picking and choosing based on people’s conclusions, rather than their reliability or credibility.

      • Sean Mcgee

        You mean Geraldine Thomas of the UK Sciemce Media Centre (owned by F Fox the climate denier) now called Sense About Science.. The one that Reuters doesnt use because the “charity ” gets most of its money from … large energy corporations, big Agri and the unbiased UK government.. LOL What a mob! really Biased imo

      • Sam Gilman

        By the way, I notice you have not answered my question about why you put so much store in Tsuda’s study when so much other work disagrees with him.

        If you had confidence in the stuff you put on your website, you would have more confidence in addressing such questions in forums where you’re not the moderator.

      • Sean Mcgee

        answered.. see above

      • Sam Gilman

        No, you haven’t. What you did was make a false charge against a senior academic in a blatant ad hominem of no clear relevance, you got two different institutions utterly confused, and claimed that one of them was owned by someone who didn’t own it.

        Would you like to have another go at answering the question? Why put so much store in Tsuda’s work when it’s a blatant outlier?

      • Sean Mcgee

        see above

      • thedudeabidez

        I agree with you that the above stuff is complete hype. But even if we put aside any arguments over the long term effects or lack therof from of the release of contamination into the environment from Fuku Daiichi, isn’t the couple hundred thousand people who lost their homes and livelihoods a convincing enough argument against nuclear power? What if the wind had been blowing inland consistently for those first few days of the accident and not out to sea? You would’ve had a contaminated evac zone that literally cut Japan in two. This is not conspiracy theory, Prime Minister Kan has admitted to fearing exactly that outcome . Is that the sort of risk model that’s worth accepting?

      • Sam Gilman

        It’s not a couple of hundred thousand, but eighty thousand – you’re confusing the tsunami with the Fukushima evacuation. (Which is what a lot of journalists tend to do). That’s still not good, of course.

        Questions too have to be asked, once you look at the science of exposures, about how many people needed to have been evacuated for so long. And people are resettling. We have evacuated because of in most areas, very small theoretical risks that are much smaller than others we shrug off. Tokyo is a more carcinogenic environment than the evacuation zone, for example.

        But what’s the alternative? The alternative is, in large part, burning coal and gas and oil. We can build lots of solar and wind, which I support, but given our geography (lots of mountainous forest) and density, that won’t cover our needs anywhere near enough. Coal kills. Oil kills. Gas kills.

        The fire at Kesennuma was started by fossil fuels. A third of the town burnt to the ground, and many hundreds died. Where were the activists demanding an end to the use of the internal combustion engine? Burning of coal, if we extrapolate from US figures, is probably killing a couple of thousand people a year. And that’s before counting global warming (which is the big worry for me).

        So we do need to look at nuclear. If you look at its record worldwide, it really just doesn’t kill that many people for how much electricity it produces, and it’s low carbon.

        As for Kan – he talks a lot of self-justifying nonsense. He’s a politician who screwed up badly during the crisis, and so he’s trying to rebuild his “legacy”. Tokyo was never in danger. If you read what he says carefully, he thought he might have to evacuate Tokyo. That’s been co-operatively spun into “the man who saved Tokyo” by journalists of a certain persuasion. What actually happened was that he was ignorant. His interference at the plant made things worse.

      • GRLCowan

        isn’t the couple hundred thousand people who lost their homes and livelihoods a convincing enough argument against nuclear power?

        No, it is a convincing argument that governments should not derive any significant portion of their incomes from fossil fuel taxation.

        Prime Minister Kan has admitted

        “Admitted”?

      • jimhopf

        “isn’t the couple hundred thousand people who lost their homes and livelihoods a convincing enough argument against nuclear power?”
        Not even remotely.
        Let me get this straight. Fukushima, the only significant release of pollution in non-Soviet nuclear’s entire (50+) year history causes no deaths, will have no measurable public health impacts (according to almost all experts), but required ~100,000 people to temporarily *move*.
        By contrast, fossil fueled power generation causes several hundred thousand deaths *annually* and is a leading cause of global warming.
        One, having to temporarily move (and being handsomely compensated to do so) sure as hell beats dying. Two, I’ve heard that global warming will eventually cause dislocations (e.g,, having to move) for a hell of a lot more than 100,000 people.
        Seriously, as for the impacts over the last 50 years, the comparison having ~100,000 people having to (temporarily) move, vs. having on the order of *10 million* people die, and altering the planet’s climate.

      • https://twitter.com/atomikrabbit atomikrabbit

        “isn’t the couple hundred thousand people who lost their homes and livelihoods a convincing enough argument against nuclear power?”

        Then I must assume you are even more convinced that Renewables are out of the question because of that horrible RE accident that killed (not displaced) 171,000 people: wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#Casualties

      • https://twitter.com/atomikrabbit atomikrabbit

        “isn’t the couple hundred thousand people who lost their homes and livelihoods a convincing enough argument against nuclear power?”

        Then I must assume you are even more convinced that Renewables are out of the question because of that horrible RE accident that killed (not displaced) 171,000 people: wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#Casualties

      • Sam Gilman

        I don’t know if Wasserman or Michael Snyder feed directly off Durnford, but the same kind of material (the oceans are dying, there’s a conspiracy to hide the truth) comes out in their work. For example, Wasserman’s fifty reasons to fear Fukushima, and Snyder’s 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima.

  • Starviking

    Have to wonder at the fear-mongering picture accompanying this article – radioactive contamination suits at Fukushima – is JT trying to subtly take the side of the nutter in this article?

    People might also be interested in the postings of Prof. Cullen on Daily Kos. He goes under the name of “MarineChemist” there, and covers a lot of the scientific research on Fukushima’s effect on the environment.

    • Dustoff

      Daily Kos
      ***************

      You would take the word from anyone on a loony left-wing website. WOW just wow!

      • Starviking

        Prof. Cullen posts on the science, adds no political spin, so yes – I do take his words on science seriously.

  • Starviking

    Have to wonder at the fear-mongering picture accompanying this article – radioactive contamination suits at Fukushima – is JT trying to subtly take the side of the nutter in this article?

    People might also be interested in the postings of Prof. Cullen on Daily Kos. He goes under the name of “MarineChemist” there, and covers a lot of the scientific research on Fukushima’s effect on the environment.

  • Janine Baldwin

    nuclearism is fascism yes u can surmise we want them dead , no one that deaminizes Dana has a clue who he is or what he has contributed , the horrific truth will not set any of u scap goats free as the assault is on all of us as Canada has forced all of you to drink fukushema isotopes at a rate that u are all walking dead men , that is how much the professionals care about u

    • Bob Smithers

      Graduated Grade 3 yet?
      Until you learn to spell, punctuate, and form basic sentences, your opinion means -beans-, child.

    • 3GSimpleton

      Janine…

      You needn’t worry about the isotopes. You have a far more immediate problem with a condition known as ‘rectocranial insertion syndrome’. You really should seek some help with this condition, as it is only likely to worsen if left alone.

  • Janine Baldwin

    nuclearism is fascism yes u can surmise we want them dead , no one that deaminizes Dana has a clue who he is or what he has contributed , the horrific truth will not set any of u scap goats free as the assault is on all of us as Canada has forced all of you to drink fukushema isotopes at a rate that u are all walking dead men , that is how much the professionals care about u

  • Sean Mcgee

    How about a story of nuclear workers from the US who are hells angels
    who were involved in recent bloogbath in Texas that resulted in Killing?

    This blogger is only small fry amongst the many decent activists, he has a small following whose fan numbers of 18,000 are dubious .. real fringe material.. Its like saying that all nuclear engineers are as incompetant as the scientists who caused the Windscale nuclear accident (now rebranded Sellafield) ..
    There are many blogs and comments attacking and challenging Dana Durnford.. Look them up!

    • neutrino

      The author calls Durnford’s efforts “a type of fringe activism”. So how is that “like saying that all nuclear engineers are as incompetent as the scientists who caused the Windscale”?

      • Sean Mcgee

        “Japanese paper be expected to cover a story in Texas because they covered a story related to Fukushima” they wouldnt want that story! you are right :) lol It might raise some concern as to the veracity of the Nuclear Health Physicists that were involved in this mass slaughter.. Makes you wonder about USA support for the dose model? If they will slaughter their own with guns and knifes , what will they do to the likes of us (thinking of the cautionary principle in health issues here)? .. My point in mentioning the Texas massacre connection is that there are all sorts in groups and not all Health Physicists are loonies, just some of them .. Thats my point .. And thank you for giving me the chance to expand on the point i was making .. Namaste

      • Sean Mcgee

        check out the intercept for the full story on this,, the hells angels also included DOD and NSA workers. All key words supplied ;)

      • Sean Mcgee

        check out the intercept for the full story on this,, the hells angels also included DOD and NSA workers. All key words supplied ;)

      • Sean Mcgee

        check out the intercept for the full story on this,, the hells angels also included DOD and NSA workers. All key words supplied ;)

      • Sean Detente

        What will they do to the likes of us…I’m assuming in Texas? They’ll get shot, repeatedly.

      • Sean Mcgee

        “Japanese paper be expected to cover a story in Texas because they covered a story related to Fukushima” they wouldnt want that story! you are right :) lol It might raise some concern as to the veracity of the Nuclear Health Physicists that were involved in this mass slaughter.. Makes you wonder about USA support for the dose model? If they will slaughter their own with guns and knifes , what will they do to the likes of us (thinking of the cautionary principle in health issues here)? .. My point in mentioning the Texas massacre connection is that there are all sorts in groups and not all Health Physicists are loonies, just some of them .. Thats my point .. And thank you for giving me the chance to expand on the point i was making .. Namaste

      • Sean Mcgee

        and dont het me started on the strontium in my teeth as a downwinder of windscale :( off topic anyway)

      • Sean Mcgee

        and dont het me started on the strontium in my teeth as a downwinder of windscale :( off topic anyway)

      • Sean Mcgee

        and dont het me started on the strontium in my teeth as a downwinder of windscale :( off topic anyway)

      • Sean Mcgee

        and dont het me started on the strontium in my teeth as a downwinder of windscale :( off topic anyway)

  • agileprovocateur

    I am Dana Durnford you never called me 604-223-0763 and asked for my side before you attempted to destroy me and why the hell do you care what I said ??? you never reported on my 5 fukushima expeditions did you !! you never reported I covered 15,000 miles of coast lines did you !! you never mentioned that I took 10s of 1000s of pictures underwater footage 260 days on the ocean in one year did you !! as documentation that is at my site thenuclearproctologist did you !! . People need to realize Japan Times took a 5 second clip from a one hour video presentation on fukushima and used that to demonize me in public without telling people its 8 seconds from a 1 hour fukuahima video full of documentation . The writer has never even covered nuclear or fukushima yet claims I am somehow violent using a tiny clip completely out of context is heartbreaking that cowards like you exist . Fortunately a ex Japan Times editor has spoken out . Fukushima’s Political Fallout Puts Anti-nuke Researcher On Trial By Yoichi Shimatsu .

  • Ace

    Google “Dana Durnford RMCP” to get an idea of what type of person he is. Many of the links show Dana before he became an “activist”. The real question is why did Youtube only take action by making a strike against his account for violating its community guidelines AFTER his arrest. He’s been making video spouting vitriol against others for as long as he’s been on youtube.

    • robrob

      You only damage your already flagging position by referring people to the whole ‘connectingdots2’ onslaught and his many accounts that were created to attack Durnford. This endless tirade was thoroughly debunked and resulted in him putting his whole channel up for sale last fall.
      All they have on Durnford are some emotional outbursts, and that is what Jay has been tasked with exploiting. This classic ‘going for the player and NOT the ball’ demonstrates how weak the official data is and how keeping the unfolding carnage in the North Pacific Ocean downplayed requires that even the lowly sea dog Durnford be imprisoned.

      • Ace

        Okay, then try doing a youtube search for “RCMP little girls”. All these videos of Dana are seven years old. Again why did youtube not step in and enforce its community guidelines until now? He fell into a pattern of railing against what he called nuclear pr firms, and how they should be murdered etc., and then goes on to mention Ken, Jay, and others by name. He even said how if he saw Jay walking along the side of the road, Dana would pretend to nod-off at the wheal and run him over. That’s a sadistic fantasy, and all Dana’s followers did was cheer him on.

      • robrob

        In the cold light of day, every point you argue is imbued with the hatred and menace that Dana now stands falsely accused of.
        No science, just references to blatant falsehoods that linger still in the deep and so very dark backwaters of the internet.
        These baseless provocations are as meaningless now as they were then.

      • Dustoff

        So you support a loon who calls for the murder of others.

      • robrob

        Dana would tell of how a grown seal can sweep you off of your feet and send you across the ocean floor like a skittle, of how finding crew and divers for the long but rewarding stretches at sea was difficult and on the first dive of a new crew he might cr£p over the side on top of them as they hesitated at the bottom of the ladders! Just imagine.

        Dana as a youth would use a pocket watch and a compass to get them home as darkness fell and in being tasked with such responsibilities grew to embrace a very different world to the city folk and university types. He grew up with no nothing, cars, televisions or the distractions of the ‘me’ generation. He would read about the ocean, about the sea and about his future.

        Now he has encountered it’s destruction as a result of Fukushima, it’s shocking….emotional….

        ‘A loon who calls for the murder of others’ is your accusation in full! A clear and stated intent to commit a murder most foul which was broadcast on Youtube as a kind of last testament before the enactment of such acts so as to be called here ‘murder in the 1st degree’/ in simple terms for general convenience. This conclusion is the culmination of the court pondering Ken and Jay’s complaints as set out in the papers subsequently submitted for the arrest of Durnford.

        The prosecution will set out to demonstrate that Durnford was but a step away from actualizing this scenario and that Ken and Jay were to be in fear of their lives and in need of protection, along with those close to them, family and fellow associates, from Durnford who was fully intent on causing actual physical harm or death to one or more of the aforementioned. The defense will set out to show beyond all reasonable doubt that no such crime was intended, planned or in progress anywhere but in the devious minds of those that have now raised the accusation, that the figure of speech ‘they should all be hung’ /or it’s variants were never statements of intent but of outbursts emotion and frustration

        The motives behind such actions that have put Durnford on trial and in peril of imprisonment will see the court traverse the inner workings and relationship not only of the accusers, but the institutions they represent and the public statements made pertaining to the Fukushima disaster and subsequent contamination or lack thereof arising in the North Pacific Ocean and in particular to the levels of any and all Radioactive materials transported towards the West Coast Canada which is Durford’s area of expertise.

        Looking at Durnford’s picture collection from his ‘expedition for life’ one can see it’s all gone.
        It really is that simple and led Dana to conclude with the age old expression ‘they should all be hung’.
        People were once hung for their crimes you know!
        It really is a common enough turn of phrase in such matters.

        The principle of international law set by the highest tribunal in post war history ruled that scientists who participate in genocidal programs must be meted out capital punishment. This was the unanimous decision at the Nuremberg Doctors Trial.

      • Ace

        He literally crapped on his crew — who does that? Your really not helping his case.

      • robrob

        Run out of meaningless slander have we? Too bad..lol…weak weak weak..:(

      • Michael Mann

        Jay and Ken only been tasked with scientific investigation and teaching, they have nothing to do with nuclear “PR” When you are so off center that real unbiased science is thought of as radical PR then you have to examine the validity of your views.. They are not even pro-nuclear they are just pro-science.

  • simpleman56

    I think most just except what the corporate owned MSM says, they don’t their own research or look up the Truth for themselves & depent a corrupt MSM owned by the very corporations/shareholders of nuclear power plants, waste sites.weapons makers & never have viewed the before & after photos & videos made by Dan r locals who have watched their lively hoods & local food sources vanish or become so sick they cover the beaches & shore lines from Akasaka to Mexico.
    Dan has a passion of a diver ofr all the life that he & all the divers were use too having contact with 10 hours a day & now they are are gone, this would pee me off also if the nuke industry with the massive funding to shut people up because this is billions on income to each sharehold stands to lose if & when the News Black Out if lifted & the TRUTH of all the Illegal waste Dumps like in St Louis & the Black out set up for Japan news & reporters is lifted, then what, you get the Truth that never before has there been such a seious emergy of 3 full melt downs of nuke reactors on any coast in the world & N American & all point across the Atlantic lay in the path & all Oceans also, also inland water ways, lake, streams, plus the Jet Stream carries over 200 forms of Man Made Radiation Particles, some with short half life some that last millions of years & it only takes one particale to give cancer or Man Made related illness that will end lives early, add on Monsanto’s food’s & your immune sytem is shot to hell.
    Dana is mad I don’t blame him, just testing for C137 by no means tells the Truth, Pu & Uranium even at low rates is worse that a single high dose, so why go after a man in a momute of being pissed off at the lack of True reporting by our Paid Agencies be it in the US or Canda has many ticked off at the waste of money these agencies have gone thru only to report golbal warming all to raise your taxes & has nothing to do with the true science that has proved all these Al Gore’s wrong but get no where when the Corporations Own the MSM, Congress, the higher eds & the scientist they employe.
    I hope Dana walks away a free man & these one who pass laws to protect this industry are exposed & have to facee the Rule of they are not subject to as you & I am, they can Lie at will, steal at will, but if you did it, the time in Jail would not make you a happy person, for telling the TRUTH because the Truth is not allowed in the court today!
    Let Dana be free, let his work become known world wide, the before & after photos are time stamped & last, if that Whale that Starved to death could talk, I think it would say you are fools & will see the same as I & so many of my fellow Whales & the food chain that we lost due to Fukushima & the Nuke Industry who could not get passed page 7 in what to do after 3 major ongoing Melt Downs & one plant blown into the Jet Stream that keeps going around the world like a meery go round dropping all that MOX Fuel on your crops, land, homes, rivers & lakes, what are going to do know, build more or change for the children of this planet!?
    Peace

    • Sam Gilman

      How do you judge in this situation if someone is telling the TRUTH?

    • greenthinker2012

      I would suggest you bypass the MSM and make measurements yourself.
      Radiation is easy to detect.
      If you buy or rent a sensitive scintillation detector you don’t have to trust what anyone says.
      You can find out the truth directly yourself.
      What you will find is that there is no significant extra radiation in the oceans from Fukushima.

    • Jag_Levak

      “I think most just except what the corporate owned MSM says,”

      And some people just accept what kooks and cranks say.

      “they don’t their own research or look up the Truth for themselves”

      That pretty well describes me back when I was an anti-nuke.

      “& never have viewed the before & after photos & videos made by Dan”

      Have you seen those “before and after” cosmetics photos where they are clearly two different people? That’s the same trick Dana used.

      “or locals who have watched their lively hoods & local food sources vanish or become so sick they cover the beaches & shore lines from Akasaka to Mexico.”

      Not a single instance of which has had any plausible radiologic connection.

      “if & when the News Black Out if lifted & the TRUTH of all the Illegal waste Dumps like in St Louis & the Black out set up for Japan news & reporters is lifted, then what, you get the Truth that never before has there been such a seious emergy of 3 full melt downs of nuke reactors on any coast in the world & N American & all point across the Atlantic lay in the path & all Oceans also, also inland water ways, lake, streams, plus the Jet Stream carries over 200 forms of Man Made Radiation Particles, some with short half life some that last millions of years & it only takes one particale to give cancer or Man Made related illness that will end lives early”

      Every bubble-reality cult has its own fervently-believed “TRUTH”. But how passionately one believes something to be true has no bearing on whether it is actually true.

      “just testing for C137 by no means tells the Truth, Pu & Uranium even at low rates is worse that a single high dose”

      Did you know the oceans have around 4.5 billion tonnes of uranium dissolved in them already?

      “so why go after a man in a momute of being pissed off at the lack of True reporting by our Paid Agencies”

      They are going after him because what he did appears to have been a crime. If convicted, he can try to make the case at sentencing that being angry should be considered a mitigating factor.

      “be it in the US or Canda has many ticked off at the waste of money these agencies have gone thru only to report golbal warming all to raise your taxes & has nothing to do with the true science that has proved all these Al Gore’s wrong”

      There are people who passionately believe that evolution didn’t happen, that the moon landings were all a hoax, and that the towers were not brought down by airplanes. How passionately one believes something to be false has no bearing on whether it is actually false.

      “I hope Dana walks away a free man”

      I hope he learns his lesson about advocating violence against people who say things he disagrees with.

      “they can Lie at will, steal at will,”

      Dana is clearly both a liar and a con man, but that’s not what he’s being charged for.

      “Let Dana be free, let his work become known world wide”

      Every bubble reality cult thinks their leaders deserve global fame.

      “the before & after photos are time stamped”

      So are all the videos showing the abundance of sea life in the region during and after his expedition.

      “what to do after 3 major ongoing Melt Downs & one plant blown into the Jet Stream”

      The melt downs are not ongoing, and the hydrogen explosions did not breach any of the reactors.

      “that keeps going around the world like a meery go round dropping all that MOX Fuel on your crops,”

      No fuel was discharged at Fukushima.

      “what are going to do know, build more”

      We will build many more reactors, and we will develop many new kinds of reactors.

      “or change for the children of this planet!?”

      Our children will look back on our reactors as being crude, dirty and unsafe–much the way we look back on early tractors, trains, automobiles and airplanes. But they will no more set aside nuclear power than we did tractors, trains, automobiles and airplanes.

      • https://twitter.com/atomikrabbit atomikrabbit

        Mr. J, where can I get me one a them Tinfoil Gibberish Decoders like you got?

      • Jag_Levak

        It helps that I used to speak tinfoil hat. It was a different dialect, and I’m a bit rusty at it, but it gets me close enough to punt. It does seem like I’m having increasing difficulty understanding what anti-nukes are saying these days, but I don’t know whether I’m just losing the lingo though disuse or whether their side is becoming depleted of people who are reasonably articulate. Either possibility is fine by me.

  • Sam Gilman

    Although Durnford is extreme in the violence of his language, the views he espouses are not actually that far from many prominent figures in the mainstream anti-nuclear movement.

    Theories of a global conspiracy of silence have been common for years in the movement, whether it’s the claim that the World Health Organisation suppresses research, or that the Japanese government has made it illegal to talk about Fukushima, or even straying into New World Order and anti-semitic territory (such as Takashi Hirose – frequently quoted in the aftermath of Fukushima (Japan Times included), despite being notorious as the author of a book asserting a Jewish conspiracy over Chernobyl. In Dana Durnford’s case, he is a regular collaborator with Jeff Rense.).

    Preposterous claims too are part and parcel of the movement. Dana Durnford claims the Pacific has been rendered dead by radiation. A short while back we had the insane predictions of the anti-nuclear movement regarding the fuel pools (Helen Caldicott claimed that problems with the fuel pools at Fukushima might mean she would have to evacuate from, er, Boston.), while senior members Joe Mangano and Janette Sherman of the Tooth Fairy Project published claims of 15,000 babies being killed in the US by Fukushima in the months immediately after March 2011. Chris Busby claims there will be 200,000 extra cancers (but he also claims that government workers are spreading radioactive material all over Japan to cover up regional cancer differences!). Heaven knows what Arnie Gundersen is claiming now. Perhaps more worrying is the trend for them to blame what are clearly the effects of global warming on ocean life on Fukushima. This should be roundly condemned by environmentalists, but sadly isn’t. Too many environmentalists lack the courage to stand up to these people.

    Although these people are frequently portrayed by certain media outlets as brave oppositionists speaking truth to power, all they actually do is provide paranoia and misinformation. And, in so, so many cases, one of those nice little “donate” buttons on their websites. Their contribution to the recovery from the Fukushima crisis and the tsunami more generally has been negative. On the other hand, the work of people such as Jay Cullen has been a great positive. Not because of his results showing the oceans are safe, but because he provides sound, reliable information to the best of his honest ability. Alas, the atmosphere of paranoia and fantasy created by the anti-nuclear movement leads to situations where a scientist doing his job gets death threats.

    • fiddie

      I would recommend Rense’s site for the disclaimer only. Most of the rest is delusional or incomplete information.

  • Sam Gilman

    Although Durnford is extreme in the violence of his language, the views he espouses are not actually that far from many prominent figures in the mainstream anti-nuclear movement.

    Theories of a global conspiracy of silence have been common for years in the movement, whether it’s the claim that the World Health Organisation suppresses research, or that the Japanese government has made it illegal to talk about Fukushima, or even straying into New World Order and anti-semitic territory (such as Takashi Hirose – frequently quoted in the aftermath of Fukushima (Japan Times included), despite being notorious as the author of a book asserting a Jewish conspiracy over Chernobyl. In Dana Durnford’s case, he is a regular collaborator with Jeff Rense.).

    Preposterous claims too are part and parcel of the movement. Dana Durnford claims the Pacific has been rendered dead by radiation. A short while back we had the insane predictions of the anti-nuclear movement regarding the fuel pools (Helen Caldicott claimed that problems with the fuel pools at Fukushima might mean she would have to evacuate from, er, Boston.), while senior members Joe Mangano and Janette Sherman of the Tooth Fairy Project published claims of 15,000 babies being killed in the US by Fukushima in the months immediately after March 2011. Chris Busby claims there will be 200,000 extra cancers (but he also claims that government workers are spreading radioactive material all over Japan to cover up regional cancer differences!). Heaven knows what Arnie Gundersen is claiming now. Perhaps more worrying is the trend for them to blame what are clearly the effects of global warming on ocean life on Fukushima. This should be roundly condemned by environmentalists, but sadly isn’t. Too many environmentalists lack the courage to stand up to these people.

    Although these people are frequently portrayed by certain media outlets as brave oppositionists speaking truth to power, all they actually do is provide paranoia and misinformation. And, in so, so many cases, one of those nice little “donate” buttons on their websites. Their contribution to the recovery from the Fukushima crisis and the tsunami more generally has been negative. On the other hand, the work of people such as Jay Cullen has been a great positive. Not because of his results showing the oceans are safe, but because he provides sound, reliable information to the best of his honest ability. Alas, the atmosphere of paranoia and fantasy created by the anti-nuclear movement leads to situations where a scientist doing his job gets death threats.

  • Sam Gilman

    The irony of your relying on rense dot com to fulfill Godwin’s law should not be lost on people.

  • Sam Gilman

    Help me out here with what looks like a lack of critical thinking:

    If Fukushima radiation did that, how come radiation from bomb testing – which was much, much greater – didn’t do that?

    And if radiation did that to the West coast of north America, how come it didn’t do that to the east coast of Japan, where we still have the same amount of fish – probably more because of the disruption to fishing.

    • Canuck

      A massive but unknown quantity of hundreds of types of radionuclides have been released by the destroyed Japanese reactors. Your statement that the bomb testing released far more is fanciful. The massive initial discharges, involving the destruction by explosion of MOX fuel containing reactors, have been followed by nearly five years of releases. The prevailing winds and the ocean currents have carried this myriad of artificial radionuclides across the Pacific during that period. Rainfall and snow melt containing radionuclides have for five years flowed back into the Pacific coastline of Canada. The destruction of life in the tidal pools is a fact, as are countless other ‘unprecedented’ die offs along the entire N. American coastline. This new scale of carnage has occurred subsequent to the melt-downs of and massive releases by the Japanese reactors.

      • Sam Gilman

        You do realise you’re posting to a Japanese website where people who actually live in Japan are posting? The “say anything scary” tactic might work well for people living in the Dakotahs where all this is theoretical, but we actually live here. Claims such as Fukushima released more radiation than all the Pacific bomb tests are ludicrously silly. There’s loads of radiation measurement going on. People catch fish in the sea off Fukushima.

      • greenthinker2012

        My comment containing the link to the paper cited is held up in moderation.

        Here it is without the link…

        The amount of radioactive material released is known.

        Sorry to bring science into the discussion but the total amount of radionuclides released at Fukushima is approximately 4 Kg.

        The Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology Volume 50, Issue 3, 2013 contains a paper titled

        “Source term estimation of atmospheric release due to the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident by atmospheric and oceanic dispersion simulations.”

        Using the best available data and models it provides new estimates for the total quantity of I-131 and Cs-137 that was released into the atmosphere by the events at Fukushima Dai-ichi during the period from March 12 – March 20, 2013.

        Total mass of main isotopes of concern from Fukushima:

        I-131 approx 43 grams
        Cs-137 approx 4 kilograms

      • neutrino

        It’s astonishing how small the weight of the released fallout actually is. A misleading impression the media promotes is referring to “tons of radioactive water”. That gives the impression of tons of nuclear pollution, but it just means tiny qualities of fallout in large volumes of water. Another misleading impression is reporting fallout in terms of becquerels. That also subtly leaves the average person with the impression of tons of pollution, which fuels fear-mongers like Durnford.

      • greenthinker2012

        Agreed.
        Most people have no idea how to put numbers and measurements of radioactivity into context.
        The anti-nuke propagandists don’t like any efforts that make these numbers more accessible for the general public.
        An example is their hatred of the concept of “banana equivalent dose”.

      • https://twitter.com/atomikrabbit atomikrabbit

        Right – and after 80 days (10 eight-day half lives), the remaining I-131 was 41 milligrams, diluted over 1000s of square miles.

      • Ace

        Why do people mention MOX fuel like somehow it’s more dangerous. The Pu that goes into MOX fuel is the same Pu that comes out of spent fuel. The Pu is taken out of the reactor, is reprocessed, and goes back in the reactor for a second run. It’s created when uranium captures neutrons in the reactor, and when the Pu fissions, it’s destroyed.

      • greenthinker2012

        Of course plutonium is only mentioned because it sounds scary.

  • Sam Gilman

    Help me out here with what looks like a lack of critical thinking:

    If Fukushima radiation did that, how come radiation from bomb testing – which was much, much greater – didn’t do that?

    And if radiation did that to the West coast of north America, how come it didn’t do that to the east coast of Japan, where we still have the same amount of fish – probably more because of the disruption to fishing.

  • Factcheck

    rattleshark : You’re quoting Yoichi Shimatsu, who claimed that the Fukushima accident was intentionally caused by Mossad agents, and who also claimed that MH17, the airliner brought down by a missile in the Ukraine, was full of corpses and weaponized viruses. He’s an antisemite who also claims that Jews are also responsible for unrest in China. That blog post criticizing Cullen’s methodology is transparent BS. Do some homework for Christ’s sake! Anyone who believes Shimatsu’s “scientific” analysis deserves the extra ignorance they get from it.

  • Factcheck

    rattleshark : You’re quoting Yoichi Shimatsu, who claimed that the Fukushima accident was intentionally caused by Mossad agents, and who also claimed that MH17, the airliner brought down by a missile in the Ukraine, was full of corpses and weaponized viruses. He’s an antisemite who also claims that Jews are also responsible for unrest in China. That blog post criticizing Cullen’s methodology is transparent BS. Do some homework for Christ’s sake! Anyone who believes Shimatsu’s “scientific” analysis deserves the extra ignorance they get from it.

  • Factcheck

    If I were part of the antinuclear movement, I’d be really worried about how Durnford has managed to link the antinuclear movement with the Neonazi movement. Most of the people who support Durnford applaud Rense’s financial and PR backing for him. Rense is a racist and antisemite who features three people on his show more than any others: the Klan Leader David Duke, the antisemite Yoichi Shimatsu, and poor little Dana Durnford. What they all have in common is that they’re making money off off it. The not-crazy part of the antinuclear movement (yes, it exists) has been dismissing Durnford as a nutjob for years in private, but none of them — not Caldicott, not Gundersen, not Busby, not Greenpeace, not FOE — has ever made a public statement denouncing his use of death threats. That must be because they thought he was somehow making their job easier for them.

  • Factcheck

    Don’t kid yourselves, Durnford wasn’t arrested because what he has been saying was inconvenient to the nuclear industry or the “Illuminati.” It’s a simple criminal harassment rap. Every university professor in North America is required to report the kind of threats Durnford has been making in order to protect students, and that’s probably all Cullen and Buesseler did. The rest is up to law enforcement. What’s really depressing is that even in cut and dried cases of repeated abuse and threats like this, YouTube usually does not shut down user accounts. Neither does Facebook.

    • neutrino

      Right, it’s not like Jay picked up the phone and told the RCMP to arrest Durnford, as Durnford and his accessories portray it. Even milder threats than his should be reported to the police. Durnford is a youtube partner, and partners are pretty much bulletproof.

      • Factcheck

        Yeah, YouTube is a big part of the problem. Durnford has incited lots of others to make similar threatening online comments and videos, and some of them are woo-hoo nutso violent and abusive. With a whole group talking eco-terrorism like that all the time I would assume that the RCMP has been up in their junk for months.

      • Factcheck

        (The following is a dramatization):

        (two years ago…)
        Dana Durnford: All the sea life in the Pacific Coast has been exterminated by Fukushima radiation! Send me money!”
        Followers: No need to walk to the beach to check! Here’s 50 bucks!
        Antinuclear leaders: We know it’s not true, but don’t worry about it, he’s helping us.
        YouTube: Ka-ching!

        (a little later…)
        Dana Durnford: We should kill scientists who say I’m wrong! Send me money!
        Followers: That’s tellin’ ‘em, Dana! Here’s 50 more bucks!
        Antinuclear leaders: Naughty-naughty! But don’t worry about it, he’s helping us.
        YouTube: Ka-ching!

        (a little later…)
        Dana Durnford: I’ve teamed up with white supremacist and anti-semitic groups to raise money to urge people to kill scientists who say I’m wrong! Send me money!
        Followers: Nazis get a bad rap! Here’s 100 bucks this time!
        Antinuclear leaders: A little bit icky, but don’t worry about it, he’s helping us.
        YouTube: Ka-ching!

        (a little later…)
        Dana Durnford: Oops! I’ve been arrested for hate crimes and have implicated all my online followers and everyone who has ever sent me money! Man, it sure is hard to get off of a terrorist watch list! Sorry about that everyone, hope you have a secret hidey hole like I do! Send me money to furnish it!
        Followers: Holy sh*t! Honey, change your passwords!
        Antinuclear leaders: Let’s pretend he doesn’t exist! Dana who?
        YouTube: Call the lawyers!

  • thedudeabidez

    I’d be careful of relying on Shimatsu to as a source, he’s the guy who claimed there were stacks of bodies of dead Fukushima workers being hidden from the press, and when called on it, tried to say that he sourced it from “his colleagues” at the Japan Times, despite the fact that no such story was ever reported.

    • robrob

      I’d be wary of relying on Oxfords Wade Allison, It’s Emeritus Professor of Physics no less! Who swares blind after much consideration that a total of ‘ONE’ person will die over the next FIFTY years as a result of Fuku’s radiation…lol…it’s a rather ‘pro nuclear’ assertion! and by any standards ‘Out to lunch!’ ‘The lights are on!’ and indeed may shine forever more under Wade’s new nuclear tech’ boom..but there really is so obviously ‘no one in’!

    • robrob

      I’d be wary of relying on Oxfords Wade Allison, It’s Emeritus Professor of Physics no less! Who swares blind after much consideration that a total of ‘ONE’ person will die over the next FIFTY years as a result of Fuku’s radiation…lol…it’s a rather ‘pro nuclear’ assertion! and by any standards ‘Out to lunch!’ ‘The lights are on!’ and indeed may shine forever more under Wade’s new nuclear tech’ boom..but there really is so obviously ‘no one in’!

  • Adam Selene

    Yeah, Dana is a good soul. Ken and Jay are awful people, lying as children and oceans die of this nuke gunk.

    • Michael Mann

      Dana seems to be a dangerous and unbalanced person, who needs professional help.

      • neutrino

        And the worry for scientists he’s targeted isn’t so much Durnford himself coming after them, but members of his following, many of whom seem equally suited for psychiatric evaluation and many of whom echo the tone he’s set for justifying and threatening violence and murder.

        A civil society can’t stand by and do nothing as a group whips up hysteria for physical assaults and killings, especially when they mix in the names of specific people. The RCMP should be commended for defending the foundations of civil society and the necessary precondition for civil discourse!

    • Michael Mann

      Dana is dangerous, calling for people to be murdered and offering to do the job while laughing about beheading people doesn’t seem to be indicative of a “good soul”.

  • Michael Mann

    Ironic, Durnford called for peoples’ deaths to prevent scientific facts from being made public, trying to inhibit the free flow of information, he broke the law, now he wants to say his freedom of speech is being inhibited….Death threats are not protected speech nor should they be…

  • Sean Mcgee

    A seriously biased blog .. imo

    • Sam Gilman

      Could you lay out the criteria for why you think it is biased?

      (As a heads up, “It disagrees with my world view” is not a good criterion. You need to explain what research has been omitted and why such research merits inclusion. That is, you need to demonstrate that Hiroshima Syndrome blog, rather than you, maintain bias.)

      • Sean Mcgee

        see above

      • Sam Gilman

        This is the second time I’ve asked you to justify your choice of some sources and deprecation of others, and the second time you’ve written “see above” when there is no above to see.

        Are you perhaps finding the topic a little difficult to handle? It’s just that I’m particularly enjoying “Toshide Tsude” the epidemiologist you posted on your website. Gosh, who knew that if you arbitrarily take a four year period, the mean length of any period of time within that is two years? I can really see a professional epidemiologist putting his name to that discovery. I’m also enjoying the implication that kids in Fukushima prefecture received radiation doses to the thyroid that would have killed them outright before any cancer formed, despite recorded doses not coming even within 1000 times that.

      • Sean Mcgee

        “I’m also enjoying the implication that kids in Fukushima prefecture
        received radiation doses to the thyroid that would have killed them
        outright before any cancer formed, despite recorded doses not coming
        even within 1000 times less than that.” maybe the word “enjoying is not appropriate as children do have cancers .. you need to put your position to Tsuda San as i have pointed out above (hence see above) his email is clearly at the bottom and Ian Goddard and myself were able to talk with him.. Though Ian didnt mention that nor the content of the discussion.. Ian also didnt comment on the answers Prof Tsuda Gave, it took 3 days to get a reply.. do you still think i am clever enough to make this up? On the JT comments section? Why has not Fukushima Medical University set an epidemiologist loose on the data? no money perhaps? You are obviously well veersed Sam in Health and radiation matters, why do you not use social media properly and have that discussion direct instead of though me? Do you think so lowly of Prod Tsuda (as you alluded to) and his work? your style of commenting and generalising about anti nuclear bloggers is reminisant of Dana.. I did copy and paste some nasty comments from Yahoo nuclear Phyicists blog and heard some mad stuff about eugenics and other stuff? I wish to highlight that not all NP are off there rockers but seemingly a small vocal minority.. Why do you not appreciate the communication that i have posted and respond to Tsuda directly, maybe through Ian Goddard perhaps? As we are discussing social media (back on topic), its worth noting the failures and the possibilities.. I am sorry you have taken to posting on different parts of the thread instead of the one we were using.. And i am sorry that you do not seem to wan to engage except here where you might be able to gain some PR points.. The real problem is wether the children are sick because of the nuclear disaster, the solution is to find out, the kind thing to do is to be truthful so people can adapt to their situations and medical services can be created accordingly. thats what i want.. what do you want? to just sit down with similar minded people and defend the nuclear industry? There is no perfect science imo we should always be mindful “Sods Law” where what ever we do we cant stop accident and mistakes.. I worry about the one sided take you have on this but thats ok if prof Tsuda can try to challenge presumptions.. there is obvious bias in many walks of life and critical thinkers like Tsuda an are much needed in Balance..

      • Sam Gilman

        Ian Goddard thinks Tsuda’s conclusions are clearly wrong. You forgot to mention that. He’s actually done a very good YouTube video explaining why. For everyone else, here it is:

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztg29UGIO2s

        Why are you hiding that from people, Sean? Or is the problem that you don’t understand the topic?

        That’s the point about “Toshide Tsude”‘s contribution (seriously? You couldn’t even spell his name right?). It was written by someone with a weak grasp of the topic – of what latency period means, and how the statistics work, and the relationship between dose and response. It also didn’t seem entirely familiar with Tsuda’s study, particularly how Malko is used as a source and what the actual comparator studies used were.

        As for why Fukushima Medical University “let an epidemiologist loose” on their data, that is a great example of the hypocrisy of your movement. It’s transparency. If access was sealed to everyone, you’d be crying conspiracy.

      • Sam Gilman

        Ian Goddard thinks Tsuda’s conclusions are clearly wrong. You forgot to mention that. He’s actually done a very good YouTube video explaining why. For everyone else, here it is:

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztg29UGIO2s

        Why are you hiding that from people, Sean? Or is the problem that you don’t understand the topic?

        That’s the point about “Toshide Tsude”‘s contribution (seriously? You couldn’t even spell his name right?). It was written by someone with a weak grasp of the topic – of what latency period means, and how the statistics work, and the relationship between dose and response. It also didn’t seem entirely familiar with Tsuda’s study, particularly how Malko is used as a source and what the actual comparator studies used were.

        As for why Fukushima Medical University “let an epidemiologist loose” on their data, that is a great example of the hypocrisy of your movement. It’s transparency. If access was sealed to everyone, you’d be crying conspiracy.

      • Sam Gilman

        Ian Goddard thinks Tsuda’s conclusions are clearly wrong. You forgot to mention that. He’s actually done a very good YouTube video explaining why. For everyone else, here it is:

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztg29UGIO2s

        Why are you hiding that from people, Sean? Or is the problem that you don’t understand the topic?

        That’s the point about “Toshide Tsude”‘s contribution (seriously? You couldn’t even spell his name right?). It was written by someone with a weak grasp of the topic – of what latency period means, and how the statistics work, and the relationship between dose and response. It also didn’t seem entirely familiar with Tsuda’s study, particularly how Malko is used as a source and what the actual comparator studies used were.

        As for why Fukushima Medical University “let an epidemiologist loose” on their data, that is a great example of the hypocrisy of your movement. It’s transparency. If access was sealed to everyone, you’d be crying conspiracy.

      • Sam Gilman

        Ian Goddard thinks Tsuda’s conclusions are clearly wrong. You forgot to mention that. He’s actually done a very good YouTube video explaining why. For everyone else, here it is:

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztg29UGIO2s

        Why are you hiding that from people, Sean? Or is the problem that you don’t understand the topic?

        That’s the point about “Toshide Tsude”‘s contribution (seriously? You couldn’t even spell his name right?). It was written by someone with a weak grasp of the topic – of what latency period means, and how the statistics work, and the relationship between dose and response. It also didn’t seem entirely familiar with Tsuda’s study, particularly how Malko is used as a source and what the actual comparator studies used were.

        As for why Fukushima Medical University “let an epidemiologist loose” on their data, that is a great example of the hypocrisy of your movement. It’s transparency. If access was sealed to everyone, you’d be crying conspiracy.

      • Factcheck

        Can you be sure that guy Tsuda isn’t actually that as ignorant as he seems in those comments, Sam? Like, what if he really didn’t know about the Chernobyl tissue bank? It wouldn’t be the first time an ignoramus got a paper past peer review.

      • Sam Gilman

        The thought has crossed my mind, but there are comments which are really too dumb for an epidemiologist to have made, and comments which read like Toshide Tsude isn’t that familiar with what Toshihide Tsuda wrote.

        – Toshide Tsude says Toshihide Tsuda’s study compares the first three (sic) years after Chernobyl with the first three years after Fukushima. No it doesn’t. That’s not what the supplementary materials say are the comparator studies. It’s almost as if Tsude hasn’t read Tsuda’s study properly.

        – Tsude claims that because in the first three (sic) years after the accident, thyroid cases in Gomel Oblast (which he mis-spells as Voblast) are concentrated in older children, the Fukushima experience is in line with the Chernobyl experience. Yet the thyroid count is (according to the different sources he cites) per year 1,2,1,3 (Malko) or 1, 4, 3, 5 (Yamashita – the Japanese table) for the years 1986-89 for a population of 20,000. The Yamashita figures are actually 1,4,1,3 for children over ten. This is not an explosion of thyroid cancer, and certainly not matching the 25-50 times higher claims that would support Tsuda’s conclusion, despite very much higher doses in Chernobyl. It’s almost as if Tsude hasn’t grasped the scale of Tsuda’s claims.

        – As you may have noticed, Tsude describes 1986-9 and 2011-4 as three year periods. They’re four years. This is a classic slip that epidemiologists love to be snooty about, so I would find it hard to believe Tsuda would do this. (But Chris Busby famously did once, so Tsude is in good company).

        – Tsude says “You can find 10 thyroid cancer cases among 13 within 3 years after the accident”. Actually, you can find 9. 4 cases are victims under 10, as the effect of radiation on the very youngest starts to have an effect. Can he really not count?

        – Tsude claims two sources (Malko, Ukraine Govt) show statistically significant rises in thyroid cancer 1987-1989. Malko makes no such calculation, and the Ukrainian government report states “The increase of thyroid cancer (TC) incidence in children started in 1989”, which would be four years after the accident, and no mention of statistical significance is made. Are we seriously going to think that Toshihide Tsuda doesn’t know the meaning of “statistically significant”? I doubt it. Toshide Tsude, on the other hand might think it just means “noticeable”.

        – Tsude says: “Furthermore, during 1986-1989 in Chernobyl, any screening program was not conducted at all. Therefore, some thyroid cancer induced by the accident would be detected within one yeas after the accident by screening program in Fukushima”. This literally doesn’t make sense, even correcting for grammatical and typing errors. It’s as if Tsude thinks that screening creates cancers. It may detect them early, but it doesn’t actually create them. I cannot believe Tsuda would get this confused.

        – Regarding dose rates, “Toshide Tsude” directly contradicts Toshihide Tsuda’s study that clearly indicates West Fukushima as the least contaminated area. It’s almost as if Tsude hasn’t read Tsuda’s study properly. This is in the supplementary materials, so perhaps Tsude hasn’t found them yet.

        – Perhaps my favourite bit, because it’s chronically stupid. I mean, humdingingly stupid, so stupid that it’s the kind of mistake that if a first year undergraduate made it, his classmates would still be taking the p*** three (or is it four) years later.

        Second, we assigned 4 years as latent duration (latency: mean years duration), but actual mean latency since the accident among subjects was about 2 years.

        There is no way someone could be employed as an epidemiologist and write this. It is so profoundly confused – statistically and methodologically. There is the silliness I mentioned above of how the average length of any period of time within four years comes out as two years. But more importantly, compare Tsude with the rather more accurate definition of latency as given by Tsuda in the paper:

        Note that “latent duration” denotes the time from the date when thyroid cancer became detectable by screening and cytology to the date when it could be diagnosed in clinical settings without screening or the date of operation.

        So the time between the accident and detection by screening would in itself, not be connected to latency period. It is, as I keep saying, almost as if Toshide Tsude isn’t that familiar either with what Toshihide Tsuda actually wrote, or epidemiology in general.

      • Factcheck

        Sam: I think you’ll have to start working on another hypothesis, that Tsuda who wrote the paper is the same as Tsude who’s credited with the replies to your questions. On another blog someone called it “Tsuda-science.”

      • Factcheck

        Sam: I think you’ll have to start working on another hypothesis, that Tsuda who wrote the paper is the same as Tsude who’s credited with the replies to your questions. On another blog someone called it “Tsuda-science.”

      • Sam Gilman

        Do you have a link to Tsuda admitting he wrote the Tsude material?

        (And to that blog? It’s not Google indexed yet.)

      • Factcheck

        Sam: What if Tsuda actually is a much worse scientist than you thought, even though you said the paper was so bad it never should have been published? What if on close inspection NONE of his conclusions are supported by the sources he’s cited? Like, if even the calculations don’t work out? Would that make him an even worse scientist than you thought? Would you like to start a pool on how long it will take for the paper to be retracted once the refutations start pouring in? The sad fact is that the damage is already done. All because one third-string provincial researcher wanted to make a name for himself.

      • Sam Gilman

        I am genuinely puzzled at how this got published, but there is circumstantial evidence that it was done with a certain amount of struggle (the long time between submission and acceptance, the accompanying piece that quietly undermines it), which lends weight to the Tsude=Tsuda position.

        But objectively, the errors in the Tsude piece are so awful it beggars belief that this is someone teaching in a graduate school. Okayama Uni isn’t Todai, granted, but it isn’t the Wakkanai University of Slackers either.

      • Factcheck

        Sorry, I can’t find the link to where I first heard “Tsuda-science.” It might have been a mailing list. From the acknowledgements in his paper it looks like Tsuda’s supporters assembled a whole team to help get it past peer review. The blogger named Yuri Hiranuma, who Sean McGee credits in his blog about Tsuda, seems to act as Tsuda’s main representative and translator. She’s posted incoherent “replies” from Tsuda in her “Fukushima Voice” blog that are very similar to the ones in Sean’s, but in Japanese only. My guess is she translated those for Sean. Can you confirm that, Sean?

      • Sam Gilman

        Yuri Hiranuma of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Bingo. There’s the standing link to the Caldicottians.

        I’ll need more time to go through what she’s written. Thanks for the info!

      • Factcheck

        Hiranuma has stuff on her blog about faith-healing for radiation, like “Life Energy Testing,” “reiki,” and “Kai Therapy.” She’s also involved with a website called “Zerorads” that sells herbal “remedies” for internal radiation contamination. Gullible maybe?

      • Sam Gilman

        Wow. This gets funnier. She could be gullible or a profiteer. She’s an osteopath (which is alt med) although in the US you apparently need to do medical school too in order to qualify.

        Do you know how far back this association with Tsuda goes?

      • Factcheck

        I’m not sure, but last year after he was abusive to people at an expert meeting in Fukushima she was calling him a “Gandhi.” Like, the only hero who was standing up and saving everybody. She was heavily promoting Bandashevsky before that, translated him, etc.. then zilch. I’m inclined to psychoanalyze the hero worship/disassociation aspect but will refrain. Anyway she and many others have staked their reputations and moral standing on Tsuda being right. That means they’re counting on everyone having a short memory when it becomes evident that he is wrong.

      • Sam Gilman

        Something I’m not clear on here: is Tsuda actively working with Hiranuma, or is she championing him without invitation?

        I’ve had a look at some of the things she’s reproduced of Tsuda’s. There certainly are some points of similarity with what Sean’s blog put up, but there are also clear points of disagreement, notably with the concept of latency period. So I’m still not persuaded that it’s genuinely him. I still think it’s a supporter overstepping the mark. Can Tsuda actually write good English?

        By the way, I had a look at the list of people in his acknowledgements. I don’t think they’re part of Tsuda’s team. Instead, I suspect that most if not all of them – and they all appear to be bona fide researchers or professionals – were working on behalf of the journal to get the paper into some kind of meaningful shape.

      • Factcheck

        I don’t really know the answers to those questions, but from seeing his Tokyo press conference on video I’d say Tsuda’s English is very weak. The way he misinterprets many English-language sources he’s cited looks like an English comprehension issue too. I’ve just assumed that Hiranuma’s translations have Tsuda’s approval. There seems to be some connection through the publisher Iwanami and their magazine Kagaku. That magazine has published several of Tsuda’s reports with no peer review, and Iwanami published an entire book he wrote about the supposed radiation-induced thyroid cancer “epidemic.” Despite its reputation, Iwanami is probably the most unscientific “science” publisher I’ve ever seen, and will publish anything that has a hard-left, anti-government political slant, no matter how bad the science in it is. They also published a Japanese translation of Yablokov’s “1 million deaths” book about Chernobyl. Not sure if they did any basic checking of the math in it.

      • Factcheck

        Sam: What if Tsuda actually is a much worse scientist than you thought, even though you said the paper was so bad it never should have been published? What if on close inspection NONE of his conclusions are supported by the sources he’s cited? Like, if even the calculations don’t work out? Would that make him an even worse scientist than you thought? Would you like to start a pool on how long it will take for the paper to be retracted once the refutations start pouring in? The sad fact is that the damage is already done. All because one third-string provincial researcher wanted to make a name for himself.

      • Sam Gilman

        Do you have a link to Tsuda admitting he wrote the Tsude material?

        (And to that blog? It’s not Google indexed yet.)

      • Sam Gilman

        Ian Goddard thinks Tsuda’s conclusions are clearly wrong. You forgot to mention that. He’s actually done a very good YouTube video explaining why. For everyone else, here it is:

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztg29UGIO2s

        Why are you hiding that from people, Sean? Or is the problem that you don’t understand the topic?

        That’s the point about “Toshide Tsude”‘s contribution (seriously? You couldn’t even spell his name right?). It was written by someone with a weak grasp of the topic – of what latency period means, and how the statistics work, and the relationship between dose and response. It also didn’t seem entirely familiar with Tsuda’s study, particularly how Malko is used as a source and what the actual comparator studies used were.

        As for why Fukushima Medical University “let an epidemiologist loose” on their data, that is a great example of the hypocrisy of your movement. It’s transparency. If access was sealed to everyone, you’d be crying conspiracy.

      • Sam Gilman

        Ian Goddard thinks Tsuda’s conclusions are clearly wrong. You forgot to mention that. He’s actually done a very good YouTube video explaining why. For everyone else, here it is:

        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztg29UGIO2s

        Why are you hiding that from people, Sean? Or is the problem that you don’t understand the topic?

        That’s the point about “Toshide Tsude”‘s contribution (seriously? You couldn’t even spell his name right?). It was written by someone with a weak grasp of the topic – of what latency period means, and how the statistics work, and the relationship between dose and response. It also didn’t seem entirely familiar with Tsuda’s study, particularly how Malko is used as a source and what the actual comparator studies used were.

        As for why Fukushima Medical University “let an epidemiologist loose” on their data, that is a great example of the hypocrisy of your movement. It’s transparency. If access was sealed to everyone, you’d be crying conspiracy.

      • Sean Mcgee

        Yes, everyone is biased. Just to be raised in a particular home in a specific country and in one time period means that you have a bias. :)

      • Sam Gilman

        You can’t give an answer. You’re just saying “biased” because you don’t like the conclusions.

        All you’ve done here is smear people. You made false allegations about Gerry Thomas, an unfounded accusation of bias against Leslie Corrice, a false allegation about the UK Science Media Centre…

    • fiddie

      Certainly the HiroshimaSyndrome is biased. It’s written & maintained by a proud veteran who values complete information presented as an educational tool. Those first entries in the news-blog section are exceptional.

  • Sean Mcgee

    biased imo

  • Factcheck

    Sean: Are you aware of any other news stories about Durnford and the charges against him that aren’t supportive of him? Besides this one and the two in the Globe and mail?

  • Sam Gilman

    Instead of making any civilised attempt to counter any of the points I make about “Toshide Tsude”‘s defence of Toshihide Tsuda’s article, you resort to attacking my tone. Well done you.

    In this attack, you say I’m abusive for methodically going over the clear errors in your “Toshide Tsude” post, (and defending Toshihide Tsuda against what appears to be a charlatan imposter) whereas when Dana Durnford with a following in the thousands openly calls for the murder of named scientists, you describe this as “tiny”? What an interesting moral universe you occupy.

    If Tsuda really did write what was posted on your blog, why don’t you ask Professor Tsuda to post some kind of authenticating message to show he wrote those words? For example, a YouTube video with him in it, or a message on his university webpage. It would be a gift to us all.

    • neutrino

      Why not take Sean’s advice and contact Tsuda yourself? Why would he even suggest that if he made it up?

      • Sam Gilman

        We’re in a situation where either “Toshide Tsude” is a fictional character made up by Sean or one of his contacts and they’re a bunch of fantasists, or Toshihide Tsuda the real academic is both incompetent and suspiciously unfamiliar with the contents of his own study.

        I want to see how Sean resolves this.

    • Sean Mcgee

      his email is on the article and he is very helpful ..

      • Sam Gilman

        Could you give any indication that you understand what the disputes about Tsuda’s article involves?

        It’s just that you appear to be promoting material you don’t understand.

  • Factcheck

    It’s easy to dismiss the people Durnford and others have conned out of money as “incredibly stupid.” But so many easily debunked claims are repeated by a lot by the most influential leaders of the antinuclear movement — people like Caldicott, Busby, Mangano, Gundersen, IPPNW, ECRR, PSR, etc.. This has been alarming to a lot of people who oppose nuclear power for various reasons but who also demand that solid science be used as evidence. These “reasonable” people have tried to distance themselves from the “bad science” people, the “shriekers.” But this reasonable corner of the antinuclear movement lost to the shriekers long ago. And the shriekers have made monstrous cons like Durnford’s possible. If I didn’t know anything about radiation, and suddenly heard Caldicott shrieking about ocean die-offs and Mangano screaming about dead West Coast babies everywhere I turned, I might be influenced too. Nah, I wouldn’t really, but that’s besides the point.

    • Factcheck

      Persuasion in the “shrieker” corner is usually done in a way which superficially acknowledges that science and evidence should be important for understanding possible consequences, but which doesn’t in fact use any real science. Instead, it’s 99% emotional manipulation. Durnford does this all the time. He throws around numbers and scientific terms, throws up some screenshots of deceptive ENEnews headlines, barks and growls convincingly, and busloads of people who know even less that he does and aren’t used to fact-checking are persuaded. Not just persuaded, they get hopping mad. And their anger is in proportion to their ignorance. We happen to be looking at one particularly creepy corner of the internet here, where the Durnfords and Renses and Stormfronts of the world thrive. But nowadays lots of people make decisions that have real effects on their lives and the lives of others, based on absolute fictions like this that they heard or read on the internet. Sites like Durnford’s “FukushimaHounds” fundraising operation quickly become rallying points for people who feel marginalized and powerless, and ill-equipped to master reality as it is. They’re undoubtedly aware somewhere that they’re scientifically and politically uninformed, but don’t know who to trust to tell them how the world really works. Some choose a new-age guru, some choose a violent demagogue, and some choose both, flipping from one channel to the other based on their mood. Very few of them choose to really learn more about science.

      • Factcheck

        But Durnford wasn’t arrested for bad science. He’s accused of criminal harassment, against two superb scientists. He knows what he’s selling is BS, and it’s just a source of income for him, easier that two-card-monte, but still dependent on there being a steady supply of marks. But I can picture someone somewhere actually committing acts of violence because they believe him when he says Fukushima has killed all the marine life in the Pacific. It’s kind of like those preteen girls in the US who believed in the fictional character Slenderman so fervently that they tried to kill their friend to please him. Right now Durnford’s followers, including quite a few of the white supremacists and anti-semites, are vilifying the anti-nuke “personality” Libbe HaLevy, herself a prominent shrieker who gives a big platform to other shriekers. A few days ago on her radio show she said that Durnford was wrong to threaten people. She was pretty mild about it and didn’t even name him by name. But predictably, for the past few days dozens of people who believe Durnford’s fictions, most of whom were also big HaLevy fans until now, are now saying she’s a Mossad agent, is a Zionist, is “controlled opposition,” is in the pay of the nuclear industry, etc.. Plus the most eyebrow-raising sexually abusive language. All because she stated the obvious minimum for social co-existence —don’t threaten people.

      • Factcheck

        But HaLevy’s market demographic is solidly the lunatic fringe, so I’m willing to bet she’ll actually apologize to Durnford in a few days in order to try to get some of his angry viewers back. These people make money by being cross-linked to each other. In fact, I expect to see him featured in a fawning interview on her show for that precise reason.

      • Factcheck

        But Durnford wasn’t arrested for bad science. He’s accused of criminal harassment, against two superb scientists. He knows what he’s selling is BS, and it’s just a source of income for him, easier that two-card-monte, but still dependent on there being a steady supply of marks. But I can picture someone somewhere actually committing acts of violence because they believe him when he says Fukushima has killed all the marine life in the Pacific. It’s kind of like those preteen girls in the US who believed in the fictional character Slenderman so fervently that they tried to kill their friend to please him. Right now Durnford’s followers, including quite a few of the white supremacists and anti-semites, are vilifying the anti-nuke “personality” Libbe HaLevy, herself a prominent shrieker who gives a big platform to other shriekers. A few days ago on her radio show she said that Durnford was wrong to threaten people. She was pretty mild about it and didn’t even name him by name. But predictably, for the past few days dozens of people who believe Durnford’s fictions, most of whom were also big HaLevy fans until now, are now saying she’s a Mossad agent, is a Zionist, is “controlled opposition,” is in the pay of the nuclear industry, etc.. Plus the most eyebrow-raising sexually abusive language. All because she stated the obvious minimum for social co-existence —don’t threaten people.

    • Factcheck

      Persuasion in the “shrieker” corner is usually done in a way which superficially acknowledges that science and evidence should be important for understanding possible consequences, but which doesn’t in fact use any real science. Instead, it’s 99% emotional manipulation. Durnford does this all the time. He throws around numbers and scientific terms, throws up some screenshots of deceptive ENEnews headlines, barks and growls convincingly, and busloads of people who know even less that he does and aren’t used to fact-checking are persuaded. Not just persuaded, they get hopping mad. And their anger is in proportion to their ignorance. We happen to be looking at one particularly creepy corner of the internet here, where the Durnfords and Renses and Stormfronts of the world thrive. But nowadays lots of people make decisions that have real effects on their lives and the lives of others, based on absolute fictions like this that they heard or read on the internet. Sites like Durnford’s “FukushimaHounds” fundraising operation quickly become rallying points for people who feel marginalized and powerless, and ill-equipped to master reality as it is. They’re undoubtedly aware somewhere that they’re scientifically and politically uninformed, but don’t know who to trust to tell them how the world really works. Some choose a new-age guru, some choose a violent demagogue, and some choose both, flipping from one channel to the other based on their mood. Very few of them choose to really learn more about science.

  • Factcheck

    It’s easy to dismiss the people Durnford and others have conned out of money as “incredibly stupid.” But so many easily debunked claims are repeated by a lot by the most influential leaders of the antinuclear movement — people like Caldicott, Busby, Mangano, Gundersen, IPPNW, ECRR, PSR, etc.. This has been alarming to a lot of people who oppose nuclear power for various reasons but who also demand that solid science be used as evidence. These “reasonable” people have tried to distance themselves from the “bad science” people, the “shriekers.” But this reasonable corner of the antinuclear movement lost to the shriekers long ago. And the shriekers have made monstrous cons like Durnford’s possible. If I didn’t know anything about radiation, and suddenly heard Caldicott shrieking about ocean die-offs and Mangano screaming about dead West Coast babies everywhere I turned, I might be influenced too. Nah, I wouldn’t really, but that’s besides the point.