Debunking the Latest Fukushima Death Threat

Debunking the Latest Fukushima Death Threat

Hardened nuclear critics have no qualms about publishing quasi-scientific reports that are short on reputable, quantitative substance but long on fear, uncertainty, and doubt. What really upsets me is when they postulate numbers of hypothetical deaths attributed to nuclear energy. I see this as making tacit death threats. The methodology used to make these death threats is often logically corrupt. The corruption begins by drawing a conclusion (e.g. even the tiniest radiation exposure kills), then “cherry pick” evidence from carefully selected references and use conclusion-appropriate methods to try and establish credibility for their pre-conceived assumption. The current subject that is spawning this subtly-deceitful conduct is Fukushima.

This week, a most effective (and philosophically-repugnant) death threat has come out of Stanford University fellow Mark Jacobson and his understudy John Ten Hoeve. The work itself is a brilliant piece of pseudo-scientific propaganda, rife with numerous cherry-picked references and dripping in questionable methodology. Upon reading the published report, I realized it was little more than another nuclear energy death threat, so I set to work – seeking references and putting my outraged mind to pen. While I labored, however, several kindred nuclear bloggers literally beat me to the punch. Collectively, they have done a very good job. I have little to add of substance, so why not let them do the talking? Here’s the links to their fine rebuttals to the Jacobson/Ten Hoeve paper…

(1) Why Fukushima Death Toll Projections are Based on Junk Science by Mark Lynas -

(2) Jacobson misuses LNT to purposefully exaggerate effects of Fukushima radiation by Rod Adams -

(3) The Effects of Low-Level radiation (July 18, 2012 postings) by Cheryl Rofer -

(4) Anti-nuclear Mark Jacobson estimates, ie made up, what he expects for future deaths resulting from Fukushima by Brian Wang -