07 October 2012

Radiation (the lack of it) could impact 1 in 3 anti-nuclear proponents.

More than 1 in 3 (4 in 10) people in the UK will develop some form of cancer during their lifetime.

This blog has established that believing any form of radiation is evil, offers no level of protection whatsoever.

An exhaustive poll carried out on behalf of this blog has established that 99.99% of of anti-nuclear proponents, with morbid fears of radiation, will refuse all forms of radiation therapy, should they develop cancer.

Of the 3 anti-nuclear proponents interviewed for the poll, 2.9997 of them (that's 99.99%) said they would refuse radiation therapy should they ever be diagnosed with cancer. The Grim Reaper will surely knock at the door of one of the 3 interviewees when the malice of his or her untreated cancer has undergone its course.
Some people may think this might not be a bad thing, but I take the contrary view and think it's a good thing - - - that is, they stick wholeheartedly to the principles, to the very end!

Extrapolating our blog findings to the anti- nuclear population as a whole, Dylan Ryan, a self-designated "Energy Guru", with anti-nuclear credentials having particularly vitriolic and verbose characteristics,  will surely carry the banner of "Say No to Radiation Therapy". He will do so with a pride and passion befitting his morbid fear of invisible, evil (but easily detectable) radiation.

But why single out Dylan Ryan? - - - Well, not being a particularly diligent blogger myself, I don't pay a lot of attention to 'Comments' coming after my posts. But, all of a sudden, after a trawl through them, I suddenly find Dylan Ryan in 'Parasitic Wasp'-mode, depositing his blog link 'eggs' all over the place.

After our last confrontation:  Dylan Ryan of Glasgow, Age 32. Speaks English, and writes it very verbosely indeed.  I thought I'd done with him, because I've never wasted another second of my time looking at his useless blog.

Now since I don't pollute your blog with my pro-nuclear opinions, and because of our history of mutual disdain, would you kindly, Sir, reciprocate accordingly.

In the words of Father Jack:


  1. Sigh! Where to start...wishing cancer on those who disagree with you and resorting to the level of personal attacks, merely serves to discredit you and highlights that you're not the sort of person who should be taken seriously. It also betrays the fact that, like so many LFTR fans, your ill-informed about the very thing you advocate and that you cannot sustain a defence of your position on a technical level.

    And for the record, whether or not I would partake in radiotherapy would depend on the advice I received from a trained medical professional, not from what I saw on some You-tube video or powerpoint presentation on the internet (you are aware that you're hero Kirk S doesn't even have a PhD). Again, you are attempting to blur the lines between “voluntary risk” and “involuntary risk” and only succeed in demonstrating that you don't understand the issue at all.

    There is a world of a difference between the sciences of radiotherapy (some of my best friends work in this industry!) and bulk power generation using nuclear reactors (actually I know one or two who work here too!). Notably, that the radiation sources used in the medical industry generally come from naturally occurring sources, are artificiality created (e.g. X-ray machines) or come from a small network of purpose built reactors (mostly small research reactors), not commercial power reactors. Radiation exposure in radiotherapy is very carefully controlled (my friends here often used to complain about all the maths they had to do in uni) and is focused on specific points of the body (e.g. it goes where it has too in the exact quantity required). In short, all you succeed in demonstrating is that you are clueless as to the facts about the very thing you advocate.

    It serves you too build a straw man out of my views, trying to make me out to be some sort of anti-nuclear fanatic, cowering at the perceived danger of “radiation”. However it merely demonstrates, yet again that reading is not one of you're strong points, as you've clearly miss-read my posts.....or haven't bothered to read them at all...meaning anyone browsing your website can assume you've similarly applied “selectively blindness” and ignored much evidence that contradicts your position.

    The reality is that I'm more of a nuclear sceptic, than anti-nuclear. Indeed I could describe myself as a “recovering” fan of nuclear energy, as I was once pro-nuclear myself, but became increasingly sceptical of the technology the more I learnt about it. My major criticism of nuclear power is nothing to do with “radiation” but down to the fact that to maintain reactors in safe and reliable way, we are forced to confront a host of technical, practical and ultimately economic factors. This will I fear, greatly limit the long term potential use of nuclear energy, probably constraining it to the role of a niche energy source for nations with poor renewable resources.

    I've also, in recent articles, pointed out the limitations of fuel cells or of heat pumps and the electric car. I've also highlighted the difficulties involved with building a hydrogen economy, but equally I've highlighted why some form of energy storage is essential (even if we went down the nuclear route!), given the large swings in daily and seasonal energy consumption that typically occur. In short, there are no silver bullet solutions and pretending that there are no technical obstacles to mass renewables roll out (or nuclear power), isn't going to magically make such obstacles disappear

    The reality is, if there's anything that I'm pro its arithmetic and if there's anything I'm against its cargo cult fantasy. But don't let pesky little “facts” get in the way of a good hatchet job.


  2. But who are you, you energy bacterium? What have you ever done, or what are you ever likely to do, of any significance to the global problems of equitable energy availability in the decades to come?

    Your blog dismissal of 18 years of fruitful and honoured work carried out by Alvin Weinberg was disgraceful. Compared to Weinberg, a true doyen in his chosen field, you are a speck of dirt under one of his fingernails.

    But how can a 'trained biophysicist' do so well in the field of energy, you might ask - indeed, that is what you pointed out in a previous post. Well, could it be that he could think in a truly original fashion, to be able to create the nuclear power industry we know today? Could it be that he tried his damnedest to pursue Molten Salt Reactors, instead of LWRs for civil power generation?

    Here's a gentle hint - I want the Wikipedia-driven 'erudition' you are constantly trying to parade, off my blog. You comment that: "you've clearly miss-read my posts.....or haven't bothered to read them at all." and you are so right! I've never ventured near your blog since our last contretemps.

    Kindly reciprocate!

  3. The truth hurts!

    In essence what you're saying is that your a Fantasist, you want a site free of any facts that contradict your position.

    As I pointed out too you before, technical critique's, such as my post on LFTR's are a central plank of science. Any time I write a paper or try to get something published academically, I'll get a critique of my work back.

    Any work of science that cannot survive the process of technical criticism is no longer "science" but fantasy and religion...our father that art in Thorium?


  4. References to papers you have published academically please.

    Let's see how your energy-professional endeavours stack up, in terms of usefulness to mankind, in comparison to the achievements of Alvin Weinberg - after all, he was only a trained biophysicist

    Maybe you will be in the running for next years 'Enrico Fermi Award' (an award honoring scientists of international stature for their lifetime achievement in the development, use, or production of energy) - see 1980.

  5. I checked out the daryanenergyblog and found it to be lacking. Colin - we must be on to something with LFTR, because all these jerks are starting to come out of the woodwork. Luckily, I have yet to see a valid technological argument which would make the reactor a no-go. The future is bright, and kudos for standing on the right side of it.

  6. Happy new year.This website is very nice Radiation badge Its good health site.

  7. A radiation advisor utilizes the procedure of ionizing radiation to
    treat growth patients. Radiation specialists are otherwise
    called helpful radiographers or radiotherapists. They now and
    again are inaccurately called radiation specialists or
    radiation treatment experts. These terms are constrained
    to the expert that really works the radiation machines.
    While radiation specialists may work radiation supplies,
    they additionally translate radiation medicines, create
    radiation treatment medicine arrangements and after that
    actualize them for disease patients.
    know more click here.

  8. Thanks for sharing the information. Enjoyed reading it - Please can you read my job search engine, find jobs article and give me some feedback. Will highly your comments.