On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:40:22PM -0400, Apptech wrote:
> > The risk may be imperceptible at TMI but the "Cancer Belt"
> > that
> > surrounds Hanford is fairly well documented.
> > Bill
> > who believes in coal and pays $0.066 a kWH
> 
> >>> But the truth
> 
> What is truth?
> 
> >>> of the matter is that in the
> >>> absolute worst accident in the nearly 60 years of US
> >>> nuclear power
> >>> generation, no one died and the incidence of the
> >>> terrifying nuclear
> >>> radiation induced cancer ridden mutant baby zombies was
> >>> statistically
> >>> imperceptable:
> 
> What is statistics?

I gave the link in my original post.

> 
> There are no cancers in the residential areas of Sellafield
> / Windscale caused by the nuclear facilities there.
> It's true!
> It's been statistically proven!
> Utterly rigorous scientific investigations have shown that
> the cancer clusters in Sellafield are/were unrelated in any
> way to the adjacent nuclear facilities.

That's not what the Wikipedia entry for Sellafield says. The COMARE report
http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/comare_pr10.htm

Indicates that while no significance at commercial nuclear power plants in
England, that places like Sellafield did have an increased incidence.

Again Sellafield was used as a weapons grade plutonium reprocessing plant
and that nuclear waste were dumped into the Irish sea and gaseous releases
into the air.

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist