Richard Broinowski writes:
My apologies for getting some details wrong in my broadside about pro-nuclear bias at Lowy, and to those I might have offended. But none of the corrections weaken my general observation, which Peter Burnett strengthens: blog postings are ephemeral, whereas the pronouncements of speakers introduced with due gravitas at weekly luncheons carry more identification with Lowy opinion. And with perhaps one or two exceptions, the bias has been palpable.
As for Jasmin Craufurd-Hill's observations, of course nuclear applications and expertise have a broad canvas, but my remarks quite obviously relate to nuclear power, not radio pharmaceuticals, medicines, materials analyses or space research. Nor does Martine Letts' pedantry about Tilman Ruff's credentials alter the fact that he has devoted much of his professional life as a public health specialist to the damaging stochastic effects of ionising radiation, and knows more about the subject than most physicians.
I accept Michael Angwin's challenge to inject truth into the debate about the horrific damage done to the human body by ionising radiation. Deniers of this have a long history, having covered up damage about the Trinity atomic bomb test at Alamagordo in July 1945, and then attempting to do so, initially at least, about Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Bikini, and then over a longer period about Calder Hall, Kyshtym, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
They are still at it, particularly about long-term damaging effects of numerous radiation leaks and accidents in the international nuclear industry. They are again gathering their forces to deny or airbrush mortality and morbidity rates at Fukushima. After visiting Tohoku and talking to many people within the exclusion zone in October, I have committed my findings to a book on Fukushima to be published in 2012. Perhaps Michael Angwin may learn something from this. It is certainly about the truth.
