Jack Devanney on Gordian Knot News

Ssri, Some perceptive comments. Genetic defects were THE health hazard raised by the Rockefeller Foundation and other bomb test opponents. The assumption that such defects were unrepairable led to LNT. To see just how bad things were, the US government funded the Neel study. This was a ten year study of 70,000 pregnancies to women who were bomb survivors, 1948? to 1958?. To just about everybody's surprise, the study found no statistical difference in genetic defects between these kids conceived after the bombs had dropped and the general population. The whole genetic harm theory had crashed and burned. The focus only then shifted to cancer. I thought about showing some example UCERT payments. The problem is that, unless the release is Chernobyl-like, depsite all the conservatism, the radiation exposure payments are puny, as they should be. In the Fukushima example in Section 8.1, the worst hit group in the worst hit town, Okuma, have a maximal LLE of 3.25 days (actual is more like 2 hours) for which they are paid $1135. The payments drop rapidly from there. The lost earnings payments are about a factor of 3 higher. than the exposure payments. Pls reread Section 8.1. Chernobyl was very roughly a ten times larger release. According to SNT, harm goes at the 2.2 power of the dose rate. To first order, the Chernobyl payments would be 150 times larger than the Fukushima. Not sure it is a good idea to emphasize the point that, unless we have a Chernobyl, the radiation compensation payments will not be large.