Yep,
oh the irony. Andrew Bolt interviewing Professor Aiden Byrne. Probably the first scientifically credible academic Bolt has referred to in the last few years!
The same Professor Aiden Byrne who agrees that the evidence for planetary warming caused by industrially produced greenhouse gases is very strong, and the fundamental physics behind the theory is completely sound. Isn't it just amazing to see Bolt pick a guy as a highly credible physicist one week (which he is), yet whose expert opinion he would rubbish and insult (and probably accuse of being an alarmist liar) in any other week?
The same Andrew Bolt who
referred only two days ago to the certifiably insane conservative extremist Ann Coulter's opinion that the radiation from this accident might even be good for the Japanese!
Anyway, I digress.
I listened to the interview, and I'd agree that, if accurately reflected, the ABCs reporting was alarmist. However once again I find myself repeating the same thing as previously:
Radiation sickness from direct acute exposure (which is mostly what they were talking about in the interview) is
not the same thing as radiation effects which can appear many years later. The ABC were referring, somewhat unjustifiably, to what might happen in a worst-case scenario, and Professor Byrne was saying, quite correctly, that an uncontained explosion breaching the reactor containment vessel seems very unlikely.
You've got very selective hearing regarding the inhalation of radioactive particles. What the Professor said is that for the exact reasons above (ie there has been no explosion), that this scenario is unlikely. when Bolt questioned whether that could have happened in the Chernobyl accident, the Professor quite clearly said that it was "conceivable".
Bolt then proceeded to argue with the very expert he had been lauding for his qualifications and expertise only a minute earlier, putting words in his mouth! Bolt says "the answer is no". The Professor once again qualifies it by stating that it is conceivable, we just don't know yet. Bolt's obviously not happy with that answer, because like everything scientific which Bolt attempts to talk about, his opinion is determined in advance, no matter what the science says, and no matter what any credible experts say.
As for Iodine being inhaled, I'd like you to point out at any stage where I have said that is the normal means of ingesting radioactive Iodine. It is not. And even if it was, Iodine-131 is quickly absorbed in the blood, then concentrated in the thyroid.
Caesium-137 inhalation can indeed result in internal exposure. That's common knowledge. I can only assume (listening to it several times) that the Professor was referring to Iodine-131, or perhaps the fact that Caesium-137 behaves much like Potassium in the body, which I've already been through.
So to reiterate, the entire interview centred around the fact that an explosion inside the reactor has not occurred, and is probably unlikely to occur. The Professor's opinion seems eminently reasonable, but is NOT a discussion on other risks such as in-utero exposure, nor a discussion on the specifics of the potential effects of various sources of radioactivity, nor many other permutations and combinations. He is very clearly talking solely about the likelihood of a "Chernobyl" type accident.
I have not in any post preached doom and gloom about this accident. I have said that your views on "risks" associated with radioactive exposure, starting with your diagram, are grossly over-simplistic, particularly long term risk as opposed to short term exposure.
Yes, serious head bash, because you're missing the
entire point of my argument.