Following from yesterday, and the way things gradually metamorphose into something else, Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore:
His fellow directors were unqualified in science, whereas he has a PhD in ecology and environmental science. When they decided, against his advice, to campaign to ban chlorine, he split. “I told them, ‘Adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health. Most synthetic pharmaceuticals and medicines are made with chlorine.’ But Greenpeace had drifted away from science and logic, and its tools now were misinformation, sensationalism and fear, all designed to get public donations.”
Sounds familiar. Tobacco Control is just the same. Except there was never any science or logic to it in the first place.
These days Moore seems to go round the world telling people that the outfit he helped found has become a monster.
The House of Lords has invited the so-called UK Centre For Tobacco and Alcohol Studies to present them with evidence.
This body informed peers that drinking should be subject to many of the same prohibitions as smoking.
It is demanding legislation to impose new restraints on marketing alcoholic drinks, an end to sponsorship of sport by drinks companies, and a blanket ban on representatives from the drinks industry attending meetings civil servants.
It is tempting to dismiss these demands as preposterous. This would be most unwise. The anti-smoking lobby has proved extremely effective in recent years…
Ebola crisis: DEC launches unprecedented appeal for public help
Why don’t they go and ask the WHO to release money earmarked for antismoking campaigns and conferences instead?
And finally an article by Gabriela Segura M.D., which I’ve mentioned before, but in which I don’t remember reading this:
Professor Chris Busby, Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, explains that we are probably only looking at the tip of a very nasty radioactive iceberg. In a meeting which took place in Stockholm 2009, he said:
“The global death yield of the nuclear age to 1992 has been horrifying. According to objective calculations by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (using weapons fallout radiation exposure) there have been (up to 2003) 61 million cancer deaths; 1,600,000 infant deaths; 1,880,000 fetal deaths. There has been a loss of life quality of 10% (in terms of illnesses and ageing effects). The blame for this can be squarely placed at the door of those scientists and administrators (WHO, UNSCEAR, ICRP) who developed and supported the scientific risk models. This is a war crime far greater in magnitude than any that has occurred in recorded human history.”
Not sure how seriously to take Busby, partly because he’s a Green activist who chains himself to railings.