#NuclearCommissionSAust questions Dr Helen Caldicott – more like a witch hunt?

Inquisition nuclear

Yes, I am fed up with the charade of this Royal Commission –  its pro nuclear bias is apparent from the very start – with nuclear enthusiasts strongly represented, starting from Commissioner Kevin Scarce.

a-cat-CANToday I looked for the transcript of the hearing  with Dr Helen Caldicott on 27 October. Well, it’s hard to find. When you go to the appropriate page  on the Commission’s website – not a mention of Dr Caldicott, though she was the first speaker that day.

The one that they do mention is  Professor Geraldine Thomas, Imperial College London. Prof Thomas is a very well known pro nuclear speaker. She appeared prominently on the nuclear dragon thing soft sell series on SBS.  Thomas has spruiked about radioactive iodine, but conveniently has ignored other radioactive isotopes. (I’ve not read her latest spruik to the RC, but you can bet your boots that she is lobbying away there for the nuclear cause. Sadly Imperial College is becoming notorious for this.)

I have been reading through the transcript of Dr Caldicott’s speech, or more correctly, interrogation. by the redoubtable Mr Jacobi.

I am amazed at the aggressive questioning of Dr Caldicott –  it seems to me to be aimed at discreditiing her.

Chan,-MargaretNot long ago, Dr Margaret Chan of the World Health Organisation stated “There is no safe low level of radiation”

Yet when Dr Caldicott said that same thing, she was subjected to aggressive questioning  and demand for exact sources.

I wonder whether Mr Jacobi would have subjected the head of text-cat-questionthe WHO to the same insulting inqusition?


2 Responses to “#NuclearCommissionSAust questions Dr Helen Caldicott – more like a witch hunt?”

  1. Christina MacPherson Says:

    Reblogged this on nuclear-news.

  2. Brett Stokes Says:

    I have read the initial transcript of the sworn testimony by radophile Geraldine Thomas, Imperial College London.

    Perhaps the most clear perjury involved a ludicrous denial of the proper use of “risk factors” to predict harm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: