and a significant portion of the scientific community seems hell-bent to say:

"Science proves that only X could have cancers from Fukushima, therefore any other excess cancer must have come from stress and/or chemical contamination from the Tsunami."

Science - if you elevate one side of the debate to certainty.

I commented that they are trying to get the propaganda out now so people excuse the nuke biz and they know it will take years, or decades to see the true damage Fukushima will reek on Japan.

Arnie Gundersen is one of the only people telling the truth about the impact of radiation on health and if you post about him there is always a crew that slimes his credentials.

I've been exposed to the issue for a LONG time. It's a difficult issue because it's SO easy to swing from one extreme of certainty to another. Arnie is extra careful to walk the razor's edge. And you can tell Arnie is more interested in saving lives than being right.

What I don't have time for is people who defend industry interests while presenting themselves as the arbiters of truth. They can burn in hell.