Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Friday January 20 2017, @12:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the truth-and-perseverance-opposing-industry-spin dept.

Alexey Yablokov and Chris Busby are biologists whose efforts have been to make people aware of the negative health effects of very low-dose ionizing radiation.

Chris Busby reports via CounterPunch

There will be many obituaries published about Alexey V. Yablokov, the extraordinary Russian scientist, activist, and human being, but I would like to briefly record a few words about the man I knew. And to weep a few tears.

He was a strong [...] friend and fellow fighter for truth, and his recent death on the evening of January 10th means a lot for me--and (though we may [not] know it) for us all on this increasingly contaminated planet.

[...] He, like me, saw the issue of radiation and health as one which was fundamentally a political one, and only secondarily as scientific.

[...] In 1998, [...] Alexey and I [...] with Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake, Alice Stewart, and (later) Molly Scott Cato [...] decided to form an alternative [to ICRP, the International Commission on Radiological Protection]: the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR).

This needed an alternative radiation risk model, and we worked on this over the next five years to create the first ECRR report which was published in 2003 and rose upon the nuclear industry horizon with the brightness of a thousand suns.

[Continues...]

Alexey organised the translation into Russian, and it quickly appeared also in French, Japanese, and Spanish. Alexey suggested we publish a series of books and ECRR reports, and quickly began to put together the first compilation of evidence on Chernobyl effects which we published together in 2006: Chernobyl 20 Years On: Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident .

[...] In 2009, he came to the Lesvos conference of the ECRR and made a presentation on Chernobyl effects which we published in the Proceedings. Later, we were in Geneva together and stood vigil together outside the World Health organisation with our sandwich boards. It was freezing. We took the message all over the place. Even after he became ill and had various operations, he would struggle along somehow: we were there in East Berlin, talking about Fukushima.

[...] What Alexey, Inge, and I had in common was the realisation that to win this battle we had to act in several domains: in the scientific literature, in the political area, and in the legal arena also. We had to be brave and accept the attacks and the lies spread about us.

We wrote up the science in books and reports and we began publishing in the peer-reviewed literature; we developed the alternative risk model and entered into court cases as experts and finally in my own case as the legal representative. And it worked: between us we have shaken the foundations of the current bogus structure. And I believe we will ultimately win.

I last saw him in Moscow in 2015 at his 80th birthday celebration to which he invited me (and paid my ticket). A sort of vodka-[fueled] scientific congress. The only other English speaker there was Tim Mousseau. The Russian scientists there were so clever. So honest. Such a change from all the time-serving bastards and idiots I meet in the radiation risk community venues like CERRIE [Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters] or more recently the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. We hugged and cried and tossed back the vodka.

But now ... they have all gone. Karl Z Morgan, John Gofman, Ed Radford, Ernest Sternglass, Alice Stewart, Rosalie Bertell, and now Alexey. All my old mates. Where are the young scientists to replace them? Nowhere. It is all brush and spin and jobs now.

So: Goodbye Alexey Vladimirovitch. A brave and powerful presence, a big man in every way. Perhaps the last of the warrior scientists.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @11:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @11:19AM (#456476)

    Now some specifics would be good.
    What -exactly- is wrong with THIS story?

    ...and while we've got you on the line, perhaps you can tell us how CounterPunch is exactly like Breitbart. [google.com]

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @03:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @03:03PM (#456554)

    I have no idea what is wrong with this story because I am not an expert on the topic and you know what? NEITHER ARE YOU.
    If the last year has taught us anything, it is that the source matters.

    If you think a counterpunch story is legit then do the legwork to find coverage from a more reputable source before you submit rather than relying on everybody else to fack-check your work for you. Liberals are the group where critical thinking and intellectual discipline are cultural values. Don't drag us down.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @05:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @05:39PM (#456622)

      i have found that my intellectual conservative friends often think of good and smart things, but then do what their boss tells them instead.

      in turn, i have been accused of rocking the boat with radical thoughts that differ from expectations when I express them. unfortunately, the silent support of my peers isn't an election process.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @08:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20 2017, @08:50PM (#456693)

      Oh, that couldn't be more obvious.

      the source matters

      The guy who wrote the article, *is* an expert in this field.
      He has the education, credentials, experience, and specific knowledge to comment on Chernobyl.

      As for your red-herring comparison to Breitbart, I find that Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting does honest critiques of media sources.
      Breitbart is mentioned by them hundreds of times [google.com]--always in a negative critical light.
      OTOH, when CounterPunch is mentioned by FAIR, [google.com] it tends to be cited as a useful source of information.
      ...or as the target of a discredited Reactionary outfit like PropOrNot . [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [fair.org]

      Liberals are the group

      ...and there you go again, off on a tangent, painting with a broad brush.
      If you have a SPECIFIC critique, make it.
      If you don't have anything SPECIFIC, then STFU.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]