Comments on: Mothers Milk Project: The Anti Nuclear Weapon

By: Kathie Kourie

Kathie Kourie — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:51:47 +0000

My daughter Kristin has lived most of her life within 10 miles of Indian Point. When she was a baby I donated her baby teeth to the Tooth Fairy Project, which showed she was being exposed to Strontium 90. Now she’s been a nursing mother for the past 9 months, thinking she was doing the best she could for her baby. Has she been passing Strontium 90 to her baby directly through her breast milk? It’s horrible to imagine. She is donating her 2nd sample to the Mother’s Milk Project today and encourages all nursing mothers to do the same so we can find out if our breast milk is harming our babies.

By: jenny

jenny — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:25:15 +0000

i wanted to greet every body here…
remy ,courtney, dunhill ,miss anolan piard, starre , and all the others…..

i am jenny…new to this and enjoy it….after few days ,i will tell you my experience with something.so please wait for it..

jenny.

By: big zero

big zero — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:50:01 +0000

she loves what you do.wow

amazing

By: Courtney

Courtney — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:20:55 +0000

RemyC — I am so sorry, but you are really jumping the gun with your statements about my comment. Please read it again. I make no statement for or against nuclear power (I am not informed enough to speak with any authority about the eventual impact of ANY power production technology… it’s just not my field.)

I merely said that the study designed by Mother’s Milk is a bad study. It has no controls. It can draw no conclusions. I support responsible energy as much as the next person, but I also support responsible activism. Creating a bogus and inflammatory study as a publicity stunt does a disservice to the community this organization is trying to help. I respect that Mother’s Milk has a limited budget (I too was in nonprofit once) but I think there are better ways to spend their $ than promising false hope to a community with real fears.

I am working on getting my MD, and I can tell you — one of the first requirements doctors have when we design ANY study (even just surveys!) is that the results can be used to benefit the population being studied. It’s our moral imperative, if you will, once someone has placed their trust in us and allowed us to observe them.

But what benefit does these mothers receive? This study is also so badly designed that it’s unlikely for anyone to take it seriously. Where are the controls? What are the vectors? Artis is right — there’s a blanket of radioactive material spread over the world from our idiotic weapons testing. So you know what? The milk WILL be radioactive! Because everything is. Without a way to compare it to other milk from mothers in the same time period, age range and socioeconomic bracket, the data will be useless.

You can rage all you want about nuclear power and its evils, but there are many small injustices in this world, and I think misusing the trust of mothers by promising them results from a study that can’t provide results is one them.

By: E.R. Dunhill

E.R. Dunhill — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:24:41 +0000

RemyC,
That’s very creative, but I don’t see any mention of uranium. And the parallel between nuclear energy and the “great furnace” falls apart in the following two verses (in Rev 9):
3And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

I’m not sure how much value there is in the use of a single verse, divorced not only from its historical and cultural context, but from the rest of the passage where it resides.
I think we’ve meandered quite a way from the original point of this post, and I’m not sure many people (our patient hosts included) want to read a debate scripture here. If you’re interested in continuing, it might be a good idea to move this to my collaborative blog, where there’s been some recent discussion on religion (particularly Christianity) and the environment .

By: RemyC

RemyC — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:05:50 +0000

King James Bible
And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

By: Peter Van der Does

Peter Van der Does — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:33:15 +0000

Response to Artis Mayo’s comment : I lived 30 kilometers from Civaux the most modern
nuke plant in Europe. They were not without technical problems inspite of the most
up-to-date technology…Just as a for instance thier fail-safe device which prevents
supercriticality with the introduction of Boron to seperate neutrons in friction FAILED
TWICE during try-outs!!! Anyway the French Dairy industry printed up a folder on steps to
take in case of a nuclear accident. Essentially don’t drink the milk from irradiated areas.
By the way what are you worried about ? If they find radioactivity in mother’s milk and this
radioactivity can be identified as comming from a nuke plant then you should be glad they
have identified the source of a noxious element and hope they can close it down.

By: E.R. Dunhill

E.R. Dunhill — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:05:35 +0000

RemyC,
You and I must read different Bibles. Mine doesn’t mention uranium.
Would you care to comment on my concerns about the limitations of nuclear energy? How about any of my ethical or environmental concerns about industrial-scale use of renewables?

By: RemyC

RemyC — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:08:15 +0000

“Calling the nuclear power industry part of “the culture of death” is alarmist and insults a great many hardworking women and men who care very much about the environment.”

Good, I’m glad, you should feel insulted. ALL nuclear workers, if not directly involved in cleaning up the horrendous mess their industry has caused this planet in the last 50 years, are indeed part of death culture.

Fission is the worse calamity that ever befell humanity! The long term consequences of that blunder will be felt for generations to come, if it doesn’t destroy us all way before then, with tens of thousands lethal and leaking nuclear waste dump sites scattered all over the globe.

There is no such thing as safe nuclear power, other than perhaps with the use of Helium 3. Only accidents, radiation, disease… to enrich the monstruous greedy few owners of the Federal Bank Reserve!

How much is Entergy paying you? Not enough, I’m sure, because the devil’s got your soul! Uranium is the tool of Satan.

By: E.R. Dunhill

E.R. Dunhill — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:33:07 +0000

RemyC,
I think renewables are part of the sustainable solution and we have to work in that direction starting now. Resource-conservative lifestyles are another huge piece of the puzzle.
Unfortunately, there are serious geographical limitations to wind, solar, and geothermal power. There are some fortunate places where supply and demand are close to one another. But on the whole, the portions of the country with the best wind/solar/geothermal resources are distant from the population centers. Electric transmission over long distances is inefficient. I’m not sure about the ethics of the populous coastal and Midwestern states foisting their energy demand upon the High Plains and Southwest. I’m also not sure that environmentalists will acquiesce to the presence of large, high-density wind farms on public lands.
Calling the nuclear power industry part of “the culture of death” is alarmist and insults a great many hardworking women and men who care very much about the environment. Technologies are not good or bad; there are good and bad ways to apply them. Beyond this the current state of a technology can’t be judged by its origins. Many common technologies owe their existence to military origins. I’m not a bad person because I use the Internet (which was created by ARPA for defense purposes) or because I make long-distance phone calls enabled by satellites (which are put in orbit by rockets descended from Nazi technology). Fission isn’t bad simply because it’s been used to make bombs.
That said, the continued safe operation of the nuclear industry is costly, and its fuel and waste needs make it unsustainable. We’re somewhat stuck with it for some time, so I think it’s important to try to make it cheap and safe. At the same time, we need to encourage resource-conservative lifestyles and mass-localization of energy production using renewable sources.