La Fibre
Télécom => Télécom => 
Événements télécoms => Discussion démarrée par: Skender le 08 juin 2015 à 15:04:57
-
Bon c'est bien gentil tout ça mais quand c'est qu'on va boire un coup entre ploucs parisiens, histoire de calmer les esprits ? :)
-
Opla message séparé, on se fait un doodle ? :)
-
Okay :))
Comment ça marche ce bordel?
-
http://doodle.com/28xyzq8kn2gvut5g
En gros tu coches les jours où tu es dispo.
(j'ai viré la fin de semaine prochaine, y a PSES)
-
Pas Sage En Seine...
Petit piratin va ;)
-
C'est rempli
-
Il serai où cet apéro? :D
-
Rempli aussi !
Je pense que Nico a une idée derrière la tête pour le lieu, non?
On m'a parlé récemment d'un lieu sympa où y a un jardin
https://plus.google.com/112916461827256702927/about?gl=fr&hl=fr
-
Je pense que Nico a une idée derrière la tête pour le lieu, non?
Pas spécialement. Après si on dit IDF, le plus simple ça reste Paris dans un coin bien desservi.
Niveau pratique, Châtelet est pas mal mais je suis pas fan. J'ai mes petites habitudes du côté de Montparnasse sinon.
-
Montparnasse j'aime bien aussi.
A châtelet, y a le Zimmer qui est sympa (sur la place du Châtelet).
-
Et si y'a du monde faut se faire réserver une salle au "dernier bar avant la fin du monde" ;)
-
Ça manque de katgé en bas aussi :).
-
Bon c'est bien gentil tout ça mais quand c'est qu'on va boire un coup entre ploucs parisiens, histoire de calmer les esprits ? :)
Et paf ds la tronche ;), bon c'est dommage ma caisse est en panne depuis ce soir.
Mais bon 11h de route pour boire un coup, c'est sympa mais pas raisonnable.
-
Montparnasse, j’apprécie aussi plus que Châtelet.
-
Ce n'est pas raisonnable en effet Breizh29, mais je suis quand même tenté :)
-
Si vous faites des galettes saucisses, je suis capable de venir en Bretagne ;)
-
A Montparnasse, il y a une rue avec de nombreuses crêperies bretonnes.
-
Nico va nous emmener dans son coin préféré ;)
-
Couscous chez bebert ? Le pavé rue des Lombards ?
-
Déplacement dans le Bistro (héhé) et petit up. Le lien du doodle : http://doodle.com/28xyzq8kn2gvut5g
@Hammett : Pourquoi pas, on verra surement ça une fois qu'on aura fixé la date.
-
Si vous faites des galettes saucisses, je suis capable de venir en Bretagne ;)
Ah oui avec de vrai saucisses de Molène, divin !
Mais il faut voir l'ambiance le 15/08 sur place ... ;D ;D
-
Je suppose que c'est mort pour la semaine prochaine l'apéro, non? lol
-
Yep j'attendais de voir si d'autres étaient intéressés.
Je serais d'avis d'arrêter le lundi 22 du coup.
Aux 3 motivés, Montparnasse ou Châtelet ?
-
Montparnasse, dans ton coin de prédilection ^^
-
A Montparnasse, il y a une rue avec de nombreuses crêperies bretonnes.
Une rue?
Il y a beaucoup de crêperies rue d'Odessa et rue du Montparnasse (il doit y avoir 8 crêperies sur 50 m), mais attention : certaines sont nulles, certaines sont très chères, et les meilleures sont pleines avec une demi-heure d'attente à 2 ou 3, impossible pour un grand groupe de trouver des places.
-
C'est tjs sympa une bonne crêpe ;D
-
Attendre une heure c'est moins sympa.
Ne pas avoir à attendre, et devoir menacer de partir sans payer pour avoir des assiettes bien lavées et des couverts qui sentent pas le roquefort...
-
Montparnasse sans hésiter.
-
Bon, faut qu'on organise le contre-apéro pour les provinciaux.... :)
Je suis régulièrement sur Marseille la semaine, y'a du monde par là ?
-
Bon, faut qu'on organise le contre-apéro pour les provinciaux.... :)
Je suis régulièrement sur Marseille la semaine, y'a du monde par là ?
Desolé je m'occupe de faire les frites pour la fete de la musique a Farges cette semaine, si tu veux passer, Pastis gratuit :) :) :)
-
Et ben ça va encore finir bourré dans les champs tout ça ;)
-
Je suis régulièrement sur Marseille la semaine, y'a du monde par là ?
On pourrait faire une visite de DataCenter http://www.dcfordata.com/ pour les motivés sur Lyon... je suis prêt à venir
-
Tu ferais ça quand ?
-
Ca serait en semaine par contre. Je me renseigne après de DC for Data.
-
Toutes personnes intéressées par la visite y est conviée?
Parce que j'aimerai beaucoup visiter un Datacenter un jour..
-
Petit imprévu, je ne vais pas être en IDF la journée de lundi du coup je risque de ne pas pouvoir être à l'heure le soir. Mardi 23 on avait de la même façon 5 participants, donc je préfère arrêter ce jour là si ça vous convient.
On dirait donc :
Mardi 23 juin
A partir de 19H
Lieu : à définir mais dans les environs de Montparnasse
-
Je serais présent.
-
Moi aussi!!!
-
Nico, tu vas nous trouver un coin sympa, je le sens lol
-
Toutes personnes intéressées par la visite y est conviée?
Parce que j'aimerai beaucoup visiter un Datacenter un jour..
Il y a OVH à Brest.
-
Il y a OVH à Brest.
Il y a autre chose que des bureaux ?
-
Il y a autre chose que des bureaux ?
Je n'en sais rien mais c'est possible. (https://www.ovh.com/fr/a1109.ovh-emploi-bretagne-brest) Je pensais jusqu'ici qu'il y avait un Data Center. :(
-
Non pas de DataCenter OVH en Bretagne
-
En même temps en matière de dispo électrique c'est pas terrible la Bretagne par rapport à la région Parisienne, Lyonnaise ou Marseillaise
-
Effectivement, depuis 2 ans il y a eu 3 grosses coupures d'une après-midi, qui touchaient soit un département entier soit plusieurs départements.
-
J'ose suposer que comme fait comme IBM ou Safehost (site de hosting) avec des onduleurs qui tiennene 15 minutes , le temps de demarer et chauffer les diesels, et ensuite c'est les groupes electrogène Catterpilar, qui font plus de 10KWA chacun, apres faut juste penser à mettre du mazout dans la cuve.... :)
Et meme la, j'ai vu un couillon d'electricien qui a branché la pompe a mazout sur le secteur au lieu de l'onduleur, resultat pas marant pour les client, panne sèche apres 2 minutes..
(http://www.lamypower.fr/images/bibli/groupe.jpg_w800_h522_m1)
-
Sur la photo ça fait bien plus que 10KVA :D
-
Je serai malheureusement à Toulouse ce jour-ci.
Bonnes crèpes !
-
Sur la photo ça fait bien plus que 10KVA :D
Problement, le batiment fait 5 etages, 6 salles infos par etage. et plus de de 200 seveveurs par salle, faut la puissance qui va avec, tout le parking souterrain a été reconverti pour 8 groupes diesel Caterpilar, je sais pas la puissance mais ca doit etre monstrueux pour garantir une alim sur le nombres de serveurs hebergés.
-
Finalement, c'est quelle adresse ?
-
J'étais justement en train de me dire que cet apéro tombait doucement à l'eau :(
Nico, l'expert de Montparnasse, t'es toujours là? ;)
-
Falstaff Montparnasse pour commencer, à partir de 19H.
Désolé inter compliquée aujourd'hui, pas eu accès à mon PC.
-
120 bières!
Intéressant ;)
Tu les as toutes goûtées?
-
Adresse : 42 Rue du Montparnasse, 75014 Paris
-
Comment on va faire pour se reconnaître ?
Je suis tout intimidé moi :x
-
Comment on va faire pour se reconnaître ?
Je suis tout intimidé moi :x
Pull rouge et pantalon blanc. On fait un thème ? Mdr
-
Ou en bleu en hommage à bouygues télécom lol
-
Le plus simple est de faire un échange de portable par MP pour se repérer demain => Je donnerais mon portable à tous ceux qui me le demandent par MP.
Sinon voici des photos de moi : (c'est un peu ancien et depuis je n'aime pas l’alcool)
(https://lafibre.info/images/vivien/201305_vivien_petit_08.jpg)
-
Vivien le magicien, il fait disparaître des bouteilles ;)
T'es trop chou!
-
Pareil je fais de l'échange de 06 (ou 07) à qui veut en MP.
Je compte donc demain :
- vivien
- skender
- snickersss
- serge (+2)
- nico
-
Bon apéro à vous alors !!!
Sinon un rassemblement sur lyon un jour pourrait être simpa aussi !! ^^ ;)
-
Ça devrait être bon pour moi aussi :)
-
Ah cool !
-
Oh. Je vois ce sujet tardivement.
Toujours possible de s'incruster ?
-
Oh. Je vois ce sujet tardivement.
Toujours possible de s'incruster ?
Évidemment ! Tu as l'adresse et l'heure ci dessus :)
-
Bon apéro à vous alors !!!
Sinon un rassemblement sur lyon un jour pourrait être simpa aussi !! ^^ ;)
je suis partant
-
Évidemment ! Tu as l'adresse et l'heure ci dessus :)
Alors à ce soir :)
-
Pas de soucis effectivement, hésite pas à récupérer un numéro par MP histoire de nous retrouver plus facilement.
On se posera surement à l'étage du Falstaff, plus de place / plus calme.
-
Je vais peut-être pouvoir venir aussi... Ça va dépendre des horaires de madame...
-
Hésite pas si tu peux ;).
-
Bon, mauvaise nouvelle, je suis cloué au lit, sous antibiotiques. Je ne pourrais pas venir.
Désolé...
-
Remet toi bien, on remettra ça de toute façon ;).
-
Je serais bien venu aussi, mais ca fait un peu loin, a quand la meme chose dans le pays de Gex ?
@Vivien, prend soin de toi, plus important que ton forum :)
-
Si jamais certains s'ennuient, j'y serai vers 18H.
-
Bon, mauvaise nouvelle, je suis cloué au lit, sous antibiotiques. Je ne pourrais pas venir.
Désolé...
Ehbé le nombre de personnes malades en ce moment... Dommage avec un temps pareil. Désolé pour toi :(
-
J'y suis, à tout de suite.
-
Visez la grande table de suite à gauche quand vous rentrez.
Visez la Guinness, le laptop et les 2 tel :).
-
Visez la grande table de suite à gauche quand vous rentrez.
Visez la Guinness, le laptop et les 2 tel :).
Ah ben bravo... Moi je pars de la défense dans quelques minutes ;)
-
Visez la grande table de suite à gauche quand vous rentrez.
Visez la Guinness, le laptop et les 2 tel :).
Tu m'as donné envie, après 1h30 à tondre la pelouse sous le cagnar, je vais faire comme vous et me servir un apéro en terrasse tient 8)
-
Merci à tous (Skender, Snickerss, corrector, Macharius, Tom Pouce, Buchanan, Serge et son collègue) d'être venus. Ça a été une bien bonne soirée, faudra vraiment remettre ça.
-
Faudra remettre ça dans un lieu moins bruyant, aussi.
Parce qu'à la fin on en avait quand même plein les oreilles.
-
Merci à tous (Skender, Snickerss, corrector, Macharius, Tom Pouce, Buchanan, Serge et son collègue) d'être venus. Ça a été une bien bonne soirée, faudra vraiment remettre ça.
Oui ! Merci Nico d'avoir organisé ça ;)
-
Oui et la prochaine fois faudra s'installer en haut ça avait l'air moins bruyant !
-
Ben t'es rentré presque aussi vite que moi dis donc ;)
Oui très bonne soirée, le temps est passé vite!
C'était un plaisir de tous vous rencontrer :)
-
+1
+1
+1
Bonne journée Off à certains ;D
-
Je suis arrivé un peu trop tôt et le haut était pas encore "ouvert", mais si on y retourne il faudra monter oui, c'est nettement plus calme.
-
bon et alors vous avez parlez fibre, nucléraire, routeur, cyptage, telco, SFR, Bouygues, Free, Vivien, etc??
;D ;D
-
Un peu tout ça ... sauf le nucléaire en fait ;).
-
On a même parler taxi et VTC c'est dire ;) Par contre la prochaine fois je prendrais plus léger pour manger... J'avais le bide en vrac au réveil ;) Faut dire que leur "Oh My God" est tout de même un poil copieux !
-
Un peu triste de pas avoir pu y participer, ca m'aurrais vraiment plaisir de vous rencontrer.
-
Merci à tous (Skender, Snickerss, corrector, Macharius, Tom Pouce, Buchanan, Serge et son collègue) d'être venus. Ça a été une bien bonne soirée, faudra vraiment remettre ça.
Absolument ! Excellent panel, bonne ambiance, merci à Nico et à tous !
-
Faut dire que leur "Oh My God" est tout de même un poil copieux !
Haha :)
-
J'étais un peu fracassé en rentrant, après le litre et demi de "Cuvée des Trolls" que je me suis enfilé ;)
-
et bien ça avait l'air bien sympa comme rencontre ;)
dur dur quand tu habite pas sur paris :/
-
Moi dès que j'ai une caisse, un temps off et que ça coïncide avec une prochaine rencontre je n'hésite pas. Même si c'est pas la porte à côté.
-
bon et alors vous avez parlez fibre, nucléraire, routeur, cyptage, telco, SFR, Bouygues, Free, Vivien, etc??
Ni nuc ni crypto.
Je me suis retenu!
-
;D
-
Hier soir j'ai entendu la complainte de l'installateur d'èmetteur de méchantes ondes qui donnent mal à la tête, le besoin d'aller voir le Pr Bellepoire et des passages à la télé. Bref, être en guéguerre avec une bande de zozos.
Juste imaginez être en guéguerre avec les marionnettes de Gazprom et même presque tout toute l'industrie fossile...
-
Je voulais réagir concernant les Académies et autres institutions officielles de la science (ou institutions de la science officielle) :
Ignore climate consensus studies based on random people rating journal article abstracts
Ignore them completely – that's your safest bet right now. Most of these studies use political activists as the raters, activists who desired a specific outcome for the studies (to report the highest consensus figure possible), and who sometimes collaborated with each other in their rating decisions. All of this makes these studies completely invalid and untrustworthy (and by customary scientific standards, completely unpublishable.) I had no idea this was happening. This is a scam and a crisis. It needs to stop, and those papers need to be retracted immediately, especially Cook, et al (2013), given that we now have evidence of explicit bias and corruption on the part of the raters. (It's crazy that people think the consensus needs to be artificially inflated to absurd heights – do they think 84% or 90% isn't good enough?)
In social science, it's common to use trained human raters to subjectively rate or score some variable — it can be children's behavior on a playground, interviews of all kinds, and often written material, like participants' accounts of a past emotional experience. And we have a number of analytical and statistical tools that go with such rating studies. But we would never use human raters who have an obvious bias with respect to the subject of their ratings, who desire a specific outcome for the study, and who would be able to deliver that outcome via their ratings. That's completely nuts. It's so egregious that I don't think it even occurs to us as something to look out for. It never happens. At least I've never heard of it happening. There would be no point in running such a study, since it would be dismissed out of hand and lead to serious questions about your ethics.
But it's happening in climate science. Sort of. These junk studies are being published in climate science journals, which are probably not well-equipped to evaluate what are ultimately social science studies (in method). And I assume the journals weren't aware that these studies used political activists as raters.
Examples of the unbelievable bias and transparent motives of the raters' in Cook, et al (2013) below. These are excerpts from an online forum where the raters collaborated with each other in their ratings:
"BTW, this was the only time I "cheated" by looking at the whole paper. I was mystified by the ambiguity of the abstract, with the author wanting his skeptical cake and eating it too. I thought, "that smells like Lindzen" and had to peek."
"Man, I think you guys are being way too conservative. Papers that talk about other GHGs causing warming are saying that human GHG emissions cause global warming. How is that not an implicit endorsement? If CFC emissions cause warming because they're GHGs, then CO2 emissions cause global warming for the same reason. That's an implicit endorsement."
Jesus. This is a joke. A sad, ridiculous, confusing joke. And it's exactly what you'd expect from raters who are political activists on the subject they're rating. Who in their right minds would use political climate activists as raters for a serious report on the consensus? This is so nuts that I still have a hard time believing it actually happened, that the famous 97% paper was just a bunch of activists rating abstracts. I've called on the journal – Environmental Research Letters – to retract this paper. I'm deeply, deeply confused how this happened. If this is what we're doing, we should just call it a day and go home – we can't trust journals and science organizations on this topic if they're going to pull stunts like this.
I don't care who you are – even if you're a staunch liberal, deeply concerned about the environment and the effects of future warming, this isn't something you should tolerate. If we're going to have a civilization, if we're going to have science, some things need to be non-political, some basic rules need to apply to everyone. I hope we can all agree that we can't seriously estimate the AGW consensus by having political activists rate climate paper abstracts. It doesn't matter whether the activists come from the Heritage Foundation or the Sierra Club – people with a vested interest in the outcome simply can't be raters.
We don't need random people to interpret climate science for us, to infer the meaning of abstracts, to tell us what scientists think. That's an awful method – extremely vulnerable to bias, noise, incompetence, and poor execution. The abstracts for many papers won't even have the information such studies are looking for, and are simply not written at the level of abstraction of "this study provides support for human-caused warming", or "this study rejects human-caused warming". Most climate science papers are written at a more granular and technical level, are appropriately scientifically modest, and are not meant to be political chess pieces.
There's a much better method for finding out what scientists think — ask them. Direct surveys of scientists is a much more valid method than having ragtag teams of unqualified political activists divine the meanings of thousands of abstracts. I don't mean ask about them their abstracts, as Cook, et al did – that inserts an unnecessary layer and potential selection bias. I mean ask them directly what they think about the principal questions. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, survey studies tend to report smaller consensus figures than the abstract rating studies (I'll have more on that later, see the Bray and von Storch series for now) The consensus will be strong regardless, so it's especially confusing why people feel the need to rig it.
(For subjective ratings of abstracts to be a valid and useful method, it would need to be a carefully selected pool of raters, without ideological agendas, implementing a very specific and innovative method, under strict procedures of independence. I can imagine deep philosophy of science questions that might be anwerable by such methods, things like the usage of certain kinds of words, the way hypotheses are framed and results reported, etc. – but much of that could be done by computers. The studies that have been published are nothing like this, and have no hope of being valid.)
NOTE: The Cook, et al data was leaked or hacked a few months ago – I'm confused by what's going on here. Cook wouldn't release some of his data, and ultimately a bunch of data was hacked or scraped off a server, and it included the raters' online discussion forum. Climate science features far too many stories of people refusing to release their data, and mysteriously hacked data. The person who posted this data, Brandon Shollenberger, is a complete unknown. It's amazing that if it weren't for him, we wouldn't know how rigged the study truly was. There's much more to report – the issues raised by the leaked dataset extend far beyond the quotes above.
The University of Queensland has apparently threatened to sue Schollenberger, on some sort of "intellectual property" grounds. Australia is one of my favorite countries, but we need to stand up for him. To the best of my knowledge, he hasn't done anything wrong – he hasn't posted any sort of sensitive information or anything that would violate our core principles of scientific ethics. The identities of the raters were not confidential to begin with, so there was no new disclosure there. He's exposed the cartoonish bias and corruption of the rating process that underlied this "study", and in so doing, he's served the interests of scientific ethics, not violated them.
Even if those online discussions took place during the training period, it would still be alarming evidence of bias, but other evidence suggests this was not a training period. I've never heard anyone call scientific data "intellectual property" before – that's an interesting legal theory, since this is not about an invention or an original creative work. Obviously, if scientists were to get into the habit of treating data as IP, or otherwise proprietary, it would seriously impair scientific progress and quality control – it would also violate the basic premise behind peer review. Shollenberger's disclosures took place in a context where the authors refused to release all of their data, so I'm not sure what other options there were for him. In other words, he's a whistleblower. You can contact the research governance people at the University of Queensland here (scroll to the bottom of that page).
Update: In their legal threat letter to Shollenberger, the University of Queensland says that the letter itself is intellectual property, and that publication of the letter is cause for separate legal action. What? That's like an NSL. Is this new? What kind of upside-down bizarro world is this? You can send someone a threat letter, copyright the letter, and force them not to disclose it? This is unbelievably creepy.
http://www.joseduarte.com/
Réveillez-vous. Les institutions sont hautement corrompues. Les lanceurs d'alerte de mes deux et autre Robins ont raison sur ce point.
L'Académie des sciences française résiste un peu au réchauffisme hystérique de Météo France, mais elle est complètement tombée dans le vaccinalisme béât.
La pseudo-science de la pire espèce est honorée par des groupes comme l'AAAS (Association américaine pour l'avancement des sciences).
La thèse non-scientifique de Yablokov sur les conséquences de "Tchernobyl" a été publiée dans Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, l'explication que ce travail avait une valeur négative a été données après :
Sometime before December 2009, someone at the New York Academy of Sciences decided to print a Greenpeace sponsored book titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment in a publication called the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The roots of the decision remain murky.
Within a few months after the first printing of the book, Ted Rockwell, a long time member of the Academy, started working to convince NYAS leaders that the decision to print was a grave error that was bad for science and posed a significant risk to the reputation of the Academy as a source of sound, peer-reviewed information. As part of his effort, he encouraged the current editor of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences to appoint reviewers and to post the results of those reviews.
(...)
This volume of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences is a translation of a book originally published in Russian by three scientists from Russia and Belarus, and is mainly based on publications in Russian-language journals and other sources on the consequences of the Chernobyl accident for human health and the environment. The original Russian publication was published in 2008.
In the opinion of this reviewer, the authors unfortunately did not appropriately analyze the content of the Russian-language publications, for example, to separate them into those that contain scientific evidence and those based on hasty impressions and ignorant conclusions. Therefore, the main conclusions of Yablokov, Nesterenko, and Nesterenko are the odd mixture of facts (e.g., increased thyroid cancer in children in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) and uncorroborated statements of mass mortality in emergency and recovery workers caused by radiation, abnormalities in newborns, etc. An inexperienced reader will have difficulty in separating these conclusions, and the present review is intended to assist him/her in doing so.
The list of cited references in the translation (Yablokov et al. 2009) indicates that the authors avoided the most respectable papers of Russian-language authors, which received serious international peer review and were published in respected journals. These hundreds of journal articles by authors from Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine were analyzed in detail by teams of independent international experts and became the basis for generalizations of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 1988, 2000, 2008) and the UN Chernobyl Forum (IAEA 2006, WHO 2006, UNDP 2002, Forum 2006). Careful analysis of already peer-reviewed publications with the final separation of “grain from the chaff” is the key to the objectivity of the findings of these international bodies. It is no wonder that the UNSCEAR reports are the most authoritative source of modern knowledge––in its own way, “the bible of radiation medicine.”
In the volume under review, Prof. Yablokov and his coauthors give extensive references to the media, commercial publications, websites of public organizations, or even unidentified ones, to justify their ideas. These are also the source for statistical data on demography, morbidity, etc., which is not considered seriously by the scientific community. Most of the references are conference proceedings, abstracts of theses, and brochures in Russian, all hitherto unknown to the world and hardly accessible even in the former Soviet Union, not to mention the rest of the world. Thus, independent verification or clarification of the data presented by the authors is virtually impossible.
The most impressive is Section 2 on the methodology of the book (written by A.V. Yablokov). It begins with the author’s reasonable reproach to the Soviet authorities on classifying the data during the first years after the accident, as well as on the unreliability of official health statistics. The authors also mark the deficit in dosimetric measurements, particularly individual ones, thus complicating reconstruction of radiation doses received by subjects of epidemiological studies. Further, the author insists on changing the current radiation-epidemiological methodology and, in fact, on the rejection of analytical studies, because they require reconstruction of individual doses, which the author does not trust.
Instead, the author proposes so-called ecological or geographic technologies, in which health indicators in areas with similar environmental, social, and economic conditions, but with different levels of radioactivity, are compared. However, international experience in radiation epidemiology has repeatedly demonstrated that this approach leads to erroneous conclusions, and the volume under our review demonstrates this once again.
The second proposal by A.V. Yablokov––to observe the changes in health indicators over time and relate them to the account of radiation––is also very popular among profanes. However, in late 1980s and especially in the 1990s, enormous socio-economic changes took place in this country and led to a serious shortage of health care system, and to increased morbidity and mortality. To identify radiogenic effects over this background is a complex scientific task that cannot be solved by simple methods of comparison of past and current health indicators.
Radiation is a relatively weak carcinogen, and its health effects in the population are identified with great difficulties and only with internationally recognized analytical techniques with individual account not only for the dose but also for other influencing factors. The only exception was the post-Chernobyl radiogenic thyroid cancer in children, because the doses from radioiodine were so high (up to tens of Gray), and the spontaneous incidence rate in children is so low (a few cases per million children per year) that the effect of radiation was detected both within analytical and ecological studies (UNSCEAR 2008).
In fact, the “Yablokov’s Manifesto” on denial of the analytical approach and unconditional trust in the ecological or geographical research methods with primitive statistical tests puts an end to the reliability of all conclusions of the medical Chapter II.
Biased selection of articles and the author’s conclusions are predetermined by his belief in a totally negative effect of any dose of radiation, and he is not embarrassed with brutal contradiction of the selected works and his own conclusions to the century-long experience in radiobiology and radiation medicine. Each section ends with conclusions about the catastrophic impact of Chernobyl radiation on human health, including increasing death rates. The value of this review is not zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists, while inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error.
Describing the “radiogenic” mortality, the author forgets that we are all mortal, including the Chernobyl workers and the population of the contaminated areas, and attributes mortality mainly to the impact of radiation. Meanwhile, quite accurate data of the Russian national registry suggest that mortality rates of the Chernobyl workers standardized by age and sex are not higher but lower than the one for the population of Russia (Ivanov et al. 2004). Yablokov’s assessment for the mortality from Chernobyl fallout of about one million (!) before 2004 (Subsection 7.7) puts this book in a range of rather science fiction than science. It is obvious that if such a mass death of people occurred, it would not have remained unnoticed, even more because it is not so much about the population of the three countries, than about the rest of Europe and even countries outside Europe (!).
It is important to note the difference between the initial positions of epidemiology experts and of the author. Experts are seeking hardly identified indications of at least minimal provable radiation effects in the population and workers in order to clarify the radiation risk factors for radiation protection. And there are no real successes, except for the cases of thyroid cancer in children and leukaemia in the most exposed workers. There are no longer any discussions of broad-scale radiogenic morbidity and especially mortality in population and workers. Broad-scale medical and demographic research during 25 years since the accident has not revealed those, nor are they expected to be found in the future. However, A.V.Yablokov is still seeking to convince the public of mass lesions of the population with the Chernobyl radiation.
Chapter IV examines some issues of radiation protection of the population, mainly in Belarus, where two other authors, V.B. Nesterenko and A.V. Nesterenko, actively worked. In conditions of exposure to low doses, which are typical for the major part of the population of Belarus after the Chernobyl accident, the authors tested preparations of pectin and recommended them for widespread use in order to reduce radionuclide content in children (Hill et al. 2007). Here the optimization procedure for this radiation protection action is clearly lacking (ICRP 2006), with weighing the benefits of the drug (reducing radiation risk) and possible damage to health (whether this drug has been checked for chronic use?), the costs of the measure and its perception by population. At low doses of internal radiation, and even smaller doses prevented, the result of the optimization analysis is not obvious at all.
Doubtful are recommendations to eat food products rich in potassium and calcium, and drink plenty of fluids to reduce incorporation of cesium-137 and strontium-90. Inexperienced readers should be protected against these unwarranted recommendations.
(...)
M. I. BALONOV
Institute of Radiation Hygiene, St. Petersburg, Russia
http://atomicinsights.com/devastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment/
Je pourrais en remplir des pages et des pages.
Il est très dangereux de donner à des clubs privés la possibilité de censurer la science ou d'orienter les diagnostiques.
-
Hier soir j'ai entendu la complainte de l'installateur d'èmetteur de méchantes ondes qui donnent mal à la tête, le besoin d'aller voir le Pr Bellepoire et des passages à la télé. Bref, être en guéguerre avec une bande de zozos.
Ah, c'est moi ça :)
-
Et sinon, ptite photo aussi.
-
la classe :P
-
On passe la version 2.0 en prod semaine prochaine ?
https://lafibre.info/bistro-sujet-libre/apero-sur-le-theme-de-la-fibre-en-idf-v2-0/