GRA wrote: Andy, that argument is one where it's impossible to disprove any claim because the evidence that would do so is secret, therefore it must be true.
This is incorrect. I did not say that it's "true" - I said that it's 'impossible' to complete proper analysis without complete data. Additionally, we're talking about two different things. I'm somewhat aware that research is being conducted (I've linked some in the Fukushima thread for both Japan and Chernobyl). But I'm also aware that not all info that could be available is, and it's also clear that some info IS being censored for various reasons, including 'national security'.
I spent my professional career in a highly controlled environment and in spite of the nature of the job, I enjoyed full access to info for which I was cleared to see regardless of source. I hit a ginormous information control wall when I retired as I started a business selling long-life synthetic lubricants. I couldn't compare lubricants because it was impossible to get an ingredients list. I also couldn't get access to the performance specifications for the competitor's products - or even the specs generated by the various auto manufacturers the lubes had to be formulated against. The information is tightly controlled, is only available to companies with a 'need to know' and a well-stocked bank account, and is kept away from the advertising industry and the consumer. And that's just engine oil! I hit a similarly-sized info wall when I went back to college to study environmental science - just try to get a report of chemical testing from a US sewage treatment plant...
Yes, researchers around Chernobyl are free to track birds and salamanders and track mutations. They're allowed to compare soil samples to see how soil life is affected as radioactive isotopes decay. But information on the effects on humans is tightly controlled.
Back to this:
Andy, that argument is one where it's impossible to disprove any claim because the evidence that would do so is secret, therefore it must be true.
This is precisely how Monsanto sells Round-Up and GMO seed. They perform closed research and if the results don't look good, they lobby the EPA or FDA or USDA to change the test duration requirement or other parameter so that the lab results from rat tests stop before their livers double in size and thus allow the seed to be sold. It's also why universities are not allowed to purchase seed if they intend to perform lab analysis. "All of our testing is conducted IAW EPA requirements - we comply with all laws."
How about fracking fluids in the US? Got any peer-reviewed papers that show that there are harmful interactions between components of frack fluids? There aren't any - and there cannot be any - because the industry won't release the ingredients to researchers. They won't even release full into to physicians that are treating people that have been exposed to the products.
Believe what you care to - that's up to you. But anyone that thinks wikipedia has all the facts, or that all applicable info is available to public or university researchers is living in dream land.