but then what happens? well, the coverage of climate change has dropped out, because the media is thinking of the climate change as a r story for the science section or the environment section and reports that come out that get reported by the media, and then it drops off of the diet of the average american. and so not sustained attention. there is not sustained attention it to. how do we get there? the irony is that the media is reporting stories about climate change everyday. and everyday stories about drought, wildfires, typhoons and hurricanes, about heat, about all sorts of effects and very often the stories will appear without the media even mentioning climate change once. so the idea is not necessarily to do more discrete stories on climate change, but to actually mention the climate change in the stories that the media is already reporting, because in fact, it is part of the story, and that is the context for the stories and right now the media is silent on that conte
face in trying to tell this story day in and day out? this is your beat. i get to say, you know, some weeks, this happened and becky becky becky stand. you know? but you re just like we re still screwed. it s monday. it s still happening. it s tuesday, it s still happening. well, you said as you said at the top there, the phenomenon itself is a very poor fit with the traditional strictures of journalism which require, a, some sort of news happening. and, b, they really want human beings and human conflict involved and these are glaciers and atmospheric concentrations. i m a dirty blogger so i don t have to obey those strictures. the media cover it as a science story and it s traditionally science reporters who cover it and the science section of the newspaper, got bless science and
10,000 occupants was only five cases. now, for the general population in that same age group, a group of 10,000 tie within a knees should have gotten about 170 cases of cancer why isn t establishment saying it could ward off infection? why aren t they saying it. they are. they are not getting a lot of attention for it. the coolest cat in my column is this guy at the university of pittsburgh. he did a study of 90% of the counties in the u.s. he looked at levels of radon. radioactive substance from the earth and lung cancer rates. they were inversely relate sod dramatically that it couldn t be explained. bill: some agent in the body works as agent to ward off cancer. that s as many scientists believe as the new york times science section reported. it doesn t get press. bill: by your account we should all be heading for the nuclear reactor leaking and kind
radiation poisoning. it s not me. i m citing a stunning number of physicists and from the new york times, the times of london, there is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says are the minimum amounts we should be exposed to are actually good for you and reduce cases of cancer. the new york times science section for example a few years ago reported on a study from canada where all these women who had had tuberculosis got an inordinate number of chest x-rays. their breast cancer rate was lower than the general population. there were apartments put up in taiwan in 1993 that accidentally contained an inorder habit amount of cobalt 60. a radioactive substance. after 16 years. 10,000 occupants of these buildings, being hit with five times what the government says is the minimum amount you should be hit with, the number of cancer cases they had about
radiation poisoning. it s not me. i m citing a stunning number of physicists and from the new york times, the times of london, there is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says are the minimum amounts we should be exposed to are actually good for you and reduce cases of cancer. the new york times science section for example a few years ago reported on a study from canada where all these women who had had tuberculosis got an inordinate number of chest x-rays. their breast cancer rate was lower than the general population. there were apartments put up in taiwan in 1993 that accidentally contained an inorder habit amount of cobalt 60. a radioactive substance. after 16 years. 10,000 occupants of these buildings, being hit with five times what the government says is the minimum amount you should be hit with, the number of