Greenie paranoia over nuclear power completely unfounded
b oo n
According to all the models of the effects of nuclear exposure, should
have been a catastrophe. But it wasn't.
-Deaths from direct exposure of radiation to clean-up crews (tissue-
destroying gamma emissions)
= 47.
-Deaths to surrounding population due to exposure to particulates and
radiation.
= 3.
-Leukemias, which should have manifested in the thousands 10 years
after the accident? Nothing, after 20 years.
-Other cancers which should have appeared 20-25 years after, nothing
evident at this point, 23 years after.
-Deformities and other genetic malformations present in the exposed
population or animal life near the reactor? None.
-Effect on reproduction of animals and plants near the reactor? No
effects observed.
Like global warming models, all the standard models of the effects of
nuclear radiation exposure have proven wrong. The models will now
have to be completely re-done to account for the findings.
So, for all observed real evidence, there is almost zero risk from
nuclear power.
HardySpicer
I'm no Greenie but I'm not so sure that's all ok. I heard of all sorts
of deformities. A baby with his brain hanging oot o his heed.
Hardy
Surfer
Chernobyl's Voles Live But Mutations Surge
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/science/chernobyl-s-voles-live-but-mutations-surge.html?pagewanted=1
<Start extract>
Dr. Chesser, a geneticist at the University of Georgia, and Dr. Robert
Baker, from Texas Tech University, periodically venture into the most
radioactive areas they can find inside the six-mile "exclusion zone"
in Ukraine around the reactor that melted down in 1986. Wearing no
special protective gear other than shoe covers, and sometimes
respirators, they go in quest of the mouse-like rodents known as
voles.
The mystery that keeps luring the two back is that voles and other
rodents are thriving in the zone, an environment so contaminated that
the animals themselves become radioactive. The research team considers
them safe enough to handle, but Dr. Chesser said, "You wouldn't want
to keep one of those voles in your pocket for any length of time."
Despite their hardy appearance, the voles sustain extraordinary
amounts of genetic damage, Dr. Chesser and Dr. Baker reported last
month in the journal Nature. "The mutation rate in these animals is
hundreds and probably thousands of times greater than normal," Dr.
Baker said.
The Chernobyl accident has, in essence, compressed several thousand
years of evolution into a decade, according to Dr. David Hillis, a
molecular biologist at the University of Texas who wrote an editorial
accompanying the Nature paper.
Dr. Baker and Dr. Chesser measured mutations by studying the DNA in a
cellular structure known as the mitochondrion, which processes energy.
They chose that structure rather than nuclear DNA because the
mitochondrial genes are smaller and better known than nuclear DNA. In
addition, the mitochondria cannot repair their DNA, making tracking
genetic damage easier.
Despite the mutation rate, the vole population was booming. There were
more animals inside the exclusion zone than outside it, probably
because people had been evacuated, improving the habitat for animals.
Except for enlarged spleens, which may signal infection or the onset
of cancer, the voles seemed healthy.
News reports have described the Chernobyl rodents as "nuclear
supervoles." But the researchers take exception to that idea, even
though the voles appear to have adapted to their radioactive
environment.
"Adaptation always involves a cost," Dr. Chesser said. "For there to
be evolution or adaptation, one form must succeed at the expense of
another."
A close examination of the genetic changes in the animals suggested
one possible cost of adaptation. As many as a third of the mutations
that the researchers expected to find were not detected. "We think
they were lethal," Dr. Baker said. "It could be that the animals were
never even born." He said,the researchers also did not know whether
the animals were living a normal life span.
Another ominous finding was that the vole mutations were cumulative,
increasing with each succeeding generation. Both researchers doubt
that any species could sustain such a mutation rate indefinitely.
A major question that is still unanswered is whether the changes seen
in the mitochondrial DNA mean that the mutation rate has also
increased in the nuclear DNA.
"But if it's anywhere close," Dr. Baker said, "it's ultimately going
to be ugly." He said that even if the changes were only in the
mitochondria, that could have serious consequences for the voles,
because mitochondria play an essential role in metabolism.
<End extract>
Surfer
Google can't find a source for those claims. Did you make them up
yourself?
Here is something that Google did find:
Cancer in Belarus increased 40% after Chernobyl
http://www.llrc.org/belarusokeanov.htm
In November 2004 The Swiss Medical Weekly published findings by
workers at the Clinical Institute of Radiation Medicine and
Endocrinology Research in Minsk, Belarus. It shows that between 1990
and 2000 cancer rates have risen by 40% overall, compared with rates
before the catastrophe in April 1986.
Belarus has had a national Cancer Registry as long as anywhere in
Britain, keeping a computer database of all new cases of malignant
tumours.
The new paper presents an overall comparison of changes in the
incidence of cancer morbidity in Belarus. The increase is
statistically significant for all regions.
This completely contradicts the predictions of ICRP and the
pronouncements of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World
Health Organisation.
In 2001 Chris Busby reported to the Belarus government that cancer
would increase by 125% over the lifetimes of the exposed population
(www.llrc.org/belarus.htm).
Now, 18 years after the accident, 40% of that increase is apparent.
Relative Risks all have high statistical significance.
Increases in the various oblasts (regions) were:
* Brest 33%
* Vitebsk 38%
* Gomel 52%
* Grodno 44%
* Minsk 49%
* Mogilev 32%
* Minsk city 18%
* all Belarus 40%
The view of conventional radiation protection "experts", however, is
that very little if any cancer has resulted or will result from the
fallout. This was expressed, for example, in 2000 by a United Nations
committee (UNSCEAR 2000):
Apart from the substantial increase in thyroid cancer after childhood
exposure observed in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine there
is no evidence of a major public health impact related to ionising
radiation 14 years after the Chernobyl accident. No increases in
overall cancer incidence or mortality that could be associated with
radiation exposure have been observed. The risk of leukaemia, one of
the most sensitive indicators of radiation exposure, has not been
found to be elevated even in the accident recovery operation workers
or in children. There is no scientific proof of an increase in
non-malignant disorders related to ionising radiation. � For the most
part [the public] were exposed to radiation levels comparable to or a
few times higher than the natural background levels. Lives have been
disrupted by the Chernobyl accident but from the radiological point of
view, based on the assessment of this Annex, generally positive
prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail.
For evidence of increases in non-malignant disorders see our summaries
of 100 papers from the affected territories.
Reference
A national cancer registry to assess trends after the Chernobyl
accident
A. E. Okeanov, E. Y. Sosnovskaya, O. P. Priatkina; Clinical Institute
of Radiation Medicine and Endocrinology Research, Minsk, Belarus
SWISS MED WKLY 2004;134:645�649 Issue 43/44, Nov 2004 (right click
here to save to your computer)
UNSCEAR (2000) United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Atomic Radiation. Sources and Effects of Ionising Radiation 2000. UN
General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes. United Nations New York.
Annex J Final Summary
Warren Smith
"b oo n" <i...@hhh.com> wrote in message news:4b343ad9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Sounds great, but there's one problem. What do you do with the waste?
Warren Smith
3/33 Acorn Cresent
Maitland NSW
warren...@aussiemail.com.au
Addinall
wrote:
> "b oo n" <i...@hhh.com> wrote in messagenews:4b343ad9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Stick it in my back yard if you like.
I would suggest you remove your address
from your .sig. USENET is bigger than it used to be.
Mark Addinall.
>
> Warren Smith
> 3/33 Acorn Cresent
> Maitland NSW
> warren.sm...@aussiemail.com.au- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rav1ng rabbit
The marching firth parade continues
Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
Eunometic
wrote:
> "b oo n" <i...@hhh.com> wrote in messagenews:4b343ad9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
The volume of high level waste left after 40-50 years of opperation of
a nuclear reactor is about the size of a small car.
It could be destoyed by transmuation.
1 2/3rds could be destroyed by placing it in a natural uranium
reactor.
2 nearly 100% could be destroyed by placing it in a fast breader
reactor
3 A 100% could be destroyed by placing it in a particle accelerator,
using a small percentage of the reactors power.
Or you just convert to syncroc or immobilise it in pyrex glass and
bury it in granit.
jg
You would be better to stick to the line Chernobyl was an aberration.
http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/media/?view=news&id=674
"Father Morrison helped children suffering chronic and terminal cancers
or malformations as a result of the contamination in the region in their
darkest hours. He travelled to Chernobyl four times over 16 years to
provide support and love to those who were shunned by many.."
It is suggested that's where he picked up the cancer which killed him.
As if there isn't enough destitution here in WA. If only he had known
there was no work for him there, huh Wanker?
Gordon Levi
>On Dec 25, 10:24�pm, "Warren Smith" <warren.sm...@aussiemail.com.au>
>wrote:
>> Sounds great, but there's one problem. What do you do with the waste?
>
>The volume of high level waste left after 40-50 years of opperation of
>a nuclear reactor is about the size of a small car.
The World Nuclear Association, which lobbies in favour of the nuclear
power industry, estimates the high level waste produced _every year_
as the equivalent of one hundred double-decker buses, each weighing
ten times that of an actual double-decker bus
<http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf103.html#Point1>.
>It could be destoyed by transmuation.
>
>1 2/3rds could be destroyed by placing it in a natural uranium
>reactor.
>2 nearly 100% could be destroyed by placing it in a fast breader
>reactor
>3 A 100% could be destroyed by placing it in a particle accelerator,
>using a small percentage of the reactors power.
>
>Or you just convert to syncroc or immobilise it in pyrex glass and
>bury it in granit.
When any of those technologies are implemented on a commercial scale
you may dismiss Warren's concerns. Until then, the proponents of
nuclear energy are stuck with arguing that the waste products from
nuclear power that we don't know how to dispose of are less dangerous
than the waste products from fossil fuelled power that we don't know
how to dispose of.
And Warren, do take Mark Addinall's sound advice. Remove your real
email address from your sig and use a false email address in the
header. My spam folder at gmail contains about 15,000 messages and
they delete messages older than one month. I'm sure there are other
sources of my spam but I think most of it is because I used my real
email address on Usenet for a couple of years.
Eunometic
> Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >On Dec 25, 10:24 pm, "Warren Smith" <warren.sm...@aussiemail.com.au>
> >wrote:
> >> Sounds great, but there's one problem. What do you do with the waste?
>
> >The volume of high level waste left after 40-50 years of opperation of
> >a nuclear reactor is about the size of a small car.
>
> The World Nuclear Association, which lobbies in favour of the nuclear
> power industry, estimates the high level waste produced _every year_
> as the equivalent of one hundred double-decker buses, each weighing
> ten times that of an actual double-decker bus
> <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf103.html#Point1>.
"High-level waste (HLW) is currently safely contained and managed in
interim storage facilities. The amount of HLW produced (including used
fuel when this is considered a waste) "
If you reproocess the waste the volume reduces is reduced as I said.
Note Uranium is heavier than lead.
95% of nuclear fuel is U238 which is hardly radioactive at all. If
you do not reprocess to remove this portion it increases volume of
radioactive waste by a factor of 20 in the first cycle alone.
The U238 is NOT high level waste.
Typically one would reprocess the waste as follows.
1 Remove the Plutonium, this otherwise long lived waste will be mixed
with Uranium to make mixed oxide fuel and burned up in a reactor to
produce energy. This cuts down on the Uranium that needs to be minded
and dramatically cuts down waste volume.
2 Remove the unused U235 and U238, this will be mixed with the
Plutonium to make Mixed oxide fuel.
3 Remove the transuranics: these are 'heavier elements' make heavier
by capturing neutrons and are often true long term wastes.
4 Remove the fission products, these though often left part of the
long term waste are relatively short lived.
The U238 eventually becomes Plutonium and is burned up.
About 2/3rds of the transuranics can be converted to medium term waste
by placing in a CANDU style heavy water eactor therby reducing waste
volume even further.
A Fast Breeder or particle accelerator could in theory destroy all of
the transuranics.
Conventional reactors, combined with some CANDU style natural Uranium
reactors and waste reprocessing makes a pretty good nuclear cycle
without resorting to Breeding.
Waste recycline has its challenges but its works, widely used in
France.
>
> >It could be destoyed by transmuation.
>
> >1 2/3rds could be destroyed by placing it in a natural uranium
> >reactor.
> >2 nearly 100% could be destroyed by placing it in a fast breader
> >reactor
> >3 A 100% could be destroyed by placing it in a particle accelerator,
> >using a small percentage of the reactors power.
>
> >Or you just convert to syncroc or immobilise it in pyrex glass and
> >bury it in granit.
>
> When any of those technologies are implemented on a commercial scale
> you may dismiss Warren's concerns. Until then, the proponents of
> nuclear energy are stuck with arguing that the waste products from
> nuclear power that we don't know how to dispose of are less dangerous
> than the waste products from fossil fuelled power that we don't know
> how to dispose of.
The biggest problem is political not technical.
Its a chicken and egg thing.
Try and build a waste repositiory and a waste reprocessing plant and
watch the protests become lunatic.
Swedden however has a nuclear waste repository deep in volcanic granit
though I don't believe anything has been placed in it yet.
Of course it is implacably wrong to dump nuclear waste underground
without reprocessing as the volume and radioactiveity is much higher
than need be.
Reprocessing was 'baned' by President Jimmy Carter since he feared it
would lead to nuclear proliferation. He was a bit of an idiot.
Waiting a few decades reduces the radioactivity of the waste.
Eunometic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jesus and may mother of God. 1/3rd of the population will get cancer
at one time or another.
Its not like its rare. Chernobyle didn't make a measurable bit of
difference.
Can ye people not think,
jg
"The increase in thyroid cancer among the adult population which fell
under the radioactive cloud is already 5 to 7-fold higher than in the
rest population"
Of course it's not over yet and there is more information, but that's
probably enough for you to digest for now.
Addinall
And in ever WHO report I have read it mentions an increase
in the incidence of NON-FATAL thyroid cancers within that small
area. Eight people have been snuffed due to fatal Thyroid cancer
which was 'probably' related to the disaster.
Mark Addinall.
jg
Probably because thyroid tumours are more treatable than many other
forms of cancer.
"There is a continuing increase in the radiation-induced cancer of the
thyroid in those who were irradiated in childhood or adolescence (more
than 6,000 persons to 2004).
So as long as you don't actually die from it, there's not really a
problem and you can't blame radiation huh?
Eunometic
The thyroid concentrates idodine quickly, I would say it quickly also
flushes it out so the body can eliminated it quickly if given a non
contaminated source of iodine.
On the other hand bone born radiation is slow to be absorbed but also
slow to be eliminated.
The solutiuon is to not eat contaminated food for a while.
In the case of a nuclear accident food should be imported from afar
till the radioactivity has died down naturally.
Importing food on this scale is expensive but quite doable. It is an
event unlikely to happen again, and if it did it will be dramatic but
much less lethal than forgoing nuclear power.
>
> "There is a continuing increase in the radiation-induced cancer of the
> thyroid in those who were irradiated in childhood or adolescence (more
> than 6,000 persons to 2004).
>
> So as long as you don't actually die from it, there's not really a
> problem and you can't blame radiation huh?- Hide quoted text -
Gordon Levi
jg
exclusion zones of the 3 most affected countries. Return of people to
these territories will be impossible for centuries."
"No significant decline of concentration of radionuclides in food
products is foreseen for many years in the future. This constitutes a
major radiological problem among the extremely poor village people who
consume these products on a daily basis"
I guess it's ok if you don't have a tumour and how much "doable" food
are you sending in?
Gordon Levi
>On Dec 27, 12:58�am, Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >On Dec 25, 10:24�pm, "Warren Smith" <warren.sm...@aussiemail.com.au>
>> >wrote:
>> >> Sounds great, but there's one problem. What do you do with the waste?
>>
>> >The volume of high level waste left after 40-50 years of opperation of
>> >a nuclear reactor is about the size of a small car.
>>
>> The World Nuclear Association, which lobbies in favour of the nuclear
>> power industry, estimates the high level waste produced _every year_
>> as the equivalent of one hundred double-decker buses, each weighing
>> ten times that of an actual double-decker bus
>> <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf103.html#Point1>.
>
>"High-level waste (HLW) is currently safely contained and managed in
>interim storage facilities. The amount of HLW produced (including used
>fuel when this is considered a waste) "
The "interim storage facilities" are commonly ponds adjacent to the
reactor. They are almost identical to a nuclear reactor except that
the rods are too far apart to produce fission. They don't have the
supervision or the control systems of a nuclear reactor and draining
the pond or moving the rods closer together would almost certainly
cause an uncontained explosion.
>
>Waste recycline has its challenges but its works, widely used in
>France.
You inspired me to do some further reading and I found this
dispassionate account of French recycling
<http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-wasteland/1>.
It agrees with you that the quantity of waste can be drastically
reduced. However it points out that, with current technology, a
byproduct is a stockpile of weapons grade fuel.
Reducing the volume does not solve the storage problem although you
may be able to argue that the waste is "safer" than the waste from
carbon fuels.
>
>The biggest problem is political not technical.
>
>Its a chicken and egg thing.
>
>Try and build a waste repositiory and a waste reprocessing plant and
>watch the protests become lunatic.
There is a good reason for that as the reference above notes. Instead
of focusing on the excellent record so far of the French plant the
protesters will be aware that "It has proved an ecological,
occupational, and humanitarian disaster nearly everywhere else. Spills
and explosions at reprocessing plants in the United States, Russia,
and Britain have polluted rivers and contaminated hundreds of
thousands of acres. Britain�s Sellafield reprocessing complex, on
England�s Cumbrian coast, was shuttered in April 2005 after safety
authorities discovered that 83 cubic meters of highly radioactive
liquids had spilled during a period of nine months."
Peter Webb
"jg" <j...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:HVzZm.64942$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
We are talking about the death toll from Chernobyl.
So how many people exposed to fallout have died from Thyroid cancer, and how
many died in a control area that was not exposed to fallout?
> So as long as you don't actually die from it, there's not really a problem
> and you can't blame radiation huh?
>
Well, if we are talking death rates - which is what we are doing - then
people who don't die don't count.
You can change the rules, by saying you want to talk about something other
than death rates, or you can provide figures on the additional deaths in the
area due to thyroid poisoning. If this turns out to be more than 4,000
(which is estimate of total cancer deaths), then you have evidence that the
total death count from Chernobyl exceeded 4,000. Do you have such evidence?
Or are all your hard figures also consistent with a total death toll of
4,000 from Chernobyl, consistent with scientific estimates?
Peter Webb
The total death toll was 4,000.
That is a terrible tragedy, but to put it in perspective, its about 1/19 th
as many British soldiers that died 1st July 1916 in a single battle
(57,400), or about equal to the annual California road-toll, or the number
of people that died in the Bhopal industrial accident, or indeed how many
people die every 8 hours from malaria world-wide.
Chernobyl was a terrible tragedy, but so was Bhopal, and I haven't heard
protestations that methyl isocynate should be banned. Massive hypocrisy.
Peter Webb
> of focusing on the excellent record so far of the French plant the
> protesters will be aware that "It has proved an ecological,
> occupational, and humanitarian disaster nearly everywhere else. Spills
> and explosions at reprocessing plants in the United States, Russia,
> and Britain have polluted rivers and contaminated hundreds of
> thousands of acres. Britain's Sellafield reprocessing complex, on
> England's Cumbrian coast, was shuttered in April 2005 after safety
> authorities discovered that 83 cubic meters of highly radioactive
> liquids had spilled during a period of nine months."
Gee, these all sound like terrible accidents. How many people died?
Addinall
Millions at least. It was so devastating they are in the process
of building a new reactor next to the old one.
Mark Addinall.
jg
attributable to Cherobyl. It also stated there were no deformities or
generic malformations, no leukemia or other cancers, no effect on plant
or animal reproduction.
What rules were those again, when the original statement was a straight
out lie intended to paint over a tragic nuclear accident still evolving,
as if nothing had happened?
Eunometic
No, It doesn't from what i read in that article. The byproduct is
U238 depleted in U235 with some contaminination. This is most
definetly not useable for weapons manufacture. It could be processed
into more fuel rods, however natural Uranium is simply cheaper at the
momment to use as a source of fuel rods.
The plutonium can easily be burned up in mixed oxide fuel.
Plutonium from commercial reactors is hardly weapons grade. It is
high in Pu 240 and Pu 238 not just the weapons grade Pu 239. The Pu
240 tends to be 40% of Pu and will predetonate an foil an attempt to
assemble critical mass. It also is highly radioactive with deeply
penetrating gamma rays: it will kill anyone who is not working
behined extremely heavy shielding. You need to run a military
reactor short periods and remove the fuel for removal of Pu 239
quickly before Pu 240 forms.
PUREX gives you the abillity to seperate out Plutonium but it also
allows you to then use it as a reactor fuel.
You will also find in the december 09 issue of IEEE spectrum an
explantion of the finnish waste repository. Yes it is being built.
Unfortunatly they are not reprocessing just burying the complete fuel
rods in iron, copper tinds recessed in granit and embeded in clay.
Deep under ground.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/finlands-nuclear-waste-solution/1
>
> Reducing the volume does not solve the storage problem although you
> may be able to argue that the waste is "safer" than the waste from
> carbon fuels.
If the volume is tiny: ie a 0.5m diameter by 1.3m tall stainless steel
drum of wasted encapsulated in pyrex glass per year means about a
small van in size after 40 years of opperation you don't have much of
a problem. Drill down vertically 500m in rock, drill horizontal
tunnel and bury 50 containers at 10 meter intervals.
You need to bore 20 meters of shaft and tunnel per year of nuclear
wasted.
If you want to reduced the volume further put some of the fuel in a
CANDU reactor and it will destroy 2/3rds.
Apart from the PUREX process there is also 'pyroprocessing' or
'electroprocessing' which means processing can be done on site where
the reactor is built. In this case a IFR style breeder will need to
be fueled only once in 40 years.
>
>
>
> >The biggest problem is political not technical.
>
> >Its a chicken and egg thing.
>
> >Try and build a waste repositiory and a waste reprocessing plant and
> >watch the protests become lunatic.
>
> There is a good reason for that as the reference above notes. Instead
> of focusing on the excellent record so far of the French plant the
> protesters will be aware that "It has proved an ecological,
> occupational, and humanitarian disaster nearly everywhere else. Spills
> and explosions at reprocessing plants in the United States, Russia,
> and Britain have polluted rivers and contaminated hundreds of
> thousands of acres. Britain s Sellafield reprocessing complex, on
> England s Cumbrian coast, was shuttered in April 2005 after safety
> authorities discovered that 83 cubic meters of highly radioactive
> liquids had spilled during a period of nine months."- Hide quoted text -
Eunometic
These old folks who refuse to evacuate will die of old age before they
get cancer or die from that cancer.
Yep, the Russians fucked up big time but the world will move on and
in1-3 centuries it will be prime real estate or a superb national
park, one of the few left in the world.
The world can handle another dozen of these accidents easily and not
even one is going to occur.
In the meantime you can visit, just don't start a farm in the
immediate area.
>
> I guess it's ok if you don't have a tumour and how much "doable" food
> are you sending in?- Hide quoted text -
Your more likely to die of a tumour from eating cheap food caused from
low income due to high power bills.
If people can afford fresh fruit and vegetables, grazed instead of
grain fed food they will live a great deal longer.
Eunometic
Some 4000 estimated deaths of the 600,000 of those that were nearest
the accident. No one has lied about this.
The 50 deaths relates to those involved in cleanups, most of whom due
to Soviet era disorganisation lacked proper protective gear.
You can't stop gamma rays pentrating a suit much but you can prevent
inhalation and skin contact contamination and you can stop alpha and
most beta particles with the right PPE.
It also stated there were no deformities or
> generic malformations, no leukemia or other cancers, no effect on plant
> or animal reproduction.
>
> What rules were those again, when the original statement was a straight
> out lie intended to paint over a tragic nuclear accident still evolving,
> as if nothing had happened?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is not doubt that it is still evolving, we're just not seeing
significant negative effects, the effects are so limited they
challenge our statistical methods to measure them.
jg
You blokes don't seem able to consistently assess how much of a disaster
it was/is.
>> I guess it's ok if you don't have a tumour and how much "doable" food
>> are you sending in?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Your more likely to die of a tumour from eating cheap food caused from
> low income due to high power bills.
>
> If people can afford fresh fruit and vegetables, grazed instead of
> grain fed food they will live a great deal longer.
Yeah, let them eat cake.
Peter Webb
It did not say this. It provided an immediate death count of 50, which is
correct.
> It also stated there were no deformities or generic malformations,
You have not provided evidence of genetic deformities at higher than the
normal rate.
> no leukemia or other cancers, no effect on plant or animal reproduction.
And noe have you provided any evidence for any of these, either, other than
mentioning thyroid cacner specifically, but even then you haven't provided
actual death figures.
>
> What rules were those again, when the original statement was a straight
> out lie intended to paint over a tragic nuclear accident still evolving,
> as if nothing had happened?
>
He didn't say nothing happened.
Something obviously did happen. About 4,000 people ended up dying.
I previously compared this to Bhopal; this was incorrect. About 4,000 did
die immediately in Bhopal, but about 15,000 are reckoned to have eventually
died, so Bhopal killed about five times as many people as Chernobyl.
Peter Webb
>> in1-3 centuries it will be prime real estate or a superb national
>> park, one of the few left in the world.
>>
>> The world can handle another dozen of these accidents easily and not
>> even one is going to occur.
>>
>> In the meantime you can visit, just don't start a farm in the
>> immediate area.
>>
>
> You blokes don't seem able to consistently assess how much of a disaster
> it was/is.
>
I think that the views of most people posting here are pretty consistent -
about 50 people died immediately and 4,000 people eventually suffered
premature deaths from cancer. Seems pretty consistent to me, apart from you
of course.
Gordon Levi
No one can answer that question. Nor can they answer it about the
waste products from carbon fuels. The deaths resulting from a
radiation overdose are as difficult to measure as those from climate
change.
There is one significant difference. The risk of a catastrophic event
is far higher with nuclear energy. For example, a "successful"
terrorist attack on Sellafield would mean that "the highly
radioactive and long-lasting isotope caesium-137 would be released
into the atmosphere, contaminating Britain, Ireland, continental
Europe and beyond, making swathes of the country uninhabitable"
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/11/nbio111.xml>
Addinall
Phhht. More scary fiction from Watermelons as they realise that the
UK
is committing to building ten new reactors. One of them in
Sellafield.
If anyone is seriously worried about approaching Jumbo Jets driven
by mad Arabs, then I suggest they stick a EuroCanard of some sort in
the car park.
And build a grassy hill over the top of the reactor and fuel storage
areas.
Nuclear energy has been in operation for 40+ years. There are
currently
about 400 reactors operating in the world, and no one (apart from
scruffy
watermelons) has ever done so much as throw a pebble at one.
Mark Addinall.
T. Keating
You've been conned....
Radiation has many side effects other than cancer..
(Ionizing radiation also kills cells, and mutates RNA/DNA with
non-cancerous outcomes. I.E.. Replication of damaged RNA/DNA still
re-occurs, but the number of cell divisions remains finite.)
Current minimum early death count 50,000, My current estimated of
early death count is over 500,000. Before it's all over, at least
several million people will have suffered and been dealt an early fate
because of that single meltdown..
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406
"Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated"
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/whitewashing-chernobyl-s-impac
"* The World Health Organization refers to a study of 72,000 Russian
clean-up workers of which 212 died as the result of radiation. The
total number of 'liquidators' (in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) is
estimated at some 600,000;
* The number of 4,000 deaths relates only to a population of 600,000,
whereas radiation was spread over most of Europe. The IAEA has omitted
the impacts of Chernobyl fall out on millions of Europeans;
* The IAEA tries to make strict distinction between health impacts
attributable to radiation and other health impacts attributable to
stress, social situation etc. However, the WHO is referring to
numerous reports which indicate an impact of radiation on the immune
system, causing a wide range of health effects; "
"It is appalling that the IAEA is whitewashing the impacts of one of
the most serious industrial accidents in human history," said Jan
Vande Putte, Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner."
http://www.nirs.org/press/04-11-2006/1
"New Study Challanges IAEA Report on Chernobyl Consequences: Finds
Death Toll Likely to be 30-60,000"
� about 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths are predicted, 7 to 15
times greater than IAEA/WHO's published estimate of 4,000
http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1
"All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer."
June 30, 2005
"Washington, DC July 30, 2005 The National Academies of Science
released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing
radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing
Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is
no safe level of exposure to radiation�that even very low doses can
cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than
previously thought."
"There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.
Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional
exposures cause additional risks.
Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and
stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result
in these non-cancer health effects. "
====
And then their are the reports from Ukrainian doctors. A vast number
of the young, (soviet army conscripts), liquidators never made it past
age 45. A field report that only one of the bus drivers(out of
hundreds) is still alive.
And reports from those from the asylum's(dozens) opened to deal with
the horrible birth defects.
T. Keating
. That was just a early cancer death toll estimate for 600K people
living in the immediate vicinity.
Report glossed over 17 million people were directly exposed to high
levels of fall out. And that contaminated crops/milk from the region
where distributed throughout the soviet union.. Mortality rates in
the affected ukrainian regions increased by over 20% over baseline.
>Or are all your hard figures also consistent with a total death toll of
>4,000 from Chernobyl, consistent with scientific estimates?
I doubt that you'll never get them from official sources.
Last Post
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:44:44 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> . That was just a early cancer death toll estimate for 600K people
> living in the immediate vicinity.
>
> Report glossed over 17 million people were directly exposed to high
> levels of fall out. And that contaminated crops/milk from the region
> where distributed throughout the soviet union.. Mortality rates in
> the affected ukrainian regions increased by over 20% over baseline.
>
> I doubt that you'll never get them from official sources.
• Of course because they never happened.
Peter Webb
"T. Keating" <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:739ij5hl5rif28fe5...@4ax.com...
No, it was the total estimated death toll.
> Report glossed over 17 million people were directly exposed to high
> levels of fall out.
No it didn't.
> And that contaminated crops/milk from the region
> where distributed throughout the soviet union.. Mortality rates in
> the affected ukrainian regions increased by over 20% over baseline.
>
You have no evidence for this, because it is not true.
>>Or are all your hard figures also consistent with a total death toll of
>>4,000 from Chernobyl, consistent with scientific estimates?
>
> I doubt that you'll never get them from official sources.
"Official sources"? What, you only believe unofficial sources, ie uninformed
personal estimates?
If you have evidence that the total death toll exceeded 4,000 then please
post it. If you believe sections of the report which produced this estimate
are wrong, then produce those sections and explain why they are wrong.
Otherwise just accept the fact that several thousand people dies, not tens
of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of people, however
disappointed you may be that not more people died.
Gordon Levi
>On Dec 27, 5:02�pm, "Peter Webb"
><webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> > There is a good reason for that as the reference above notes. Instead
>> > of focusing on the excellent record so far of the French plant the
>> > protesters will be aware that "It has proved an ecological,
>> > occupational, and humanitarian disaster nearly everywhere else. Spills
>> > and explosions at reprocessing plants in the United States, Russia,
>> > and Britain have polluted rivers and contaminated hundreds of
>> > thousands of acres. Britain's Sellafield reprocessing complex, on
>> > England's Cumbrian coast, was shuttered in April 2005 after safety
>> > authorities discovered that 83 cubic meters of highly radioactive
>> > liquids had spilled during a period of nine months."
>>
>> Gee, these all sound like terrible accidents. How many people died?
>
>It was so devastating they are in the process
>of building a new reactor next to the old one.
That's because the site is so contaminated that it will never be able
to be used for anything else. The Sellafield reprocessing plant was
located there for the same reason. It is next to the site of the
Windscale fire and we don't know how many people died from that
either.
Peter Webb
"Gordon Levi" <gor...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:kv9jj5lov4u43s1b8...@4ax.com...
> Addinall <addi...@addinall.org> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 27, 5:02 pm, "Peter Webb"
>><webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> > There is a good reason for that as the reference above notes. Instead
>>> > of focusing on the excellent record so far of the French plant the
>>> > protesters will be aware that "It has proved an ecological,
>>> > occupational, and humanitarian disaster nearly everywhere else. Spills
>>> > and explosions at reprocessing plants in the United States, Russia,
>>> > and Britain have polluted rivers and contaminated hundreds of
>>> > thousands of acres. Britain's Sellafield reprocessing complex, on
>>> > England's Cumbrian coast, was shuttered in April 2005 after safety
>>> > authorities discovered that 83 cubic meters of highly radioactive
>>> > liquids had spilled during a period of nine months."
>>>
>>> Gee, these all sound like terrible accidents. How many people died?
>>
>>It was so devastating they are in the process
>>of building a new reactor next to the old one.
>
> That's because the site is so contaminated that it will never be able
> to be used for anything else.
As long as they found a good productive use for the land.
> The Sellafield reprocessing plant was
> located there for the same reason. It is next to the site of the
> Windscale fire and we don't know how many people died from that
> either.
Yes, it was zero.
This was one of the most serious incidents ever reported at a Western
nuclear plant, and there were zero deaths.
This is an extremely safe industry, when the worst accidents don't seemingly
involve anybody being hurt.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
The question is why is the UK storing 5 tons of caesium 137 without
rendering it insoluable in the form or say a pyrex glass, synrock or
clay?
Is there one big pond of liquid? Or is it in the form of dozens of
strong stainless steel drums?
During the second world war the Germans built a series of 7 story
"FLAK towers" with 12 ft thick bomb proof concret roofs. They were
never penetrated by allied bombs and shelltered thousands of women and
children. They would probably survive a 12000lb transonic tallboy
bomb though not a 22000lb grande slam.
Very strong structures can be built to withstand some serious
scenarios.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_tower
I would like to see a law exacting the death penalty for anyone
involved in attacking an active nuclear reactor or fuel reprocessing
facility or acting as an accessory to the fact.
That includes terrorists, harbourers of the terrorist, fighter pilots,
armourers of the fighters, commanders of the airbase etc.