[Grizzly]

Since the other thread was locked for a very obvious reason, I tried to look for answers, preferably from a very reliable source.

For example, the WHO. It had a report.

Please read it. 'tis usefull. For those people who are extremely lazy and don't want to read it: 31 Acute Radiation Sickness deaths directly attributed to the incident. Excluding 17 deaths that may or (certainly) may not be related to the catastrophe. An (very rough) estimate of 4000 fatal cancer deaths due to the radation on the general populace (Not yet happened, may be coming) on top of the 100000 deaths of fatal cancer due to other causes. An increase of thyroid cancer in children, most of which succesfully cured with positive health outlook.

But honestly, read it. Since I am skipping trough right now (since I have to go to bed already, early up tomorrow) and have probably missed a lot of important things. But read it.

Seriously.

Do so.

EDIT: Or read this for the short version

[MP-Ryan]

The whole previous conversation also failed to recognize that the investigation following the Chernobyl accident very clearly outlined that the Soviets failed to follow basic design precautions (well known at the time) and intentionally conducted a test supervised by poorly-trained staff, which resulted in disaster.

Yes - people died or were very sick as a result of Chernobyl.  The fault, however, lies with egregious human errors and not nuclear technology as a whole.

Oh yeah, and the radioactivity being measured on the west coast of Canada is 3.6 milliBecquerels (a Becquerel is decay of one radioactive nucleus per second) per cubic metre of air.  For some context, we all have potassium-40 in our bodies, and a constant internal radioactivity of 4,433 potassium-40 atoms disintegrating each second of our lives.  Or so.  And the half-life of Iodine-131 is 8 days.  So, as an explanation courtesy of a friend of mine puts it responding to an alarmist piece in BC media:

So, The Straight is raising alarm bells over one nuclear disintegration which you might catch in 24 days, completely ignoring the constant internal radioactivity of 4,433 potassium-40 atoms disintegrating each second of your life.

Step away from the iodine tablets, folks. You'll be ok.

[Klaustrophobia]

it's a pretty safe assumption that anything nuclear or radiation you see in the media is sensationalist.

[Kosh]

it's a pretty safe assumption that anything nuclear or radiation you see in the media is sensationalist.

Indeed, pointing to Fukashima and Chernobyl and saying nuclear power is dangerous is like saying we should ban all cars because cars designed and built in the late 50's and 60's are not as safe as what we can build today.

[NGTM-1R]

Indeed, pointing to Fukashima and Chernobyl and saying nuclear power is dangerous is like saying we should ban all cars because cars designed and built in the late 50's and 60's are not as safe as what we can build today.

Not even that. It's more like claiming since one car stalled out on the freeway, cars are unsafe.

[watsisname]

I'd put it as "one drunk driver wrecked and took out several pedestrians in the process, therefore cars are unsafe". 
It's still a ridiculous argument.

I enjoyed MP-Ryan's post.  I was extremely skeptical of the claims that the radiation from Fukushima was reaching Canada/US in even remotely dangerous levels, but never knew the hard numbers.  Typical radiation fear-mongering, it seems.  I'm sure astronauts go through far worse on every mission, 'specially the men who went to the moon.  (They talked about seeing flashes of light when their eyes were closed, due to the cosmic rays passing through their heads -- creepy!)

[666maslo666]

When comparing danger of energy sources, deaths per TWh produced is the most objective criterion. Using this, nuclear may even rival renewables in safety due to sheer amount of energy produced, IMHO.

[JCDNWarrior]

How to explain the exploding cancer rates throughout the world the past twenty years though, even though food quality and hygiene is generally going up? That's something I'd like answered at least, assuming radiation is safe; I don't know what else can or has caused it to increase so much - unless it's not rising at all.

Another thing that supports the argument/fact that radiation is safe,  the EPA raised the safe limits of radiation after Fukushima by several thousand fold, so it seems we were wrong in our worries about radiation in the first place?

Just to understand this train of thought, so I can place it better.

[Flipside]

It does need to be remembered that technology for detecting Cancer has only recently been available, I suspect that it was rife in smog-laden Victorian London, but back then it was simply referred to as 'a long illness'. If you couple that with the burgeoning medical facilities in many countries that used to have very limited access to modern medicine, it may simply be that we are detecting more cases, rather than there being more cases, as it were.

That said, this has little to do with the concentration of Cancer cases around areas such as Chernobyl etc.

[Grizzly]

Cancer rates are not exploding. They are even going down. You do see something raising a lot: lung cancer by males, but that has more to do with smoking becoming affordable (and the going down stuff to it becoming frowned upon) over the century.
ANd... what the hell, due the increased food quality and hygiene going up, there are more deaths due to cancer, simply because it becomes harder to die another way.

Another thing that supports the argument/fact that radiation is safe,  the EPA raised the safe limits of radiation after Fukushima by several thousand fold, so it seems we were wrong in our worries about radiation in the first place?

They did not. They did raise the safe limits for radiological workers, so that hte radiological workers in Fukushima could maintain working without having to be replaced every 20 minutes. I do not know how much though.

[JCDNWarrior]

Been looking at the EPA's raised safe limits, it seems the source where it started was the following link:

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1325

"According to PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would drastically raise the levels of radiation allowed in food, water, air, and the general environment. PEER, a national organization of local, state, and federal employees who had access to internal EPA emails, claims that the new standards will result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63″ in drinking water. This information, as well as the emails themselves were published by Collapsenet on March 24.

In addition to raising the level of permissible radiation in the environment, PEER suggests that the standards of cleanup after a radioactive emergency will actually be reduced. As a result, radioactive cleanup thresholds will be vastly lowered and, by default, permissible levels of radiation will be vastly increased in this manner as well."

That makes it a claim though... since I was unable to find a specific press release by EPA - They would want to calm people down in wake of Fukushima that radiation isn't a problem (I guess unless you're at the site).

So I guess I was 'almost' right if it were a EPA press release.

[Grizzly]

So I guess I was 'almost' right if it were a EPA press release.

But it isn't. It's rather far from it.

[JCDNWarrior]

So I guess I was 'almost' right if it were a EPA press release.

But it isn't. It's rather far from it.

I mean to say, I did quote it right, but it turned out not be from the EPA itself but a claim, meaning its not true. The EPA would inform us in a press release if it was true, though they seem to have ignored PEER's claims nonetheless, it could be sue able for stating something that isn't true.

[Grizzly]

I geuss there is no need to attract unnecesary attention for something that is designed to attract unnecesary attention.

[MP-Ryan]

I get the impression JCDNWarrior, like so many members of the general public, hears the word "radiation" and immediately has visions of nuclear reactors/weapons creating havoc without really understanding what radiation is.

Radiation consists of a wide variety of waves and particles that occur naturally, emitted from a source.  Radiation can be ionizing or non-ionizing.  Generally, ionizing is the type that CAN (but does not always) have effects on living cells; non-ionizing is typically less harmful (although some forms can still cause DNA damage).  Visible light and radio waves are examples of non-ionizing radiation; high-energy ultraviolet light (which is blocked by our atmosphere) is a type of ionizing radiation, as are X-rays and gamma rays.

We are exposed to ionizing radiation every day of our lives, from birth to death, in fairly large naturally-occurring quantities from a variety of sources.  Ionizing radiation from non-natural sources drops off quickly with distance and time from source.  This is why radiation from "nuclear sources" (weapons, reactors) is actually quite a bit less dangerous than the general public is prone to believing.

[BloodEagle]

How to explain the exploding cancer rates throughout the world the past twenty years though, even though food quality and hygiene is generally going up? That's something I'd like answered at least, assuming radiation is safe; I don't know what else can or has caused it to increase so much - unless it's not rising at all.

No, no. No. You've got it all wrong.

Cellphones don't cause cancer. Cancer causes cellphones. (I admit that I sort of forced that joke)

[Luis Dias]

When comparing danger of energy sources, deaths per TWh produced is the most objective criterion. Using this, nuclear may even rival renewables in safety due to sheer amount of energy produced, IMHO.

Not even close. Nuclear is by far the safest method to generate electricity.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html

Coal – world average               161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China                       278
Coal – USA                         15
Oil                                     36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                  12
Peat                                   12
Solar (rooftop)                  0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind                                0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro                               0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)    1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

[karajorma]

How to explain the exploding cancer rates throughout the world the past twenty years though, even though food quality and hygiene is generally going up? That's something I'd like answered at least, assuming radiation is safe; I don't know what else can or has caused it to increase so much - unless it's not rising at all.

That's why you have to be really careful when looking at figures. The whole anti-vaccination movement is based on the claim that the number of autism cases is rising. In fact there is no difference in the number of people who actually have autism. What changed was.

1. Increased early detection of autism.
2. A redefinition of the term to include all autism spectrum disorders including the higher functioning ones.

So if you change the definition of what autism is AND get better at detecting it, of course it will look like a rise in the number of cases.



You're seeing much the same here with cancer. If people live longer and we get better at telling that people have cancer of course the number of cancer victims will go up. No external factors are needed to explain that.

[Bobboau]

Coal – world average               161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China                       278
Coal – USA                         15
Oil                                     36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                  12
Peat                                   12
Solar (rooftop)                  0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind                                0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro                               0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)    1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

oh, hey, I remember posting that once as well.

[watsisname]

It's quite a remarkable find.  Nuclear is arguably safer than wind.
Because wind doesn't produce as much, but still!