Slashdot Mirror

http://www.chernobylreport.org...

http://www.chernobylreport.org...

http://www.chernobylreport.org...

About 45,000 excess cancer deaths from Chernobyl alone http://www.chernobylreport.org... All those evacuation related deaths in Fukushima. That guy killed in France recently working on nuclear waste....

Expect 30 to 60 thousand excess cancer deaths. http://www.chernobylreport.org...

That web site makes a lot of mistakes. http://www.chernobylreport.org...

Really? http://www.chernobylreport.org...

You've been bamboozled. Nuclear power is quite deadly. http://www.chernobylreport.org...

Thanks for posting that report. I skimmed it quickly and did not see heart disease, holes in the hearts, genetic defects related to the heart mentioned specifically.

Cesium-137 is absorbed by heart muscle. As the report pointed out, the levels of Cesium-137 had not only NOT dropped but were found to be higher than expected given the 30 year half life of Cesium-137.

While many think it only takes 10 half lifes (10 * 30 years = 300 years) for Cesium-137 to approach typical background levels. I believe 20 half lifes if more accurate. (20 * 30 years = 600 years).

So obviously more Cesium-137 was released in Chernobyl than reported.

Move ahead to Fukushima, where experts have stated that no company or government currently existing on the earth would posess the technology to stop the leak for a minimum of 10 years (a decade) and it boggles the mind that anyone would say that Nuclear power is safe. Wait until the Cesium-137 laden pine cones release Cesium-137 laden pollens each spring for the next 7 years (probably longer) and than lets talk. Better yet lets develop the technology to stop the leak and contain the radiation and than lets talk.... Remember if the reactor is cool, its leaked into the ground....

Haven't most of the Nuclear plants in America reached the end of their 20/30 year lifes already? Yet they are not being mothballed as expected. More accidents waiting to happen.

And don't say we need Nuclear power, we do not. When all the reactors were offline in Japan, they only experienced rolling brown outs for a short duration until they adjusted their usage to the lack of nuclear power. Granted the Nuclear power industry pushed way faster than even the Japanese wanted to get them back online...less we all learn the truth that Nuclear power is a canard, not needed to generate electricity, only needed to generate weapons. Especially dipleted uranium and worse weapons.

Follow the money to find the truth.

Speaking of money, its also true that Nuclear Power is extremely expensive. It can only be seen as cheap when costs are hidden. Lets say you cover the build out costs and the moth ball costs, which rarely are accurately revealed when talking about cheap nuclear power. Lets look just a re-casking of nuclear waste...in fact lets not look at radioactive isotopes that have a half life of 240,000 or more years. Lets look only at Cesium-137 that supposedly has a 30 year half life.

Casking starts to crack within 50 years. They say it has a 100 year cask life, but that too is a wee bit of a stretched lie. Within 50 years they start to crack. How much does it cost to re-cask? How many millions? (And we are not talking about a disaster like Chernobyl where the entire building will need to be re-casked in the very near future at a cost in the multiple Billions ($20B plus)...we are talking about re-casking Cesium-137 for only either 300 or 600 years. Let take the smaller number...300 years.

Cesium-137, 30 year half life, must be maintained casked for 300 years, re-casked every 50 years or 6 times at what cost? And we are not talking about only one re-casking for all the Cesium-137, but a re-cask for each rod that contains Cesium-137....

How much does it cost to re-cask one rod? If you cask more together, the radiation will cause the cask to crack sooner, as it will be concentrated. How many rods at how many millions per casking?

No Nuclear power is not cheap. Its insane to ignore the facts and expect a different result...

I just don't get the people who deny reality. Obviously they have an agenda and it does not help yours or my health at all. Even worse, they are so evil, that they are willing to radiate our children's children for the next 300 years! Pathetic fail.

There are worse radioactive isoto

You've been bamboozled. Nuclear power is quite deadly. http://www.chernobylreport.org...

Humanity lacks capability to "confirm" cause of radiation caused cancers.

A mathematical model is used to estimate how much additional cancer comes from radiation leaks. It is plausible, but not without controversy. If you want to learn something about estimating the human cost of a reactor accident, then read the TORCH report on chernobyl. (Unlike the WHO report, the TORCH report actually explains the underlying science and uncertainties with estimating cancers caused from radiation leaks.)

A very large number of workers died, about 20%. The broader exposure will likely bring about between 30,000 and 60,000 excess cancer deaths, some in countries that never got any electricity from Chernobyl ever. http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary

So how will you discredit the TORCH report ( http://www.chernobylreport.org/torch.pdf [chernobylreport.org] ) commissioned by the German Green party? Are they too paid by or limited by IAEA? Or perhaps they are proponents of nuclear power? They estimate the total death-toll from cancer to between 30000 and 60000. What's more, they warn, that the results highly depend on risk factors used in calculations. So again, the increase in lethality isn't obvious and that means it's not significant.

How does posting multiple reports, all coming to very different conclusions, support your claim that enough conclusive data exists to conclude nuclear is the safest energy source? I have seen estimates range from 50 to 1 million for deaths from Chernobyl. What amazes me is that you (who have shown ignorance on some key aspects of this issue) are able to arbitrally pick one of those numbers and then, with great conviction, march forward with your own claims and calculations based on your arbitrally picked number. That takes faith, not scientific scrutiny.

Because you can eliminate internal exposure when you're living in very high background radiation area and the radioactive materials are in water you're drinking, bathing in or air you're breathing... Those are areas that have higher radiation levels than the permanently evacuated areas in Ukraine. As we know, studies for internal exposure haven't been conducted, at all: http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/24/4A/008 [iop.org] . Oops, there have been, multiple ones. But those results don't agree with your world view so you just ignore them.

Alright, that does not even make sense . . . You mean to imply that background radiation can also lead to internal exposure, correct? The problem whith that approach is that once you get into internal exposure, you are facing a biological problem space which includes things like biological concentration and biological half-life. Those vary based on the type of element you are dealing with. Most of background radiation is caused by Radon gas. Radon is a noble gas, which means no biological concentration and an extremely small biological half-life. It requires a lot higher concentrations of Radon contamination to cause harm compared to things like Cessium, Plutonium, or Strontium. Consequently, it is completely inappropriate to consider Radon internal exposure as a proxy for internal exposure for a nuclear meltdown.
Furthermore, your link appears to be concerned with the exposure of wildlife to ionizing radiation, not the contamination by radioactive particles of the food supply and subsequent consumption by humans. It has absolutely nothing to do with internal exposure through contamination of the environment from fallout.

First and foremost it requires convincing general population that the build is necessary, unlike fossil fuel plants which you can "just build" and poison neighbouring areas for next 40 or 60 years.

First of all, I think your fossil fuel bundling is inappropriate. How is natural gas poisoning the environment, especially when you do no think people are contributing to global warming?
Second, the potential damage a single nuclear plant could do to an area is off the scale compared to the potential damage of a single non-nuclear plant. To cover those risks, you need insurance. No insurance company can cover the risks of a nuclear plant, so you need government backing. In democracies, the government requires public consensus. Perhaps you are also against democracy?

Could you explain to me, why on earth French have the cheapest electricity in Europe if its so economically infeasible?

Because the French government "subsidizes" the insurance costs of the nuclear plants? This "subsidy" results in the public being completely exposed to the risks of an accident.

How is that for bias?

So how will you discredit the TORCH report ( http://www.chernobylreport.org/torch.pdf ) commissioned by the German Green party? Are they too paid by or limited by IAEA? Or perhaps they are proponents of nuclear power? They estimate the total death-toll from cancer to between 30000 and 60000. What's more, they warn, that the results highly depend on risk factors used in calculations. So again, the increase in lethality isn't obvious and that means it's not significant.

It still makes nuclear safer than mining coal, let alone burning it. And safer than hydro. Even if we assume that Fukushima will cause another 60000 deaths in next 40-80 years.

Again, external exposure is immaterial to this discussion . .

Because you can eliminate internal exposure when you're living in very high background radiation area and the radioactive materials are in water you're drinking, bathing in or air you're breathing... Those are areas that have higher radiation levels than the permanently evacuated areas in Ukraine. As we know, studies for internal exposure haven't been conducted, at all: http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/24/4A/008 . Oops, there have been, multiple ones. But those results don't agree with your world view so you just ignore them.

Building nuclear reactors requires a large amount of capital, an extensive period of construction time, and government insurance.

First and foremost it requires convincing general population that the build is necessary, unlike fossil fuel plants which you can "just build" and poison neighbouring areas for next 40 or 60 years. Could you explain to me, why on earth French have the cheapest electricity in Europe if its so economically infeasible?

How many generations will have to deal with nuclear waste

Because breeder reactors are impossible to build and you can't enrich "used" fuel once more... If you want the answer why France is sending its nuclear waste to Germany and Russia: it's because Greenpeace protests made their only breeder reactor uneconomical! USA shot themselves in the foot with law that makes it illegal.
You may want to read something more about radioactivity: the longer something is radioactive (its half-life is longer) the less its radioactive (it's more stable). The "waste" is buried because of political (nuclear non proliferation) and public relations reasons not because its actually needed or because its re-use is economically infeasible. You can separate highly-radioactive isotopes from not highly radioactive ones, you recycle non-highly radioactive to regular fuel. The highly radioactive stuff will decay to stable isotopes in few decades, not centuries. Not to mention that we have reactors that can burn anything radioactive, not necessarily Uranium or Plutionum. Even if this would make the fuel 100 times more expensive, the electricity produced with it would be only few percent more expensive. In the end my children's children won't have more problem to worry about than I do.
All because of Soviet propaganda and now Greenpeace scaremongering. "It's invisible so it's lethal", just like cellphones. Or will you tell me that there aren't people that are scared of radio waves or that claim that they are sensitive to them? Or that there's another conspiracy of cellphone makers to hide those results and they are in fact causing millions of deaths around the world?

Priceless . . . so you are a pro-nuke and global warming denier . . . That fits well with your low knowledge to conviction ratio. Are you sure you are not also a creationist?

And you believe in power from unicorns and rainbows. Just like I don't deny that nuclear power kills people, I don't deny that global warming is happening. I say we don't have enough data (where did I saw tha

Doubt this counts the 60,000 or so Chernobyl deaths. http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary

The excess cancer deaths from Chernobyl alone are expected to be between 30,000 and 60,000 http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary

Looks like nuclear power is doing its durndest to catch up with coal, which has been around longer and so has quite a head start.

Nuclear waste gets a lot of bites at the apple so I doubt you can make a comparison of this type credibly. Chernobyl alone will likely result in 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths so the problems are just getting started. http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary

Doesn't really work like that. Some people have yet to get cancer, for example. Here is a reasonable estimate: http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary

Dams that fail are mainly built for flood control and may secondarily be used for power generation. It is entirely wrong to attribute deaths owing to their failure to hydro power. They usually fail because the flood is just too overwhelming but they may have preserved as many or more lives prior to failure as are lost upon failure. On the other hand, 30,000 to 60,000 is a reasonable estimate of the number of people that are being killed by Chernobyl. http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary Since one cannot argue that the electricity from nuclear power has preserved any more lives than that from hydro power, nukes are clearly the more dangerous form of generation.

Actually, it is not just workers. There could be much more disease over time: http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary

Nuclear power is doing fairly well in China where 20,000 coal mining deaths a year make the risk of a nuclear accident http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary seem comparable. Skimping on safety to compete with coal seems like a poor game to play elsewhere so nuclear power is uneconomical in many other places. Fortunately, solar has much father to fall in price so electricity will be getting cheaper fairly soon and we may see only a few more nuclear power meltdowns since existing plants will be closing as uneconomical as well.

Yeah. Sure. "The people is dumb".

Let's see...

> The 4,000 deaths of cleanup workers at Chernobyl is completely unexcusable.

This estimation was touted by the IAEA, which runs in order to disseminate nuclear powerplants, and by the OMS (censored by the IAEA for all nuclear-related matters).

Moreover the IAEA announced "4,000 deaths, grand total, definitive and scientific (United Nations) estimation" in September 2005 (it wasn't definitive, nor sci, nor UN) before discreetling backing up in April 2006 ("9000, stated only for a subset of the Soviet population and for solid cancers"). Here is an overview and an article.

> 800 deaths are objectively fewer than the 105,000 reported in Wikipedia.

On WP (en and fr) there are too many pro-nuke agit-propers, eager to relay disinformation and censor facts.

> 4,000 deaths are objectively fewer than "the six-figure death counts that opponents of nuclear power once cited".

The most famous report published by the opponents (titled TORCH) was published AFTER IAEA's report.

The IAEA estimation ("4000 ...") is mainly based upon scientific material from E. Cardis (who served as the scientific secretary for the study which leaded to the report), and they properly credited her. Know what? As soon as the ''4000 deaths'' thesis was published she declared that 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths is "the right order of magnitude". See New Scientists and Nature. Her most recent study leads to "By 2065, models predict that about 16,000 (95% UI 3,400 72,000) cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 (95% UI 11,000 59,000) cases of other cancers may be expected due to radiation from the accident and that about 16,000 deaths (95% UI 6,700 - 38,000) from these cancers may occur).". Abstract: no less than 6,700, approx 16,000, maybe up to 38,000 ... remember that the main "opponents" report (TORCH) authors estimated that 30,000 to 60,000 may die. Therefore the 'total mortality' estimation published by the very expert committed by the IAEA are more on the same ballpark of published by scientific "opponents" than IAEA's.

The IAEA's "4,000 total" is ridiculous. Quoting it, as you did, is at best naive.

> don't see people debating the accuracy of the numbers they use
> Grow up

Yeah. Sure. Good advice, chief. Thanx! Here is my hint: avoid propagating lies. The ongoing propaganda campaign "eat nuke! good for health! yummy!" is already well funded, they don't need any help.