Slashdot Mirror


Radiation Not As Hazardous As Once Believed

HeavensBlade23 sends in an article from the German site Spiegel Online about mounting evidence that nuclear radiation may not be as deadly as has been widely believed. The article cites studies by German, US, and Japanese researchers concluding, for example, that fewer than 800 deaths are attributable to the after-effects of radiation in over 86,500 survivors of the Hiroshima bombing. Other surprisingly low death rates are reported in studies of Chernobyl and of a secret Siberian town called Mayak, devoted to producing plutonium, that was abandoned after a nuclear accident in 1957.

15 of 570 comments (clear)

  1. astroturfing at its worst by MrAndrews · · Score: 5, Funny
  2. This article brought to you .... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Funny

    courtesy of Burns' Atomic Power! "We light you up!" is our motto!

    Smithers, pay the good Scientists for their efforts!

    1. Re:This article brought to you .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > It's all nonsense, and has been for two decades at least, yet we still burn coal rather than transmuting our nuclear waste in fast reactors ( Thank you for that one Kerry ).

      Not Kerry. Carter. Same party. Same environmental policy. Different dumbass.

      Sad thing is that Kerry's stance could be excused. Carter, as a nukeE, should have known better.

      In Carter's defense, he presumably did know better -- he merely (mis)judged the proliferation risk of all nuclear-power-producing companies getting into FBRs as "worse" than the risk of relying on foreign oil. Carter was dead wrong, but at least he thought about the issue, unlike Kerry, who just pandered to the lunatic fringe of the eco-left.

    2. Re:This article brought to you .... by BlueParrot · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, but if you do recycle it propperly and use fast reactor to incinerate the actinides, then you end up with 100 times less waste per amount of energy produced, and it decays to safe levels within a few hudnred years instead of hundreds of thousands of years. Using it simply for this reason would still give us hundreds of years of energy just burning existing waste.

  3. Things worse than death by Bombula · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It says 'only' 800 deaths resulted, but last time I checked there were plenty of fates worse than death, and severe radiation sickness is probably one of them.

    --
    A-Bomb
    1. Re:Things worse than death by djupedal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is something you need to understand about how the Japanese use statistics.

      As an example, in Japan, to be tallied as a highway fatality, you must expire within 12 hours of the car accident that resulted in your death. If you die outside the 12 hour window, you fall into another category. 'heart failure - liver failure - kidney and lung failure'.

      Japan is always happy to show off their annual "oh so low" highway death rates (so many per 1000 of the driving public, etc.), claiming their drivers are better trained and behaved than those from other countries. The Japanese govt. also insists that their cars/trucks and roadways are more modern, more advanced and more safe than those from other countries with higher death rates. "Look at us - WE'RE BETTER!"

      I'm not at all surprised to hear that 'only' 800 died from radiation poisoning...that just means it was bad enough that it killed them before they had a chance to die from having all their skin burned off or their lungs turned to burnt toast. Or any of the other dozens of medical nightmares that are still being swept under the rug of history, even today.

  4. But what about sterility? by LM741N · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nuclear radiation will produce sterility in men. I know this as it happened to my uncle. Who knows what other diseases might show up that don't necessarily produce immediate death.

    1. Re:But what about sterility? by scottv67 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am also bold since I was around 25.

      Just thinking out-loud here: Have you tried </b>?

  5. Having a Chernobyl vet in my family says otherwise by $criptah · · Score: 5, Informative

    This reminds me of that news program where the journalist debunked 10 common myths like "underpaid teachers" and "Chernobyl was not so bad." I don't remember the name of the guy, but he runs a regular show on one of the major TV stations. I only wish I could send this report to many Chernobyl veterans and their kids who would say otherwise.

    My uncle was in Chernobyl right after the crap hit the fan in 1986. He went in a young man with good health and came back on a partial disability due to radiation. No, radiation did not kill him but it rendered his eyesight useless. When my cousin was born it was found that he lacked a good immune system due to effects of radiation as well. With all this crap my family considers itself to be lucky. We did not have to watch our loved ones dying from the inside. The Soviets did a great cover-up preventing most Western media from accessing the people and the territory until things were hanky panky. What many people did not see was the kids born after the disaster and increasing cancer rates. You know things are pretty crappy when you have routine cancer checks in middle schools. How many American schools consider this to be yearly procedure? I remember a woman telling a story about her husband. She had to spent all of her savings on vodka and moonshine in order to calm her husbands pain and let him die without screaming. Oh yeah, save those jokes about drunk Russians: The guy did not drink until his muscles started to fall of the bone. Finally you may take a look at the effects of radiation on Kazakhstan. After years of being used as a Soviet nuclear testing ground, the country has plenty of polluted land. Perhaps the authors of this report want to buy some prime real estate in the land of Borat?

    I don't doubt that we will find out more about radiation as we go on; however, it is silly to think that nukes (be it peaceful or military) are a joke. It is a serious business with serious side effects.

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Re:Ehhhh... by SEWilco · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, the adult human manages to go a lifetime while losing 50 carbon atoms per second from DNA due to radioactive decay of carbon-14 atoms, and the decay of 4,000 atoms of potassium-40 per second.

  8. Re:Sensors Detect Bullshit, Captain... by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Is this some kind of oblique FUD to attempt to build a stronger case for a nuclear power build-out in the US?"

    FUD towards what? Saying coal or oil powered plants are dangerous would be FUD. Saying nuclear disasters are somewhat less fatal than previously thought is not.

    "what a stunning coincidence that this oh-so-new interpretation of the data should come out right about the time the country is considering shifting to nuclear"

    This article is from a German magazine, and the research was done by the GSF under the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft foundation, Germany's version of the NSF. Are you referring to Germany as "the country?"

    The article ends with "Still, there is no doubt that radiation poisoning remains ominous and highly dangerous."

    Wow, that's some powerful FUD being thrown around right there. (Ominous is an odd translation of a German word, which means something close to ominous/foreboding/nasty/etc...)

    Do you have any data or analysis countering their claims, or are you just making spurious arguments against their research?

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  9. Miracle Max sez: by Zarf · · Score: 5, Funny
    Miracle Max voice:

    It's only mostly deadly... mostly deadly means partially harmless!

    --
    [signature]
  10. Re:It's not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait, wait ... unless you mind that third tentacle growing out of your abdomen?

  11. safely stored for 30,000 years... by shmlco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "... and we just don't know where it can be safely stored for 30,000 years."

    Oh please. Research the term "half-life", and then get back to me when you have half an education. Anything that's going to be seriously radioactive for 30,000 years is going to be an alpha emitter. Whose highly dangerous particles need massive shielding between you and the source, like that provided by, say, a piece of paper. Rule of thumb: highly energetic equals extremely short half life.

    There are two problems in the quoted fragment: The use of "we" and the use of "safely". We, because with people like you in the picture it's obvious that WE don't have a clue. Safely, because everyone who's against it defines "safe" as zero risk, when NOTHING in this world is zero risk. You're at risk from a meteorite bashing your brains out while you sleep. Are the odds against it? Yes. Is the risk zero? No.

    Last time I checked, I believe it's said that in 10,000 years all of the material of which speak so alarmingly would still be radioactive. Well, at least as radioactive as the raw ore from which it came. You know, like rocks? Which we've had buried in the ground unshielded, leaking dangerous trace amounts of radioactively into our groundwater supplies for a few billion years or so. I tell you, someone should DO something!

    Not to belittle this, but we've had two major, ultimately worst-case radiological events occur: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And yet, both of those sites are habitable today. Millions of people live there, work there, play there. Let's repeat that. Two atomic BOMBS.

    And you want to bitch about the "dangers" of a material fused into glass, tucked behind shields, and buried in a fucking mountain?

    Dude, you ought to pay LESS attention to the nonsense. You've been brainwashed by too many b-grade science-fiction movies with giant radioactively mutated spiders/scorpions/bats.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.