4 ms·

Where are they? In the scaremongering imagination of pop writers and lobbying scientists. Last time I checked there was a <3% leukaemia bump after 'the worst nu

by rasz_pl 11y ago

Where are they? In the scaremongering imagination of pop writers and lobbying scientists. Last time I checked there was a <3% leukaemia bump after 'the worst nuclear disaster in the world'.

lostlogin 11y ago
You read the account here? Hiding problems and pretending all is well is very much the strategy according to the article. Medical staff and government officials appear to be trying to hide the victims. It wasn't some sort of unverifiable anti-nuclear rant. Edit: where is 3% coming from? My quick look is giving much higher rates. http://m.ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.long http://m.ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.long
option 11y ago
I actually grew up (ages 4 - 17) near (<36miles) Chernobyl and my family still works on CHNPP. I now work at on of the top tech companies in Silicon Valley. I would even question a <3% leukaemia bump for people who were not involved in cleanup efforts directly.
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  From the link: Rates were 1.2 times higher after the accident compared to the pre-accident period among the population living in territories with a level of radioactive pollution exceeding 555 kBq per m2
  - hga 11y ago
    We're talking about absolute numbers so small that we can't have much confidence in the cause (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.full http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.full): Between 1986 and 1996 a total of 21 cases of leukaemia were observed in Zhitomir occurring among children born during 1986. A total of eight cases were observed in the largely uncontaminated Poltava region.
    - vasilipupkin 11y ago
      yes, but we can bolster our confidence somewhat because we know radiation causes leukemia. it's not a statistical association, but causual
      - paulmd 11y ago
        It depends on the dosage. In medium to large doses that's certainly true, but it's not a settled question for low doses. The model that assumes that any radiation (no matter how little) causes damage is called the Linear No-Threshold model, and there's actually not a lot of scientific consensus on its validity. It's a conservative model, and thus it tends to get used out of an abundance of caution, but it's hard to quantify low-dose effects accurately. Since we're all exposed to a fair bit of radiation naturally, low doses don't represent much change in total radiation exposure. Average dosage to the public in the affected countries was about 9 millisieverts [1]. A CT scan is about 10 mSv. The average natural exposure is about 2.4 mSv per year in America, but in some places with high radon levels exposure can be up to 7 mSv/year. It's difficult to reach significance with small changes like that. [1] http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effects-chernobyl-accident.cfm http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effec...
        mohawk 11y ago
        Please update your beliefs with this new data http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low-dose-radiation-1.17876 http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low...
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - nobullet 11y ago
      You should check cancer rate increased in Belarus, as Wikipedia states: ...Reports from Soviet and Western scientists indicate that Belarus received about 60% of the contamination that fell on the former Soviet Union...
paulmd 11y ago
The comparisons of Fukushima to Chernobyl really got my goat, personally. Despite the fact that fuel rods melted in both cases (thus both were "meltdowns"), there is an extraordinary difference between fuel rods overheating in a cooling pond and explosive breach of a critical reactor in a runaway condition. It's like classifying a campfire and the Hindenburg together because both are combustion - both can certainly burn you, but they're fundamentally dislike in intensity, scale, and kind. Most of the really nasty stuff (high-level actinide waste) is highly radioactive because it decays so quickly. After the reactor is shut down and the fuel rods are removed, all that stuff is gone, whereas breach of a critical reactor results in the release of that stuff. The byproducts of a fuel fire is stuff like radioiodine and radiocaesium - it's not healthy by any means, if ingested it will elevate the risk of cancer over the long term, but it's not instadeath like actinide waste. "What is expected to happen in Fukushima" is nothing like what happened to Chernobyl. A couple years later people are moving back, and it's perfectly safe to do so after some minimal decontamination efforts.
- vilhelm_s 11y ago
  Not everyone is moving back though. I couldn't find out how long the Fukushima "difficult-to-return" inner exclusion zone is expected to be maintained, do you know? Apparently people who can't move back within 5 years will receive compensation based on the full pre-accident market value of their house.

by rasz_pl 11y ago

Where are they? In the scaremongering imagination of pop writers and lobbying scientists. Last time I checked there was a <3% leukaemia bump after 'the worst nuclear disaster in the world'.

lostlogin 11y ago

You read the account here? Hiding problems and pretending all is well is very much the strategy according to the article. Medical staff and government officials appear to be trying to hide the victims. It wasn't some sort of unverifiable anti-nuclear rant. Edit: where is 3% coming from? My quick look is giving much higher rates. http://m.ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.long http://m.ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.long

option 11y ago

I actually grew up (ages 4 - 17) near (<36miles) Chernobyl and my family still works on CHNPP. I now work at on of the top tech companies in Silicon Valley. I would even question a <3% leukaemia bump for people who were not involved in cleanup efforts directly.

vasilipupkin 11y ago
From the link: Rates were 1.2 times higher after the accident compared to the pre-accident period among the population living in territories with a level of radioactive pollution exceeding 555 kBq per m2
- hga 11y ago
  We're talking about absolute numbers so small that we can't have much confidence in the cause (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.full http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.full): Between 1986 and 1996 a total of 21 cases of leukaemia were observed in Zhitomir occurring among children born during 1986. A total of eight cases were observed in the largely uncontaminated Poltava region.
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    yes, but we can bolster our confidence somewhat because we know radiation causes leukemia. it's not a statistical association, but causual
    - paulmd 11y ago
      It depends on the dosage. In medium to large doses that's certainly true, but it's not a settled question for low doses. The model that assumes that any radiation (no matter how little) causes damage is called the Linear No-Threshold model, and there's actually not a lot of scientific consensus on its validity. It's a conservative model, and thus it tends to get used out of an abundance of caution, but it's hard to quantify low-dose effects accurately. Since we're all exposed to a fair bit of radiation naturally, low doses don't represent much change in total radiation exposure. Average dosage to the public in the affected countries was about 9 millisieverts [1]. A CT scan is about 10 mSv. The average natural exposure is about 2.4 mSv per year in America, but in some places with high radon levels exposure can be up to 7 mSv/year. It's difficult to reach significance with small changes like that. [1] http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effects-chernobyl-accident.cfm http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effec...
      - mohawk 11y ago
        Please update your beliefs with this new data http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low-dose-radiation-1.17876 http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - nobullet 11y ago
    You should check cancer rate increased in Belarus, as Wikipedia states: ...Reports from Soviet and Western scientists indicate that Belarus received about 60% of the contamination that fell on the former Soviet Union...

paulmd 11y ago

The comparisons of Fukushima to Chernobyl really got my goat, personally. Despite the fact that fuel rods melted in both cases (thus both were "meltdowns"), there is an extraordinary difference between fuel rods overheating in a cooling pond and explosive breach of a critical reactor in a runaway condition. It's like classifying a campfire and the Hindenburg together because both are combustion - both can certainly burn you, but they're fundamentally dislike in intensity, scale, and kind. Most of the really nasty stuff (high-level actinide waste) is highly radioactive because it decays so quickly. After the reactor is shut down and the fuel rods are removed, all that stuff is gone, whereas breach of a critical reactor results in the release of that stuff. The byproducts of a fuel fire is stuff like radioiodine and radiocaesium - it's not healthy by any means, if ingested it will elevate the risk of cancer over the long term, but it's not instadeath like actinide waste. "What is expected to happen in Fukushima" is nothing like what happened to Chernobyl. A couple years later people are moving back, and it's perfectly safe to do so after some minimal decontamination efforts.

vilhelm_s 11y ago
Not everyone is moving back though. I couldn't find out how long the Fukushima "difficult-to-return" inner exclusion zone is expected to be maintained, do you know? Apparently people who can't move back within 5 years will receive compensation based on the full pre-accident market value of their house.