3 ms·

> Humans could live there as well, but they would experience an unacceptably short live Is this an assumption on your part, or can you back this up with data?

_ph_ 10y ago
I am not a MD, but I think it is accepted knowledge that elevated radiation levels shorten the life expectancy. How much, depends on many factors, like the exact nature of the radiation, like you are exposed to it, or have a likelyhood of eating contaminated foo, and of course your very age. The older you are, the less likely you are to suffer from this. I haven't done research on this myself, but I would assume that the exclusion zones have been set up according to the accepted standards for radiation safety levels.
- coddingtonbear 10y ago
  I'd recommend doing a little research about the controversy around the "Linear no-threshold model" of radiation exposure. The answer isn't quite as clear as you might guess.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  Here is an article explaining.[1] It's a "random site on the Internet", so feel free to not believe anything they say, but I think they provide fairly good references to source material. There was also a documentary film a while ago, I'll see if I can find it. It mentions this apartment complex in Taiwan that was contaminated, and the health of the residents turned out to be better than average, not worse. Ahh, found it[2]. Seem like fairly reputable sources. [1] http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/nuclear.html http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/nuclear.html [2] http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-Cobalt-taiw-06.pdf http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-Cob...
- krrrh 10y ago
  You're speaking with unwarranted certainty on this subject. there is much that is unknown on this subject due to very sparse data, and the fact that cancer rates are already relatively high in the general population and affected by a myriad of environmental and lifestyle factors. We live in a world where the available data allows credible scientists to observe a hormetic effect in animal models exposed to low-dose radiation, and where longitudinal studies of people who live in areas with naturally higher background radiation (higher than large areas of the exclusion zone), such as Colorado experience lower than average cancer rates.[1] Furthermore, the death toll from nuclear power generation, should be considered in comparison to the death toll of other power technologies. While it is arguable that many renewable tech are comparable and possibly have become better than nuclear in terms of safety, the deaths caused even just by radioactive particles spewed into the environment from coal plants is much higher than nuclear. It is a classic case of seen vs. unseen effects.[2] The unstated argument in this thread is whether the precautionary principle should be applied to public health policy with regards to human-caused radiation. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that it should based on unknowns, but it doesn't help to make overly certain assumptions that have weak scientific support. [1] a decent jumping off point on this stuff is the Wikipedia article on radiation hormesis - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis [2] Another quick jumping off point, with a myriad of links and charts from credible government and international organizations. http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html?m=1 http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energ...

_ph_ 10y ago

I am not a MD, but I think it is accepted knowledge that elevated radiation levels shorten the life expectancy. How much, depends on many factors, like the exact nature of the radiation, like you are exposed to it, or have a likelyhood of eating contaminated foo, and of course your very age. The older you are, the less likely you are to suffer from this. I haven't done research on this myself, but I would assume that the exclusion zones have been set up according to the accepted standards for radiation safety levels.

coddingtonbear 10y ago
I'd recommend doing a little research about the controversy around the "Linear no-threshold model" of radiation exposure. The answer isn't quite as clear as you might guess.
mpweiher 10y ago
Here is an article explaining.[1] It's a "random site on the Internet", so feel free to not believe anything they say, but I think they provide fairly good references to source material. There was also a documentary film a while ago, I'll see if I can find it. It mentions this apartment complex in Taiwan that was contaminated, and the health of the residents turned out to be better than average, not worse. Ahh, found it[2]. Seem like fairly reputable sources. [1] http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/nuclear.html http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/nuclear.html [2] http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-Cobalt-taiw-06.pdf http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-Cob...
krrrh 10y ago
You're speaking with unwarranted certainty on this subject. there is much that is unknown on this subject due to very sparse data, and the fact that cancer rates are already relatively high in the general population and affected by a myriad of environmental and lifestyle factors. We live in a world where the available data allows credible scientists to observe a hormetic effect in animal models exposed to low-dose radiation, and where longitudinal studies of people who live in areas with naturally higher background radiation (higher than large areas of the exclusion zone), such as Colorado experience lower than average cancer rates.[1] Furthermore, the death toll from nuclear power generation, should be considered in comparison to the death toll of other power technologies. While it is arguable that many renewable tech are comparable and possibly have become better than nuclear in terms of safety, the deaths caused even just by radioactive particles spewed into the environment from coal plants is much higher than nuclear. It is a classic case of seen vs. unseen effects.[2] The unstated argument in this thread is whether the precautionary principle should be applied to public health policy with regards to human-caused radiation. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that it should based on unknowns, but it doesn't help to make overly certain assumptions that have weak scientific support. [1] a decent jumping off point on this stuff is the Wikipedia article on radiation hormesis - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis [2] Another quick jumping off point, with a myriad of links and charts from credible government and international organizations. http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html?m=1 http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energ...