4 ms·

> But long term, this is a considerable health risk. And yet, a bunch of old people live in the Chernobyl Exclusion zone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherno

> But long term, this is a considerable health risk. And yet, a bunch of old people live in the Chernobyl Exclusion zone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone#Population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone#Popul...

icebraining 10y ago
It's always refreshing to see a case of literal survivorship bias.
- sevensor 10y ago
  Thanks for calling me on this -- it's a good point.
_ph_ 10y ago
Yes, old people. There is a strong variation on what the consequences radiation has on people depending on age. They won't have any more children and cancer is slower to develop in old people. And also, it is like with smoking. Some people smoke all their life and live past 90 years of age. Others don't. Overall the consensus is, that smoking kills the average person sooner or later. And we cannot know, how much their life is going to be shortened by their stay in the zones with higher radiation. Radiation is also not a black and white thing. There is plenty of natural radiation all over the earth, and of course a lot of cosmic radiation. And there is nuclear radiation spread around the globe as the consequence of the nuclear tests in the 60ies. So the exclusion zone only marks the region, where the radiation level is such, that it is considered unsafe for permanent residency.
- sevensor 10y ago
  Fair point, and as the sibling comment to yours points out, my comment is an example of survivorship bias. So should we, as with smoking, allow people to determine their own tolerance for risk? Let them eat the wild boar of Fukushima and the cabbages of Pripyat?
  - _ph_ 10y ago
    I am pretty sure, if smoking wasn't allowed for historic reasons, it would be impossible to sell tobacco as a new product. And as you said, some people are tolerated in the exclusion zones. As it is impossible to "see" radiation and few own decent measuring devices, it totally makes sense to me, that the authorities mark those zones. If this marking is done wrongly, one can criticize them for that, but there need to be some official guidelines. Especially seeing how bad people are about making judgements about smoking :). But some of it is happening even here in Germany. Some of the Bavarian forests are still contaminated by the Chernobyl incident such that it is not completely safe to east mushrooms from them. Having a few dishes of those mushrooms per year is most likely safe, but the authorities are having warnings (but no bans) out. And the mushroom eating wild boars have to be checked for radiation before their meat can be eaten.

icebraining 10y ago

It's always refreshing to see a case of literal survivorship bias.

sevensor 10y ago
Thanks for calling me on this -- it's a good point.

_ph_ 10y ago

Yes, old people. There is a strong variation on what the consequences radiation has on people depending on age. They won't have any more children and cancer is slower to develop in old people. And also, it is like with smoking. Some people smoke all their life and live past 90 years of age. Others don't. Overall the consensus is, that smoking kills the average person sooner or later. And we cannot know, how much their life is going to be shortened by their stay in the zones with higher radiation. Radiation is also not a black and white thing. There is plenty of natural radiation all over the earth, and of course a lot of cosmic radiation. And there is nuclear radiation spread around the globe as the consequence of the nuclear tests in the 60ies. So the exclusion zone only marks the region, where the radiation level is such, that it is considered unsafe for permanent residency.

sevensor 10y ago
Fair point, and as the sibling comment to yours points out, my comment is an example of survivorship bias. So should we, as with smoking, allow people to determine their own tolerance for risk? Let them eat the wild boar of Fukushima and the cabbages of Pripyat?
- _ph_ 10y ago
  I am pretty sure, if smoking wasn't allowed for historic reasons, it would be impossible to sell tobacco as a new product. And as you said, some people are tolerated in the exclusion zones. As it is impossible to "see" radiation and few own decent measuring devices, it totally makes sense to me, that the authorities mark those zones. If this marking is done wrongly, one can criticize them for that, but there need to be some official guidelines. Especially seeing how bad people are about making judgements about smoking :). But some of it is happening even here in Germany. Some of the Bavarian forests are still contaminated by the Chernobyl incident such that it is not completely safe to east mushrooms from them. Having a few dishes of those mushrooms per year is most likely safe, but the authorities are having warnings (but no bans) out. And the mushroom eating wild boars have to be checked for radiation before their meat can be eaten.