7 ms·

I'm sure for all the people developing cancer because of this 'minor component' it ain't a 'minor' component. You can rebuild houses, you can re-grow crop, but

by beders 7y ago

I'm sure for all the people developing cancer because of this 'minor component' it ain't a 'minor' component. You can rebuild houses, you can re-grow crop, but you can't clean up nuclear waste effectively. (3 Miles Island took 14 years and $1b, there are radioactive boars roaming the forests of Bavaria, hundreds of miles away from Chernobyl)

ptaipale 7y ago
And when some of my countrymen fled Fukushima area because of radioactivity, they came back home to Finland, where we have a higher natural background radiation level than the elevated radioactivity from which they fled. When doing so, they took an airplane, where the radiation levels are even higher (though of course only for just a few hours, but certainly everyone who flies is exposed to the risk of cancer, and for those who get a cancer, it's also not a minor component). Risks of radioactivity are blown out of all proportion when dicsussing application of nuclear power.
- beders 7y ago
  Risks have been carefully measured and assessed for most incidents. You can read up on the numbers elsewhere. Doesn't mean you want to be living next to a nuclear power plant. And it gives no comfort to people who have their health significantly affected because of the actions or inactions of nuclear power plant operators and governments. And you are speculating on reasons of your countrymen you probably have no clue about. Did you talk to any of them ?
  - kalleboo 7y ago
    I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal one (which is what Japan is now building to replace lost nuclear capacity)
- v_lisivka 7y ago
  Level of radiation is useful metric, but it can be diluted when "... at average ..." is used. A cold room with one cup of boiling water in it has much lower temperature at average than sunny lagoon, but cup of boiling water can injure or even kill you, while sunny lagoon cannot.
shawabawa3 7y ago
AFAIK there haven't been any cases of cancer linked to fukoshima, I may be wrong though - this article suggests there's no significant changes in thyroid cancer or birth defects[1] Bear in mind over 15000 people died from the earthquake and tsunami [1] https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushima/fukushima-2016/Pages/Fukushima-in-2016-Health-impact.aspx https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushim...
- sametmax 7y ago
  Yeah, and we were told the Chernobyl cloud never crossed the French border. Until years later, oh wait, it did. Governments everywhere have a long track record at taking action to mitigate their responsibility, not to actually take care of the population. When your life is on the line, it's sane to doubt.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    This is conspiracy theory logic. If you assume the government is enacting a bad faith cover up, literally any position of ignorance can be justified. If there was evidence that radiation from Chernobyl was causing a problem at a scale beyond what you'd expect of any large industrial project someone would have spotted it by now. Instead the numbers seem to be being revised downwards and the damage turns out to be mitigatable as more evidence comes in.
    - sametmax 7y ago
      Conspiracy assume malevolence. I don't. I assume incompetence and selfishness. Also I've now read enough history to have a good overview on how people in charge deal with crisis. They are human, they have an agenda, and most of the time, the agenda is not the in favor of the ones they are ruling.
  - hokkos 7y ago
    No you were no told that, you are just repeating mindlessly a false information. All the press and people that put that into the mouth of Dr Pellerin lost their trial in libel. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cons%C3%A9quences_de_la_catastrophe_de_Tchernobyl_en_France#Controverses_sur_le_nuage_radioactif https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cons%C3%A9quences_de_la_catast...

by beders 7y ago

ptaipale 7y ago

And when some of my countrymen fled Fukushima area because of radioactivity, they came back home to Finland, where we have a higher natural background radiation level than the elevated radioactivity from which they fled. When doing so, they took an airplane, where the radiation levels are even higher (though of course only for just a few hours, but certainly everyone who flies is exposed to the risk of cancer, and for those who get a cancer, it's also not a minor component). Risks of radioactivity are blown out of all proportion when dicsussing application of nuclear power.

beders 7y ago
Risks have been carefully measured and assessed for most incidents. You can read up on the numbers elsewhere. Doesn't mean you want to be living next to a nuclear power plant. And it gives no comfort to people who have their health significantly affected because of the actions or inactions of nuclear power plant operators and governments. And you are speculating on reasons of your countrymen you probably have no clue about. Did you talk to any of them ?
- kalleboo 7y ago
  I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal one (which is what Japan is now building to replace lost nuclear capacity)
v_lisivka 7y ago
Level of radiation is useful metric, but it can be diluted when "... at average ..." is used. A cold room with one cup of boiling water in it has much lower temperature at average than sunny lagoon, but cup of boiling water can injure or even kill you, while sunny lagoon cannot.

shawabawa3 7y ago

AFAIK there haven't been any cases of cancer linked to fukoshima, I may be wrong though - this article suggests there's no significant changes in thyroid cancer or birth defects[1] Bear in mind over 15000 people died from the earthquake and tsunami [1] https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushima/fukushima-2016/Pages/Fukushima-in-2016-Health-impact.aspx https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushim...

sametmax 7y ago
Yeah, and we were told the Chernobyl cloud never crossed the French border. Until years later, oh wait, it did. Governments everywhere have a long track record at taking action to mitigate their responsibility, not to actually take care of the population. When your life is on the line, it's sane to doubt.
- roenxi 7y ago
  This is conspiracy theory logic. If you assume the government is enacting a bad faith cover up, literally any position of ignorance can be justified. If there was evidence that radiation from Chernobyl was causing a problem at a scale beyond what you'd expect of any large industrial project someone would have spotted it by now. Instead the numbers seem to be being revised downwards and the damage turns out to be mitigatable as more evidence comes in.
  - sametmax 7y ago
    Conspiracy assume malevolence. I don't. I assume incompetence and selfishness. Also I've now read enough history to have a good overview on how people in charge deal with crisis. They are human, they have an agenda, and most of the time, the agenda is not the in favor of the ones they are ruling.
- hokkos 7y ago
  No you were no told that, you are just repeating mindlessly a false information. All the press and people that put that into the mouth of Dr Pellerin lost their trial in libel. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cons%C3%A9quences_de_la_catastrophe_de_Tchernobyl_en_France#Controverses_sur_le_nuage_radioactif https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cons%C3%A9quences_de_la_catast...