5 ms·

How about all those people dying from cancer years later all over Russia and Central Europe? Radiation does not kill instantly, it causes cancer, which kills ye

How about all those people dying from cancer years later all over Russia and Central Europe? Radiation does not kill instantly, it causes cancer, which kills years later. Stop spreading such nonsense articles, please! Just because the immediate impact is comparatively low, that doesn't mean it's harmless.

callmevlad 16y ago
Precisely. Saying that Chernobyl killed only 43 people is kind of like saying Hitler didn't really kill that many Jews.
- roel_v 16y ago
  Misclicked and really meant to downvote - your argument doesn't make any sense, because you're saying that 43 is not 'a bit' when compared to 6 million. 43 people really is only a small amount, and while it still is horrible for those involved, there are many things that kill many more people daily over which no fuss is made at all.
  - callmevlad 16y ago
    My point was that Hitler didn't directly kill that many people with his own hands, just like Chernobyl didn't _directly_ cause many deaths. But the consequences of that one accident and that one man went far beyond their _immediate_ impact that can be directly traced back. (In hindsight, I should have picked a different analogy ...)
cperciva 16y ago
Radiation does not kill instantly, it causes cancer, which kills years later. Radiation is a carcinogen, yes. But it turns out that radiation is a really puny carcinogen. A radiation dosage which will probably kill you if delivered rapidly -- 4 Sieverts -- has only a small chance of causing cancer -- about 10% (and an even lower chance of causing lethal cancer).
- callmevlad 16y ago
  Would you happen to have a source for this? I'm finding it hard to imagine how a study like this can even take place given that there have (probably) not been many survivors among those who have received a dose of 4 Sieverts.
  - cperciva 16y ago
    I don't know of any studies on people with such large doses of radiation, no -- but it's believed that cancer risk from radiation is proportional to the dosage received, and lots of studies have been done looking at populations in areas with higher/lower levels of background radiation.
    - Ratfish 16y ago
      It should be noted that UNSCREAR use the linear no threshold theory despite the lack of evidence regarding lower doses . Err on the side of safety.
  - DennisP 16y ago
    There's a recent book called Physics for Future Presidents, written by a physics professor at Berkeley, which has a lot of material on radiation risks. He says you can calculate your risk of cancer from radiation by dividing your exposure by 2500 rem. The level that gives you acute radiation sickness is 200 rem. This is called the "linear hypothesis" and is widely used. They use it in medicine to decide if diagnostic scans are worth the risk. The risk could actually be lower; some scientists think there's a threshold below which there's no risk. There's too much statistical uncertainty at low exposure levels to know for sure.
    - Lost_BiomedE 16y ago
      The class is available as open courseware, too. It is a no math physics course that focuses on concepts. This is the course site, click webcast lectures on the side: http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html
Derbasti 16y ago
Looking at all these answers it is amazing how well propaganda has worked. Alright then, go ahead and believe that radiation is not dangerous. Please try to stay clear of strong radiation sources nevertheless, if only for sentimental reasons. Half of all wild boars shot in central Europe can not be sold because their radiation levels are still too high for general consumption because of Chernobyl.

callmevlad 16y ago

Precisely. Saying that Chernobyl killed only 43 people is kind of like saying Hitler didn't really kill that many Jews.

roel_v 16y ago
Misclicked and really meant to downvote - your argument doesn't make any sense, because you're saying that 43 is not 'a bit' when compared to 6 million. 43 people really is only a small amount, and while it still is horrible for those involved, there are many things that kill many more people daily over which no fuss is made at all.
- callmevlad 16y ago
  My point was that Hitler didn't directly kill that many people with his own hands, just like Chernobyl didn't _directly_ cause many deaths. But the consequences of that one accident and that one man went far beyond their _immediate_ impact that can be directly traced back. (In hindsight, I should have picked a different analogy ...)

cperciva 16y ago

Radiation does not kill instantly, it causes cancer, which kills years later. Radiation is a carcinogen, yes. But it turns out that radiation is a really puny carcinogen. A radiation dosage which will probably kill you if delivered rapidly -- 4 Sieverts -- has only a small chance of causing cancer -- about 10% (and an even lower chance of causing lethal cancer).

callmevlad 16y ago
Would you happen to have a source for this? I'm finding it hard to imagine how a study like this can even take place given that there have (probably) not been many survivors among those who have received a dose of 4 Sieverts.
- cperciva 16y ago
  I don't know of any studies on people with such large doses of radiation, no -- but it's believed that cancer risk from radiation is proportional to the dosage received, and lots of studies have been done looking at populations in areas with higher/lower levels of background radiation.
  - Ratfish 16y ago
    It should be noted that UNSCREAR use the linear no threshold theory despite the lack of evidence regarding lower doses . Err on the side of safety.
- DennisP 16y ago
  There's a recent book called Physics for Future Presidents, written by a physics professor at Berkeley, which has a lot of material on radiation risks. He says you can calculate your risk of cancer from radiation by dividing your exposure by 2500 rem. The level that gives you acute radiation sickness is 200 rem. This is called the "linear hypothesis" and is widely used. They use it in medicine to decide if diagnostic scans are worth the risk. The risk could actually be lower; some scientists think there's a threshold below which there's no risk. There's too much statistical uncertainty at low exposure levels to know for sure.
  - Lost_BiomedE 16y ago
    The class is available as open courseware, too. It is a no math physics course that focuses on concepts. This is the course site, click webcast lectures on the side: http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html

Derbasti 16y ago

Looking at all these answers it is amazing how well propaganda has worked. Alright then, go ahead and believe that radiation is not dangerous. Please try to stay clear of strong radiation sources nevertheless, if only for sentimental reasons. Half of all wild boars shot in central Europe can not be sold because their radiation levels are still too high for general consumption because of Chernobyl.