4 ms·
Did you read the source I linked? It gives a good estimate. "2 workers died in the blast. 28 workers and firemen died in the weeks that followed from
by RobotToaster 4y ago
Did you read the source I linked? It gives a good estimate.
"2 workers died in the blast.
28 workers and firemen died in the weeks that followed from acute radiation syndrome (ARS).
19 ARS survivors had died later, by 2006; most from causes not related to radiation, but it’s not possible to rule all of them out (especially five that were cancer-related).
15 people died from thyroid cancer due to milk contamination. These deaths were among children who were exposed to 131I from milk and food in the days after the disaster. This could increase to between 96 and 384 deaths, however, this figure is highly uncertain.
There is currently no evidence of adverse health impacts in the general population across affected countries, or wider Europe."
- pfdietz 4y agoYes, and you totally ignored the cancers that could occur due to low levels of additional radiation in the population at large. You are simply presuming that such cancers cannot occur. What you are doing here is demanding that the cancers actually be demonstrated, requiring that radiation be treated as innocuous until it can be conclusively shown it isn't. This is the mindset behind those ranting against the linear no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis. But regulation doesn't work this way. Nuclear isn't something that must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.