3 ms·

I’m not sure what you mean by “dog whistle.” The best evidence suggests there will be no cancers related to Fukushima due to both the low levels of exposure an

by ch4s3 3y ago

I’m not sure what you mean by “dog whistle.” The best evidence suggests there will be no cancers related to Fukushima due to both the low levels of exposure and the long time horizons of the relevant cancers. The population effected will in all likelihood die of other causes before the cancer would occur. Chernobyl is obviously harder to parse because of confounding lifestyle issues and poverty in the region, and now the war. But I’m not sure a badly designed and run soviet RBMK should be the basis for western nuclear policy anyway.

uecker 3y ago
What "best evidence"? I find it strange that coal deaths from air pollution predicted by epidemiological considerations is taken for granted while similar predictions for nuclear from uncontrolled emissions are completely rejected by nuclear proponents. Of course numbers are far lower, but I still wonder what level of cognitive dissonance can lead to this being rejected completely. I also always wonder whether mining deaths are correctly accounted. Even just add the number from a single east German mining company alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(company) should change the picture somewhat.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  > while similar predictions for nuclear from uncontrolled emissions are completely rejected by nuclear proponents This isn't the case at all. The same epidemiological modeling definitely shows that no one exposed to radiation from Fukushima will live long enough to develop cancers associated with exposure.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    [flagged]