5 ms·

Cancer is the dominant risk of a nuclear meltdown or dirty bomb/explosion, yes.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Compare the relative probability of dying of cancer as a result of a nuclear meltdown to dying of cancer as a result of cigarettes or chemical carcinogens.
- lazide 3y ago
  How about dying from cancer due to all the fallout from the nuclear tests still circulating around?
  - yetihehe 3y ago
    Probably less than fallout from 0.001% uranium contained in gigatonnes of carbon being burned every year.
    - lazide 3y ago
      True overall (regarding overall alpha emitter load), the issue with fallout is radioactive Iodine, Stronium, Cesium, etc. Those elements have short half lives and won't be as present in significant quantities in flue emissions because of the age of coal (just as daughter products in much lower concentrations than the Uranium). Notably, they're also present in 'hot' reactor fuel, albeit in different ratios/qtys (usually) than fallout. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout] For actual studies on the impacts, see [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11109179/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11109179/] Notably, Stronium-90 levels in deciduous teeth of kids born in the 80's. "Strontium-90 concentrations in deciduous (baby) teeth of 515 children born mainly after the end of worldwide atmospheric nuclear bomb tests in 1980 are found to equal the concentrations in children born during atmospheric tests in the late 1950s. Recent Sr-90 concentrations in the New York-New Jersey-Long Island metropolitan area have exceeded the expected downward trend seen in both baby teeth and adult bone after the 1963 ban on atmospheric testing. Sharp rises and declines are also seen in Miami, Florida. In Suffolk County, Long Island, Sr-90 concentrations in baby teeth were significantly correlated with cancer incidence for children 0 to 4 years of age. " Stronium in teeth is a proxy for Stronium in bones too, and those don't fall out.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39457035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39457035
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  Technically, yes, but you have to admit it was an amusing inapt example.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    I think it just reinforces the point. It isn't even a significant proportion of a person's cancer risk. It's like worrying about the KGB covertly planting listening devices in your house while tech companies are openly planting listening devices in your house. It's not at all unreasonable to be concerned about invasion of privacy, but the people who think they're at significant risk of being individually targeted by the security service of the former Soviet Union because of what they saw on TV have got a screw loose.

Compare the relative probability of dying of cancer as a result of a nuclear meltdown to dying of cancer as a result of cigarettes or chemical carcinogens.

lazide 3y ago
How about dying from cancer due to all the fallout from the nuclear tests still circulating around?
- yetihehe 3y ago
  Probably less than fallout from 0.001% uranium contained in gigatonnes of carbon being burned every year.
  - lazide 3y ago
    True overall (regarding overall alpha emitter load), the issue with fallout is radioactive Iodine, Stronium, Cesium, etc. Those elements have short half lives and won't be as present in significant quantities in flue emissions because of the age of coal (just as daughter products in much lower concentrations than the Uranium). Notably, they're also present in 'hot' reactor fuel, albeit in different ratios/qtys (usually) than fallout. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout] For actual studies on the impacts, see [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11109179/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11109179/] Notably, Stronium-90 levels in deciduous teeth of kids born in the 80's. "Strontium-90 concentrations in deciduous (baby) teeth of 515 children born mainly after the end of worldwide atmospheric nuclear bomb tests in 1980 are found to equal the concentrations in children born during atmospheric tests in the late 1950s. Recent Sr-90 concentrations in the New York-New Jersey-Long Island metropolitan area have exceeded the expected downward trend seen in both baby teeth and adult bone after the 1963 ban on atmospheric testing. Sharp rises and declines are also seen in Miami, Florida. In Suffolk County, Long Island, Sr-90 concentrations in baby teeth were significantly correlated with cancer incidence for children 0 to 4 years of age. " Stronium in teeth is a proxy for Stronium in bones too, and those don't fall out.
goodpoint 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39457035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39457035
andrewflnr 3y ago
Technically, yes, but you have to admit it was an amusing inapt example.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  I think it just reinforces the point. It isn't even a significant proportion of a person's cancer risk. It's like worrying about the KGB covertly planting listening devices in your house while tech companies are openly planting listening devices in your house. It's not at all unreasonable to be concerned about invasion of privacy, but the people who think they're at significant risk of being individually targeted by the security service of the former Soviet Union because of what they saw on TV have got a screw loose.