Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

[Mega]

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...likely-leaking

.............& when i think of the lip that was given to the USSR over their "Local differcult-es".
Mike

[Starving Steve]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

Total deaths of residents of Chernobyl from radiation = ZERO. Total deaths of residents of Fukushima from radiation = ZERO.

0 + 0 = 0.

What more is there to understand about atomic energy?

[tacito]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

Total deaths of residents of Chernobyl from radiation = ZERO. Total deaths of residents of Fukushima from radiation = ZERO.

0 + 0 = 0.

What more is there to understand about atomic energy?

Add this to your equations:
Total deaths from Hiroshima bomb: ZERO (and some Japanese).
Total deaths from Nagasaki bomb: ZERO (but a few Japanese died).
0+0+0+0=0 (if you're not Japanese).

[Starving Steve]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

I am not talking about using atomic energy for bombs. I am talking about using atomic energy to generate electricity with and to sharply lower our cost of electricity. And while we are at it, we might build hydro-electric dams, build water aqueducts into the deserts, de-salinate and pump sea water, frack rocks to tap natural gas deposits and oil deposits, up-grade heavy oil and tar sands, produce synthetic oil from coal, build high-speed passenger rail-lines, and open-up farmland around cities to subdivision development. The strategy should be to bring-down the cost-of-living for everyone, and to do it by flooding the markets with everything: serviced land, new homes, new industrial parks, plentiful drinking water, cheap and bountiful electricity, high-speed rail, natural gas supplies, and bountiful new oil supplies.

The strategy would be to change the entire agenda of America, Canada, the UK, and the world. Instead of endless environmentalism and endless regulation, the new strategy would be to make life affordable and cities livable for human-beings.... This is going to be the political and economic battle of our time.

LEAN FORWARD

[don]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

I am not talking about using atomic energy for bombs. I am talking about using atomic energy to generate electricity with and to sharply lower our cost of electricity. And while we are at it, we might build hydro-electric dams, build water aqueducts into the deserts, de-salinate and pump sea water, frack rocks to tap natural gas deposits and oil deposits, up-grade heavy oil and tar sands, produce synthetic oil from coal, build high-speed passenger rail-lines, and open-up farmland around cities to subdivision development. The strategy should be to bring-down the cost-of-living for everyone, and to do it by flooding the markets with everything: serviced land, new homes, new industrial parks, plentiful drinking water, cheap and bountiful electricity, high-speed rail, natural gas supplies, and bountiful new oil supplies.

The strategy would be to change the entire agenda of America, Canada, the UK, and the world. Instead of endless environmentalism and endless regulation, the new strategy would be to make life affordable and cities livable for human-beings.... This is going to be the political and economic battle of our time.

LEAN FORWARD

I've been reluctant to post any of the many contrarians to the coterie of nuclear power proponents here on the 'tulip but the relentless, take-no-prison approach by these stalwarts beggars a response. (Personally I have no position on nuclear power per se but rather search for some truths, a near-impossible undertaking.) What follows is a rebuttal of sorts . . . .

Chernobyl, 25 Years Later

By Dr. JANETTE D. SHERMAN, MD

April 26, 2011 will mark the 25th Annivesary of the Chernobyl catastrophe, and for more than 50 years, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have abided by an agreement that in essence, covers each other’s back – sometimes at the expense of public health. It’s a delicate balance between cooperation and collusion.

Signed on May 28, 1959 at the 12th World Health Assembly, the agreement states:

“Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement,” and continues: The IAEA and the WHO “recognize that they may find it necessary to apply certain limitations for the safeguarding of confidential information furnished to them. They therefore agree that nothing in this agreement shall be construed as requiring either of them to furnish such information as would, in the judgment of the other party possessing the information to interfere wit the orderly conduct of its operation.”

The WHO mandate is to look after the health on our planet, while the IAEA is to promote nuclear energy. In light of recent industrial failures involving nuclear power plants, many prominent scientists and public health officials have criticized WHO’s non-competing relationship with IEAE that has stymied efforts to address effects and disseminate information about the 1986 Chernobyl accident, so that current harm may be documented and future harm prevented.

On the 20th Anniversary of Chernobyl WHO and the IAEA published the Chernobyl Forum Report, mentioning only 350 sources, mainly from the English literature while in reality there are more than 30,000 publications and up to 170,000 sources that address the consequences of Chernobyl.

After waiting two decades for the findings of Chernobyl to be recognized by the United Nations, three scientists, Alexey Yablokov from Russia, and Vasily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko from Belarus undertook the task to collect, abstract and translate some 5000 articles reported by multiple scientists, who observed first-hand the effects from the fallout. These had been published largely in Slavic languages and not previously available in translation. The result was Chernobyl – Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009.

The greatest amount of radioactivity fell outside of Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia, extending across the northern hemisphere as far away as Asia, North Africa, and North America, while the greatest concentrations continue to affect the 13 million living in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Immediately after the catastrophe, release of information was limited, and there was a delay in collecting data. WHO, supported by governments worldwide could have been pro-active and led the way to provide readily accessible information, but did not. These omissions resulted in several effects: limited monitoring of fallout levels, delays in getting stable potassium iodide to people, lack of care for many, and delay in prevention of contamination of the food supply.

The number of victims is one of the most contentious issue between scientists who collected data first-hand and WHO/IAEA that estimated only 9000 deaths.

The most detailed estimate of additional deaths was done in Russia by comparing rates in six highly contaminated territories with overall Russian averages and with those of six lesser-contaminated areas, maintaining similar geographical and socioeconomic parameters. There were over 7 million people in each area, providing for robust analysis. Thus data from multiple scientists estimate the overall mortality from the Chernobyl catastrophe, for the period from April 1986 to the end of 2004, to be 985,000, a hundred times more than the WHO/IAEA estimate.

Given that thyroid diseases caused such a toll, Chernobyl has shown that nuclear societies – notable Japan, France, India, China, the United States, and Germany - must distribute stable potassium iodide (KI) before an accident, because it must be used within the first 24 hours.

Key to understanding effects from nuclear fallout is the difference between external and internal radiation. While external radiation, as from x-rays, neutron, gamma and cosmic rays can harm and kill, internal radiation (alpha and beta particles) when absorbed by ingestion and inhalation become embedded in tissues and releases damaging energy in direct contact with tissues and cells, often for the lifetime of the person, animal or plant.

To date, not every living system has been studied, but of those that have - animals, birds, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, insects, trees, plants, bacteria, viruses and humans - many with genetic instability across generations, all sustained changes, some permanent, and some fatal. Wild and domestic animals and birds developed abnormalities and diseases similar to those found in humans.

It takes ten decades for an isotope to completely decay, thus the approximately 30 year half-lives for Sr-90 and Cs-137 will take nearly three centuries before they have decayed, a mere blink of the eye when compared to Pu-239 with a half-life of 24,100 years.

The human and economic costs are enormous: in the first 25 years the direct economic damage to Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia has exceeded $500 billion. Belarus spends about 20% of its national annual budget, Ukraine up to 6%, and Russia up to 1% to partially mitigate some of the consequences.

When a radiation release occurs we do not know in advance the part of the biosphere it will contaminate, the animals, plants, and people that will be affected, nor the amount or duration of harm. In many cases, damage is random, depending upon the health, age, and status of development and the amount, kind, and variety of radioactive contamination that reaches humans, animals and plants. For this reason, international support of research on the consequences of Chernobyl must continue in order to mitigate the ongoing and increasing damage. Access to information must be transparent and open to all, across all borders. The WHO must assume independent responsibility in support of international health.

http://www.counterpunch.org/sherman03042011.html

[c1ue]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

The most detailed estimate of additional deaths was done in Russia by comparing rates in six highly contaminated territories with overall Russian averages and with those of six lesser-contaminated areas, maintaining similar geographical and socioeconomic parameters. There were over 7 million people in each area, providing for robust analysis. Thus data from multiple scientists estimate the overall mortality from the Chernobyl catastrophe, for the period from April 1986 to the end of 2004, to be 985,000, a hundred times more than the WHO/IAEA estimate.

This seems more than a little off. Even assuming the 7 million refers to each of the areas in question (12 total, 6 control 6 radioactive), the statement is that nearly 1 million of the 42 million in the 'radioactive' area died because of Chernobyl over and above normal rates?

If we assume a life expectancy of only 50 - with the study period being 18 years - then theoretically the average number of deaths should be around 15 million. If life expectancy is an average 65, the 'normal' deaths should be around 11.8 million.

So if this death toll from Chernobyl is correct, then there is a 6.7% increase in overall deaths for a life expectancy of 50 and an 8.5% increase in overall death for a life expectancy of 65?

I'd like to see that data. We're talking about people literally dropping left and right.

I do wonder about the 7 million number though, especially given this quote later in the article:

The greatest amount of radioactivity fell outside of Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia, extending across the northern hemisphere as far away as Asia, North Africa, and North America, while the greatest concentrations continue to affect the 13 million living in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

If this statement is correct, then the 7 million refers to just the total populations of each total comparison area i.e. 7 million radioactive and 7 million not.

If so then the 985,000 number becomes even more ludicrous.

1 in 7 people are dying over and above normal? i.e twice normal rates?

[Starving Steve]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

Why is the natural environment around Chernobyl doing just fine? And why are people around Chernobyl doing just fine? Why are people around Chernobyl eating root vegetables and mushrooms grown in their soil, and they show no sign of cancer nor any ill health?

If Chernobyl was such a catastrophe, where are the deaths? If the eco-system around Chernobyl is damaged, how come all of the plants and animals are thriving?

And while you are at it, and since you have better solutions with your so-called, "green energy", maybe you would be so kind as to pay my utility bills in British Columbia?

[lektrode]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

... no position on nuclear power per se but rather search for some truths, a near-impossible undertaking.) ...

ok - i'm gonna deposit .02 here.

the only 'truth' that yerz truly can offer is what eye have seen in the 35 years i've been 'aware' of this issue.

1 - i was as anti-nuke as anybody in the 1970's, but _not_ for the typical reason: RADIOCACTIVE = EEEEEEEK, GASP!!!!!
NOT NUCLEAR - AGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! we're all gonna die, glow in the dark, have babies with 3 eyeballs, get testicular cancer, yada yada yada, ad infinitum.

none of that - no - i was 'philisophically' against nukes because of the concentration of wealth and 'power' in so few hands/1 company

with that said - the 'truth' as i know it, goes something like this:

it was HILARIOUS when i read in 2006, of the 'celebration' by the bunch of protesters that were commemorating the 30th anniversary of the shutdown of construction on the seabrook NH station in 1976.

"....we were right back then, and we're _still_ right today!!..." they said

my thots were something like this

1 - since they, for all intents and purposes' managed to 'single-handedly' kill the nuclear power option going forward from that historically significant moment in time, the following has occurred or otherwise manifested itself in our present day lives:

2 - this forced the uilities to go to coal to fuel the US' rapidly increasing power demands

3 - this caused the whole 'acid rain' thing = the predecessor to 'global warming' as the alarmist, enviromental kneejerk reactionary 'cause du jour' to 'rally the troops' with

4 - after suffering the 1st of several oil-related economic downturns just a couple years prev, the 'dept of energy' was created right around this time and still today, WHAT HAS THAT USELESS FED BURACRACY DONE FOR US LATELY?

5 - then we have another MAJOR ECONOMIC DOWNTURN ('81) DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF OIL and still the DC aristocracy flatly refuses to accept the reality of our (that would be us, as in We The People vs 'them' in DC) being held hostage by OPEC

6 - global warming pops into view, overtakes 'acid rain' as the official rallying cry

7 - 11sept, 2001 started out as a nice late summer morning in The US and then 30 years of BS 'chessgames' in the middle east explodes in the middle of lower manhattan and _forever_ changes the direction of The US - after basking in the alpenglow of the collapse of the soviet union, the end of the 'cold war' - the 'peace dividend' - the 'new economy' - heh, 'dow, 36000' - the 'long boom' ??? was OVER, baybee - and life as we know it in america _died_ that day in the big apple - and STILL the luddites want to dream about 'alternative energy' while they deny the obvious solution....

7 - not one, not 2, BUT COUNT EM: three wars in about 10 years = "endless war" OVER OIL? (or 4 in 20 w iraq-attack1)

8 - THIRTY Four YEARS since the 'creation' of the dept of energy and what have we got to show for the BILLIONS squandered?

9 - lots of chin music about electric cars?
WHERE WILL WE GET THE POWER TO CHARGE THE BATTERIES ?

10: the economy goes down-for-the-count 4 more times since 1979 and yet we still have protests over the only proven, known, cost effective, no-carbon-output REAL ALTERNATIVE to opec/oil/endless wars etc

11 - a trillion here and a trillion there, and pretty soon we're talkin real money, sez krugman, who after castigating the prev inhabitants for blowing mere billions, heaps the scorn on the present bunch, FOR NOT DEFICIT-SPENDING ENUF trillions?

12 - after a certain state along the sierra's makes off with BILLIONS to build a realistic solution to the one problem that prevents the only alternative we have from moving forward (yucca mtn) - the good senator from that state manages to shutdown that option and now we are being held hostage AGAIN by the luddites who keep screaming about the dangers of nuclear power?

i ask em: whats more dangerous, The US being bled dry by OPEC and the banksters - or a power source that hasnt directly killed anybody - vs ENDLESS WARS OVER OIL ?

and back again to the issue of the seabrook station - which, BTW, did get finished, altho the protesters forced the price up by several times the initial cost estimates, delayed the power-up til a moment when oil got cheap (? as i recall, a bit fuzzy that far back), power rates to skyrocket etc - but its been running just fine for about 20 years now -

and the protesters at seabrook in 1976?

COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE WRONG!

just think of where we might be today if nuclear power was (is) allowed to give us back for all the BILLIONS we have spent on it and to simply not use this option ?

tell me thats not the definition of insanity...

/rant mode

[Forrest]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

Extremely well said for rant mode.

[bungee]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

Some people are talking some real rubbish on here.

If radiation was safe for humans why on earth would governments have exclusion zones around these nuclear accident sites?

Don’t you think that even if there was the slightest chance it was OK they would send people back there to work in the factories and farm the fields? Think of all that lost growth by having an exclusion zone!

If governments allow people to smoke but force them to stay away from nuclear accidents (with a loss of revenue / GDP) then you can conclude that radiation is more damaging to humans than smoking.

Radiation damages human cells. Smoking damages human cells. Sunlight damages human cells. These facts are indisputable.

The human body has some capacity to repair this damage. You may have noticed that you are alive and your cells keep growing and dividing. Thus any damage to cells that is not repaired is copied into the next generation of your cells and over time this damage accumulates. This damage will tend to occur at susceptible points. Damage at some of these points will have no or minimal effect. Damage at other points will lead to cancers which in the worst case cause death.

Just like smoking radiation will not kill you on the spot but just as anyone who that claims smoking does not shorten lifespan is seriously deluding themselves, anyone who claims that neither does radiation is equally deluded.

[c1ue]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

Just like smoking radiation will not kill you on the spot but just as anyone who that claims smoking does not shorten lifespan is seriously deluding themselves, anyone who claims that neither does radiation is equally deluded.

Radiation at sufficient levels definitely has an effect - the Hiroshima survivors study group showed a mortality increase of about 1,000 over the span of 50 years for the approximately 50,000 survivors.

The precise data:



http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa2.html

So for the 49,204 survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, tracked during the more than 60 years since the incidents, there have been a total of 8,055 cases of leukemia or solid cancers. 942 are 'over and above' what the control population (i.e. minimum to no exposure) experienced.

This is a far cry from an additional 1 in 7 dying within 24 years - note that the Hiroshima data also only refers to cancer cases, not deaths. For Hiroshima, the study group showed only a 1 in 6 cancer rate for solid cancers overall over 60 years.

I'm not saying the study CounterPunch references is false, but I am saying that the numbers referenced seem extremely, even outlandishly high.

[coolhand]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

Why is the natural environment around Chernobyl doing just fine? And why are people around Chernobyl doing just fine? Why are people around Chernobyl eating root vegetables and mushrooms grown in their soil, and they show no sign of cancer nor any ill health?

If Chernobyl was such a catastrophe, where are the deaths? If the eco-system around Chernobyl is damaged, how come all of the plants and animals are thriving?

And while you are at it, and since you have better solutions with your so-called, "green energy", maybe you would be so kind as to pay my utility bills in British Columbia?

Maybe you've been there recently & that's true. I have a good friend that lived through it & her family is still near there & she assures me that the ground is NOT okay, & that the death toll was NOT zero. She still has problems with her thyroid to this date. Her family all have nagging healthcare problems associated w/the fallout. And no gov't official ever asked them about it, or wanted to know about it. That's how gov'ts roll on this kind of stuff.

Can you explain if there was no health risks why the US Navy 7th fleet completely evacuated the Yokosuka Naval base nearly 200 miles away, along with 8,000 family members, the 1st such time that had happened since 1946?

I'm not dogmatic about it - i understand we need energy to have an economy; i get that coal kills lots of people too. But to say that there were no impacts from prior nuclear accidents is just wrong.

[coolhand]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

Radiation at sufficient levels definitely has an effect - the Hiroshima survivors study group showed a mortality increase of about 1,000 over the span of 50 years for the approximately 50,000 survivors.

The precise data:




http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa2.html

So for the 49,204 survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, tracked during the more than 60 years since the incidents, there have been a total of 8,055 cases of leukemia or solid cancers. 942 are 'over and above' what the control population (i.e. minimum to no exposure) experienced.

This is a far cry from an additional 1 in 7 dying within 24 years - note that the Hiroshima data also only refers to cancer cases, not deaths. For Hiroshima, the study group showed only a 1 in 6 cancer rate for solid cancers overall over 60 years.

I'm not saying the study CounterPunch references is false, but I am saying that the numbers referenced seem extremely, even outlandishly high.

Who conducted this study? If it was the Japanese, I wonder if they are the same Japanese that were telling their people that they were winning the war against the USA until shortly before a sole B-29 popped up & drop the bomb on them?

Just saying that all gov'ts lie, but Asian cultures in general & Japanese culture in particular are more focused on "saving face" than most...google "Hiroshima survivor embarrassment" - you should find a recent article highlighting how Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors hide the fact that they are survivors in many instances, b/c they are discriminated against...

[Starving Steve]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

I am a bit confused about the methodology of this cancer study. If you take 1000 kids just living normal lives and not being exposed to anything more than the usual background radiation on Earth, one would observe a very low cancer rate. But if you take 1000 people who have lived to be 80 or more years old, having lived normal lives and not having been exposed to anything more than background radiation, their cancer rate would be very high; probably 70% or more of that population would have terminal cancer.

So what do cancer studies mean, especially when the population in the study gets quite old?.... As usual, I am lost.

Every 70 year old male has the symptoms of prostate cancer, and prostate cancer is deadly. So, what inferences would you draw?.... Don't be male? Don't be born? Don't live too long? Don't eat bananas? Don't sleep next to your spouse? Don't go to hospital? Don't drink water? Don't make love? Have your balls chopped-off early in life, so you don't get exposed to too much testosterone?

Many cancers in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki study group would now be appearing since they are over age 60.... So what does that mean? Might I draw an inference that nuking is healthy for people because we now observe so many very old survivors from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukings? ( I'm just trying to be objective here, and to ask simple questions, as a scientist should do. )

[bungee]

Re: Meantime Back at the site of that little Atomic mis-hap......

It is not important how they died be it from cancer, falling reactor parts or tripping over a mutant hedgehog. The only thing that matters is how old they were when they died.

What is important is that people who have been exposed to radiation are shown to die on average younger. Radiation is bad news.

Counting and tracking causes of death is hard. You have cancer but fall and break your hips and six months later you’re history. What do you put as the cause of death?

Tracking the point of death is unambiguous and you hope the other causes and contributing factors to death are consistent between the exposed area and the study controls so the only difference is the radiation exposure.

I haven’t read the studies to know how accurate or reliable they are. The only point I wanted to make was that radiation does reduce lifespan significantly and saying that there had been no deaths from nuclear accidents was a gross distortion of reality.

Might I draw an inference that nuking is healthy for people because we now observe so many very old survivors from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukings? ( I'm just trying to be objective here, and to ask simple questions, as a scientist should do. )

No, you can draw the conclusion that if they hadn't been nuked there would be more of them alive today.

Radiation reduces life expectancy