One year on from Blackpool and Fukushima....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Budapest

    An_Inspector_Calls, I've had a hard day at the office, so forgive me if I don't respond immediately to everything you've said.

    And here's a direct quote from Kofi Annan, said in 2000 when he was Secretary-General of the UN:

    Chernobyl is a word we would all like to erase from our memory. But more than seven million of our fellow human beings do not have the luxury of forgetting. They are still suffering, everyday, as a result of what happened . . .The exact number of victims can never be known. But three million children demanding treatment until 2016 and earlier represents the number of those who can be seriously ill . . . their future life will be deformed by it, as well as their childhood. Many will die prematurely.

    And here's something from yet another report by yet another bunch of silly, hysterical doctors who obviously don't 'understand' the effects of radiation:

    At the “Chernobyl Forum of the United Nations” organised in September 2005 by the
    International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation, the presentation of
    the results of work on the effects of Chernobyl showed serious inconsistencies. For example:
    the press release of the WHO and IAEA stated that in the future, at most, 4000 surplus
    fatalities due to cancer and leukaemia amongst the most severely affected groups of people
    might be expected. In the WHO report on which this was based however, the actual number of
    deaths is given as 8,930. These deaths were not mentioned in any newspaper articles. When
    one examines the source quoted in the WHO report, one arrives at a number between 10,000
    and 25,000 additional fatalities due to cancer and leukaemia.
    The above is from Health effects of Chernobyl, a report published last year by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). If interested you can find the report here. Amongst other things, Health effects of Chernobyl says:
    • 50,000 to 100,000 liquidators (clean-up workers) died in the years up to 2006. Between 540,000 and 900,000 liquidators have become invalids;
    • Congenital defects found in the children of liquidators and people from the contaminated areas could affect future generations to an extent that cannot yet be estimated;
    • Infant mortality has risen significantly in several European countries, including Germany, since Chernobyl. The studies at hand estimated the numberof fatalities amongst infants in Europe to be about 5000;
    • In Bavaria alone, between 1000 and 3000 additional birth defects have been found since Chernobyl. It is feared that in Europe more than 10,000 severe abnormalities could have been radiation induced;
    • By referring to UNSCEAR one arrives at between 12,000 and 83,000 children born with congenital deformations in the region of Chernobyl, and around 30,000 to 207,000 genetically damaged children worldwide. Only 10% of the overall expected damage can be seen in the first generation;
    • In Belarus alone, over 10,000 people developed thyroid cancer since the catastrophe. According to a WHO prognosis, in the Belarussian region of Gomel alone, more than 50,000 children will develop thyroid cancer during their lives. If one adds together all age groups then about 100,000 cases of thyroid cancer have to be reckoned with, just in the Gomel region;
    • Altogether, the number of Chernobyl related cases of thyroid cancer to be expected in Europe (outside the borders of the former Soviet Union) is between 10,000 and 20,000;
    • In more contaminated areas of Southern Germany a significant cluster of very rare tumours has been found amongst children, so-called neuroblastomies;
    • In Germany, Greece, Scotland and Romania, there has been a significant increase in cases of leukaemia;


    When it comes to a bunch of doctors who have absolutely nothing to gain by publishing such reports, as opposed to a bunch of corrupt politicos at the UN who are closely aligned with the nuclear industry, I'll go with the doctors any day.

    Comment

    • teamsaint
      Full Member
      • Nov 2010
      • 25226

      You only have to look at the endlessly manipulated news releases from Fukushima last year to realise where the real dangers lie.

      The Industry and governments are in it together.

      That's all the proof I need.
      I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

      I am not a number, I am a free man.

      Comment

      • An_Inspector_Calls

        I'd rather you didn't reply at all . . .

        There's no inconsistency in what the Chernobyl Forum were reporting: they were merely indicating the difficulty of detecting ANY cancer increase in the Chernobyl area data.

        As for your points:
        There were 600,000 liquidators. It's 25+ years since Chernobyl, so it's no surprise 50,000 to 100,000 have died (actually, more than that should have died - perhaps radiation at low doses is beneficial, which is one line of thought being considered for a revision of the low dose portion of the LNT model).
        Infant mortality rates across Russia (and Bavaria) show no post Chernobyl signal.
        The half life of radioactive iodine is 8 days. In three months, it's gone! We're now 25 years on. So how can Chernobyl now impact thyroid cancers? This stuff is drivel.
        There are always regional spikes in leukaemia cases - it's what's expected statistically. Every now and again, there's a spike adjacent to a nuke, and around we go again.

        Teamsaint: don't you think that, just possibly, the manipulation of data you see was simply the output of people trying to analyse a difficult crisis in appalling, post-tsunami conditions? Or do you, like Budapest, see a conspiracy everywhere?

        Speaking of conspiracies: it's not generally known that JFK died at Chernobyl. He wasn't assasinated in Dallas, he went deep cover in a CIA/FBI plot to penetrate the Russian/Cuban nuclear programme, and years later discovered Chernobyl was a secret, super H-bomb developemnt site just at the point of being readied for an attack on the US, which he foiled, but died in the attempt.

        Comment

        • Serial_Apologist
          Full Member
          • Dec 2010
          • 37823

          I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that laboratory rats or mice subjected to radiation in controlled tests led to genetic mutations that were carried into subsequent generations.

          Comment

          • teamsaint
            Full Member
            • Nov 2010
            • 25226

            Originally posted by An_Inspector_Calls View Post
            I'd rather you didn't reply at all . . .

            There's no inconsistency in what the Chernobyl Forum were reporting: they were merely indicating the difficulty of detecting ANY cancer increase in the Chernobyl area data.

            As for your points:
            There were 600,000 liquidators. It's 25+ years since Chernobyl, so it's no surprise 50,000 to 100,000 have died (actually, more than that should have died - perhaps radiation at low doses is beneficial, which is one line of thought being considered for a revision of the low dose portion of the LNT model).
            Infant mortality rates across Russia (and Bavaria) show no post Chernobyl signal.
            The half life of radioactive iodine is 8 days. In three months, it's gone! We're now 25 years on. So how can Chernobyl now impact thyroid cancers? This stuff is drivel.
            There are always regional spikes in leukaemia cases - it's what's expected statistically. Every now and again, there's a spike adjacent to a nuke, and around we go again.

            Teamsaint: don't you think that, just possibly, the manipulation of data you see was simply the output of people trying to analyse a difficult crisis in appalling, post-tsunami conditions? Or do you, like Budapest, see a conspiracy everywhere?

            Speaking of conspiracies: it's not generally known that JFK died at Chernobyl. He wasn't assasinated in Dallas, he went deep cover in a CIA/FBI plot to penetrate the Russian/Cuban nuclear programme, and years later discovered Chernobyl was a secret, super H-bomb developemnt site just at the point of being readied for an attack on the US, which he foiled, but died in the attempt.
            What I saw was industry and governments deliberately manipulating the news and expectations. The story changed daily, in a very predictable way. Its this bad....oh no its a bit worse than we thought but not too bad....no its worse but not dangerous..there's no meltdown....there may have been a partial meltdown...there probably has been a partial meltdown..oh dear 3 reactors melted down , but its ok really.

            You don't need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to recognise manipulative "powers that be."

            If all this stuff isn't dangerous, why do they bother with all the precautions?
            I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

            I am not a number, I am a free man.

            Comment

            • teamsaint
              Full Member
              • Nov 2010
              • 25226

              An Inspector Calls...why don't you want people replying?

              Odd.
              I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

              I am not a number, I am a free man.

              Comment

              • Budapest

                teamsaint, Kofi Annan was right when he said that no one will ever really know just how many people have been killed by Chernobyl, or indeed how many will be killed by the triple meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi. All the independent experts will agree upon is that we're talking about a very, very large number of people.

                In one sense I can understand why governments cover-up stuff like this. It's akin to that old cliche: if governments knew that a giant asteroid was hurtling towards us, and will wipe out all life on earth, would they tell the people? because of course if they did tell the people, human society would very rapidly descend into total chaos and anarchy during its final days. Whilst Chernobyl and Fukushima aren't 'end of life on earth' events, if those in power did tell the people what the health danger really was when Chernoby No.4 blew, and now what is happening with the three Fukushima reactors, there'd be mass panic and total disorder.

                Why folks like me have such a bee in their bonnet about nuclear energy is that, unlike a giant asteroid hurtling towards earth, over which we have no control, we do have the choice of not using nuclear energy; but despite the obvious risks (just one reactor blowing up or melting down can destroy an entire country) many countries still pursue this totally ridiculous form of energy (it's all about bombs, bombs, bombs).

                It's interesting to note that whilst countries like Germany, Switzerland and Italy, and now Japan, are turning away from nuclear energy, Britain and the USA are building more nuclear power stations. The markets will no longer finance the building of nuclear power stations, and so both the UK and USA governments are doing it with tax payer's money.

                Have I already mentioned that it's all about getting plutonium to make nuclear bombs..?

                Comment

                • teamsaint
                  Full Member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 25226

                  I know. Energy companies now want tax handouts AND guaranteed energy prices.

                  As for the plutonium and bombs issue, its just amazing that we are so blind. Thorium could have been developed, but no nuclear arsenal that way.
                  I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

                  I am not a number, I am a free man.

                  Comment

                  • Budapest

                    Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
                    I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that laboratory rats or mice subjected to radiation in controlled tests led to genetic mutations that were carried into subsequent generations.
                    Serial_Apologist, discussions like this invariably hone in on the big 'C', yet radiation also causes heart disease, diabetes and a host of other illnesses, including genetic stuff. The main point is that 'they' (meaning big government and big science) don't really understand just how much damage is caused by man made unstable isotopes (it's beyond our present science). Folks like me just try to show the real life effects of it, which is that an awful lot of people die. If interested I refer you to the two reports I've linked to in this thread:


                    Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment


                    Health effects of Chernobyl

                    And by way of balance here's the somewhat infamous UN report:

                    Chernobyl Forum

                    Comment

                    • Budapest

                      Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
                      Thorium could have been developed, but no nuclear arsenal that way.
                      That's bang on the mark.

                      Comment

                      • An_Inspector_Calls

                        Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
                        An Inspector Calls...why don't you want people replying?

                        Odd.
                        Because I'm wasting my time on obvious twaddle; we now have a claim that radiation is linked to heart disease and diabetes!

                        - or rather, I was wasting my time.
                        Last edited by Guest; 07-06-12, 08:06.

                        Comment

                        • Frances_iom
                          Full Member
                          • Mar 2007
                          • 2416

                          Originally posted by An_Inspector_Calls View Post
                          ....
                          - or rather, I was wasting my time.
                          I've found it impossible to argue rationally with holders of these strongly anti-nuclear beliefs - there is need for a detailed study of the public understanding of science and how this has fallen victim to politics and what is known in the computing trade as FUD (fear, uncertainty + doubt). R4 this week (the life scientific) had an interview with Robert May one time chief scientist - he made point that lack of transparency esp in his case re BSE compounded the problems in future understanding eg over Genetic Modified crops - the nuclear industry had significant (+maybe necessary) lack of transparency wrt to the production of weapons esp during the cold war - I also have a thesis that the FUD spread by the tobacco companies who were well aware of the link with cancer + heart problems in an attempt to stave off restrictions on sale was also a key contributor to the public mistrust, the same PR companies + pseudo 'independent' institutes continued in the USA over global warming and the need to restrict CO2 (funded this time by big oil). Japan will not meet its CO2 reductions - it also has to buy significant amounts of gas/oil to replace its now shutdown nuclear - this both pushes up the price oof gas/oil, adds to CO2 and also reduces Japenese living standards

                          Comment

                          • aeolium
                            Full Member
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 3992

                            I've found it impossible to argue rationally with holders of these strongly anti-nuclear beliefs
                            I wish I could find a summary of the pros and cons provided by someone who was essentially neutral in this debate (i.e. dispassionately assessing the evidence) as whenever debates take place the only possible positions seem to be either 1) nuclear power is massively dangerous, has caused untold damage and cannot be risked at all or 2) nuclear power is essentially safe, hardly anyone has died, there is nothing really to worry about providing proper precautions are taken. I don't find either position particularly persuasive. I could live with 3) nuclear power is potentially very dangerous (Chernobyl, Fukushima) and quite expensive but the risks can be significantly mitigated and it is a necessary resource if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming.

                            Comment

                            • An_Inspector_Calls

                              Originally posted by aeolium View Post
                              I could live with 3) nuclear power is potentially very dangerous (Chernobyl, Fukushima) and quite expensive but the risks can be significantly mitigated and it is a necessary resource if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming.
                              And that's exactly right, well put.

                              Comment

                              • JohnSkelton

                                Originally posted by An_Inspector_Calls View Post
                                obvious twaddle; we now have a claim that radiation is linked to heart disease
                                Is that twaddle? http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER...31402&ACTION=D Or do I misunderstand the link? It seems reputable.

                                (That's a question, not me taking a position in this conversation. Frances_iom's remarks on public understanding of science I find very interesting).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X