How about a reliable, English-language cite about the aggregate increased dosage across Japan?
It’s already clear the plant workers are enduring heroic excess dosages to help keep the problem minimized despite TEPCO mismanagement.
You having trouble finding information? I can’t imagine why.
It’s called “not doing your homework for you”. I have stats from people I trust, but since you’re basically the whiniest little whiny bitch I wanted you to put up or shut up regarding accumulated dosages. If you can’t provide a cite, then you’re basically yelling about something you literally don’t know anything about.
That article was from April 1st…so, how many have died? Death is inevitable for everyone, after all…if they got these massive doses of radiation, how many are dead now? How many are in the hospital with radiation poisoning? How many will die this year? In 5 years? 10?
If you say that some people are going to die in the next 20-50 years from radiation related illnesses, then you probably aren’t going to get any arguments. Some non-zero (though small) number of people will certainly get cancer and most likely some will die from it due to what happened there. But compared to the death toll from the disaster that sparked all of this the number will be miniscule. For that matter, compared to the number of people who ALREADY die annually due to respiratory illness, some of which is caused by coal fired power plants, the numbers will be miniscule.
Unless you have a cite showing differently of course. Feel free to actually give such a cite, since it’s been asked for repeatedly and you and FXM have continually dodged it by just handwaving the question away and then going off on some tangent. You both claim that the radiation was/is ‘deadly’…so, back up your assertions or continue to get hammered on this point until either a mod locks the thread or the meaning of what people are asking for/saying get’s through the meter or so of bone and stone that comprises both of your skulls and hits the one or two working synapses that constitute what both of you have as a combined brain.
-XT
I think we all know how this works. Any evidence that you don’t like it “unreliable” or “biased”, while all the nonsense Tepco and the nuclear powers spits out is gospel.
I mean seriously, you still think Chernobyl wasn’t that bad because so few people died. If after 25 years nothing has reached your brain, is there any point in trying?
That’s really low when you start trying to use my lines.
Make up your own witty comebacks you pathetic troll.
Just in case anyone is reading the trollfest thread, hoping for some actual information, it’s easy to find. Like today we see
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110820p2g00m0dm013000c.html
I guess the trollers in this thread have some special mindset where they imagine they are contributing somehow, rather than just posting stupid one line insults. Pity.
But as often, I tend to ignore trolls and post links to actual real things, even when they are stupid.
Of course, like the nuclear powers themselves, the cheerleaders here will dismiss science if they don’t like it. And I understand that. It might be a stupid news story, and in reality Chernobyl wasn’t that bad. Just a minor problem.
Still sitting there 25 years later, radioactive and deadly.
Actually FXMastermind, still either powerfully stupid or trolling.
The article actually says that the mutation rate was 600% the background rate (without stating what it was). If it’s 6 base pairs per million instead of 1, we’re hardly talking “deadly” results. The article actually goes on to say:
And, of course, to put it into perspective:
Look how stupid you are.
I guess you have to define “lots of”, which is hardly a scientific term.
The problem is not exactly the definition of “lots of”.
The melted reactor is under two buildings. They are not talking about it’s effect, but the fallout from the original accident.
Stupid troll.
Not that it’s a surprise. But it is sort of sad to see nuclears act like woo woos when it comes to their sacred cow.
They really can’t see any problem. Much like the people in charge of Tepco.
Moller and Mousseau have shown that certain species in the area have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities than normal.
“We find an elevated frequency of partial albinism in barn swallows, meaning they have tufts of white feathers,” Mousseau said.
Late last year Moller and Mousseau published a paper in the Journal of Animal Ecology showing that reproductive rates and annual survival rates are much lower in the Chernobyl birds than in control populations.
“In Italy around 40 percent of the barn swallows return each year, whereas the annual survival rate is 15 percent or less for Chernobyl,” Mousseau said.
Why yes, you are either retarded or trolling, I agree.
The “liquidators” were the ones who cleaned up the results of the accident, including the area around “two buildings”. That disaster was so “deadly” that the dreadful mutations include minor molecular-level changes that were so sleight that the “liquidators” children do not even evince birth defects. But yes, if you really want to go Full Retard, then taking a tour of the heart of the Chernobyl disaster at point blank range would be “deadly”, much the same way as submerging yourself in a vat of distilled water would be “deadly”.
And of course, as you’re trolling, the request that you originally provided that cite for was for the “lots of mutations” from Chernobyl. Which turned out to be, in your own cite’s words, “slight” changes, on the DNA level only, that had absolutely no phenotypic effects. At all.
Tard on, fight the good fight.
Actual information is good. Yes, the highest current radiation level would be at a significant level if people were allowed to be living in that location.One Abdominal/pelvic CT with and without contrast has 30 millisieverts and living in that town for the past five months would be equal to having something like ten of them. Which is why living there right now is a poor idea. Hence it is a no-entry zone.
Of bigger concern is that one town outside of the exclusion zone has had already a cumulative exposue of 115 millisieverts, almost the equal of four of those CT scans. It is reasonable to expect additional cancers from that sort of cumulative exposure … just one of those CTs is estimated to cause one cancer per 500 to 1000 lifetimes, i.e. a 0.2% increased risk of cancer death. That town has a population of about 20K. This is bad. Likely hundreds of excess deaths. This site states that “[e]xposure to about 100 mSv at age 30 is thought to increase lifetime risk of cancer mortality, which is 20% without radiation exposure, to about 21 % (increase of 1 percentage point) on average for both sexes.” Using that information that town would normally expect 4000 of its residents to die of cancer eventually and can now expect 4200 to. Very bad news.
Yes, xtisme’s point still stands. That data suggests that hundreds of excess cancer deaths may eventually result from the radiation exposure, and those, very serious, numbers, are small compared to the deaths directly caused by the earthquake and the tsunami, and very very tiny compared to the deaths that will be caused by the greater amount of coal use that decreased use of nuclear will result in.
Damn it, I hate sieverts.
100 mSv = 10 Rem
10 Rem is a lot of dose. They should evacuate those people.
Good cite by the way. See how it’s done FX?
Although it says that a chronic dose of 100 mSv will results in ~5% more cancer while the acute dose from the atomic blasts resulted in ~10% more cancer. But the people in that town will be getting some dose for a few years so hopefully they will get evacuated.
I thought I was taught in the Navy that 5 rem a year for 20 years would result in 5% more cancer but maybe I’m not remembering it right.
Somewhere in my comic collection is a Fantastic Four issue from the seventies or eighties that has a mutant kid (he was black, as I recall) whose body was giving off dangerous amounts of radiation. Reed slapped him in a chamber of some sort to protect New York and I recall somebody excitedly reading off the levels, in the tens of thousands of Roentgens, which even then struck me as unlikely, as though the kid was undergoing fission.
Shut up, Bryan Ekers
If you are the percent that gets cancer from exposure to radiation from a blown to hell reactor, or in this case three reactors, the odds don’t matter.