No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by demoninatutu on Jun 11, 2018 11:18:32 AM
What's the story at Fukushima?

"When a tsunami hit the nuclear plant, thousands fled. Many never returned – but has the radiation risk been exaggerated?"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/0
3/was-fallout-from-fukushima-exaggerated

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
rustygstring - 11 Jun 2018 11:46:46 (#1 of 12)

I saw a TV documentary once about Chernobyl. Apparently all the data for assessing the risk to humans from radiation comes from the aftermath of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Obviously the initial plot on the graph of radiation level against number of attributable deaths is quite high. The risks for lower levels are obtained by drawing a straight line from the limits of the known data down to zero.

The programme went on to suggest that there is some evidence that lower levels of radiation, far from being detrimental to health, may even be beneficial and they cited the example of some village, I think it was in Turkey, which has the lowest cancer rate in Europe but also the highest level of naturally occurring background radiation, about the equivalent of a full chest x-ray per year.Interesting stuff.

SheikYerbouti - 11 Jun 2018 11:48:15 (#2 of 12)

Its hardly surprising that people are unable to accurately assess the risks associated with a nuclear leak. Why would they be able to?

rustygstring - 11 Jun 2018 11:53:58 (#3 of 12)

They can't, that's kind of the point of my completely unscientific anecdote.

demoninatutu - 11 Jun 2018 13:21:01 (#4 of 12)

Why would they be able to?



It would help if activist organisations like Greenpeace kept to scientifically literate accounts of risk and benefits.

SheikYerbouti - 11 Jun 2018 13:26:38 (#5 of 12)

It would help if the government and media did too.

demoninatutu - 11 Jun 2018 13:50:59 (#6 of 12)

Well the Japanese government certainly can't be trusted but there's plenty of information about radiation risks available on the internet.

SheikYerbouti - 11 Jun 2018 13:52:04 (#7 of 12)

Ah yes, the internet.

demoninatutu - 11 Jun 2018 13:54:52 (#8 of 12)

Not all the internet is the same. Anything with 'truth' in it is not to be trusted, the Royal Society, however, is a different matter.

johnnythesailor - 11 Jun 2018 14:26:50 (#9 of 12)

For Chernobyl, the "official" number of deaths number of deaths varies between 31 and 985,000 depending on who you ask!

upgoerfive - 11 Jun 2018 14:34:21 (#10 of 12)

Almost impossible in most cases to state that a death was definitively as a result of exposure to radioactivity or radionuclides.

The nuclear industry has traditionally done very well indeed out of 'the benefit of the doubt'.

demoninatutu - 14 Jun 2018 02:29:34 (#11 of 12)

"varies between 31 and 985,000 depending on who you ask!"



Can you provide a link to an official estimate of 985,000?

demoninatutu - 14 Jun 2018 02:30:24 (#12 of 12)

The nuclear industry has traditionally done very well indeed out of 'the benefit of the doubt'.



And the anti-science activists have done very well out of fear mongering.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Science