Radiation Not As Hazardous As Once Believed 570
HeavensBlade23 sends in an article from the German site Spiegel Online about mounting evidence that nuclear radiation may not be as deadly as has been widely believed. The article cites studies by German, US, and Japanese researchers concluding, for example, that fewer than 800 deaths are attributable to the after-effects of radiation in over 86,500 survivors of the Hiroshima bombing. Other surprisingly low death rates are reported in studies of Chernobyl and of a secret Siberian town called Mayak, devoted to producing plutonium, that was abandoned after a nuclear accident in 1957.
But what about sterility? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Things worse than death (Score:2, Interesting)
I love skew.
Radiation has new PR Rep (Score:2, Interesting)
OK (Score:3, Interesting)
If the Shoe Fits... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hiroshima (Score:5, Interesting)
Someday perhaps scientists will finally rebel against the awful state of science journalism. Until then, it's best to just ignore it.
Re:Things worse than death (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of those kids (other than the one in the picture linked by the parent poster) looked like they could be suffering from nothing more unusual than cerebral palsy or other reasonably common physical and/or mental defects. If I went into any disabled children's care facility or cancer ward in any large city in the world with a camera and knocked the kids out of their fancy western wheelchairs I could take pretty much the same pictures (barring my complete and utter lack of photographic ability).
It's sad but sometimes birth defects do just happen. The question that isn't addressed in these sorts of emotive pieces - and research into which the originally linked article is discussing - is to what extent exposure to radiation increases their liklihood in a population.
I do agree that TFA is highly skewed though.
Re:Having a Chernobyl vet in my family says otherw (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if I would trust the state of NJ more than I would trust the Soviet government that was present in 1986. To be honest with you, may be in 50 years we will know 1% of the true effects. Remember how cocaine was legal in the United States?
One of my most exciting moments of my childhood was the rain of April 26th, 1986. I was walking from the hospital when it started raining and I got soaked by the time I got home. Several days later we were told to throw away the clothing used on that day and take a long shower because a chemical plant not so far away had a problem. Cool huh? As somebody who was under 10, it was "it!" I was a part of something that the government asked me to do. It felt great until my mom got a call from my grandmother: My uncle was traveling to Belaja Tserokv' (White Church) with a his chem-bat (chemical forces battalion). My grandma was a nurse and she suspected that something was going on since they tons of firefighters were shipped to the area. It was highly unusual to send that many people for a small chemical spill at a nuclear plant. I will skip you the stories about carefully re-adjusted radiation meters given to the soldiers and other tricks that were used to keep public away from the information about the real aspects of the accident. Everything was "peaches and cream" according to the top brass. My uncle delivered cement to the reactor thinking that they were putting down some important fire. Only later we were told about the nuclear disaster and its impact. During the times of Perestroika this became more public and we finally realized what has hit, but it was too freaking late.
I would like to come back and visit the ghost areas. Many areas of Belarus and the Ukraine (Belarus was hit the hardest due to the North-Western winds) became ghost towns. It is a lot like what you can find in the prominent historic parks of the U.S.: Whole towns are there, but no people want to live there for the exception of an occasional squatter. You may see a Western tourist here and there and that is about it. Whoever thinks that radiation is not damaging needs to get their head examined. Yes, a direct death from the exposure may be unlikely, but I'd rather not wait for the long term effects. Honestly, I have seen that stuff and it is not pretty. I'd take a bullet over slow death any time.
Cue the Internet Anagram Server (Score:1, Interesting)
Let's wait for a bit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Things worse than death (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This article brought to you .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Look, it's really not that complicated: radiation increases the risk of cancer and birth defects, at any dose. The mechanisms are understood, and there have been tens of thousands of experiments confirming that. Trying to argue that this isn't the case is simply insane. And it doesn't matter what kind of radiation it is.
Now to follow is the usual nonsense about uranium running out within 60 years, nuclear waste being impossible to deal with, and another chernobyl being just about to happen. It's all nonsense, and has been for two decades at least, yet we still burn coal rather than transmuting our nuclear waste in fast reactors ( Thank you for that one Kerry ).
It was Reagan that killed breeder reactors in the US (and effectively elsewhere). He claimed it was for proliferation concerns, but that makes no sense; more likely, he did it for economic reasons: nuclear fuel is big business for the US.
With breeder reactors, nuclear energy could possibly be an option. Without them, nuclear power is sheer lunacy.
So, complain to Reagan and the Republicans for the lack of responsible nuclear power in the US.
Yea!!!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
It's time to blame
- bush
- republicans
- the illuminate
- big nuclear
- big business
because they want to make money off nuclear power since they funded the study. Greenpeace told me so and they never lie....er, embellish either!They didn't say radiation is good for you, didn't say you should shower in it, just that studies of effects don't jive with reports.
Now can someone come up with a REAL reason that this study is bunk? Maybe some REAL connection between nuclear plants and the research group?
Re:It's not that bad (Score:1, Interesting)
Injesting Radioactive Material does the damage (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Things worse than death (Score:2, Interesting)
The regular prefectural and town roads, on the other hand, are a horror show. Paving crews seem to just pave everything in sight and paint some lanes on later. Intersections seem to be the result of negotiations between rival paving crews that happen to run across each other. Let's not even talk about roads out in the mountains! You get a few feet off the beaten path and you'll be lucky to ever make it back. Imagine endless blind switchbacks on a strip of pavement less than ten feet wide! If you run across someone coming from the other direction, one of you will have to back up a half mile or so.
Furthermore, driver education in Japan is worse than useless. You are trained to operate a supplied vehicle on a closed course (sorta like a go-cart park). You have to shift into the proper gear at precisely marked points in the course, signal your intention to turn at another marked point in the course, etc. In short, you are trained to operate a particular vehicle to exacting standards ON A PARTICULAR CLOSED COURSE!
I was forewarned about the silly test and was therefore able to pass it my first time without taking classes. Fact is, however, that I was the only one to get my license that day.
The low fatality rates on Japanese roads is more reasonably attributed to the fact that no one ever actually drives faster than about 25MPH. Even in the little kei cars you have half a chance of surviving an accident at those speeds.
Japanese drivers suck. Oh, they are sorta 'polite' and all. They don't talk on their cell phone while driving. In fact, if they get a call, they'll stop before answering. . .right in the middle of the traveled way! No effort made to get their car off the road or to a safe place. . .Nope, the phone rings, they set the parking brake wherever they happen to be, be that a blind curve, an intersection or on the highway.
If people here ever actually had to travel a significant distance and did so at the sort of speeds typical in the US, you can bet they'd leave the US far behind where highway carnage was concerned.
Re:This article brought to you .... (Score:3, Interesting)
I sincerely believe that quality of life can be *better* with less consumption, and at the same time better for the planet, and for this reason, I reject your claim that the cost of meaningful conservation would impact quality of life. It would change lifestyles for sure, but I don't think they would be 'worse' lifestyles from a quality of life standpoint.
Re:This article brought to you .... (Score:2, Interesting)
But you may find interesting some experiments that show the opposite result: low radiation dose stimulate the DNA repair mechanism of cells and finally people become more resistant to some other cancer factors. Search for a study in Indonesia about houses insulated with glass wool recycling low activity wastes (my source is paper print).
Not being lethal doesn't mean it is entirely safe! (Score:2, Interesting)
About 4,000 children were afflicted with cancer. Less well-known, however, is the fact that only nine of those 4,000 died -- thyroid cancers are often easy to operate on.
Great!! Having cancer and not dying of it is really something everyone should try!!
No, thanks! I'd rather keep my thyroid where it is!
Re:This article brought to you .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This article brought to you .... (Score:2, Interesting)
As long as the damage rate is below the repair capabilities of the cells there is no long term consequences. Otherwise cancer rate would be in correlation to local and natural radioactivity (and it is not).
About you saying "argue that
I'm not challenging you with the radioactive glass wool study but what strikes me is that you name it right away a poorly done study, without reading anything of it. That's the clue I needed to guess what kind of mind is making such comments.
Re:Complete Disregard for Life and Suffering. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:safely stored for 30,000 years... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This article brought to you .... (Score:2, Interesting)