In total around 50 deaths are directly attributable to radiation
I wonder how you can claim that when, depending on who you ask, the figure varies between 50, 50000 and "hundreds of thousands".
The figures you cite are from IAEA, which arguably is quite a biased source. Let's also not forget that it's very difficult to track and correlate the health of >600k people over 20+ years - even if you try to do it in best honesty.
As a counter-point, here's a study[1] that claims ~1 million deaths and according to wikipedia: "draws on previously classified post-Soviet records and reports by Eastern European scientists and medical experts that have largely been ignored by the IAEA and UNSCEAR".
I haven't read it, it may be fear mongering material. But then again, if really only 4050 people were affected, why is everyone making such a big deal about it?
>I haven't read it, it may be fear mongering material. But then again, if really only 4050 people were affected, why is everyone making such a big deal about it?
They're making a big deal for 2 reasons. First it WAS a big deal. What happened is nothing to sniff at. So making a big deal over Chernobyl is no problem.
Second, the problem is that the anti-nuclear movement is trying to make people believe that it was much worse than it was, in an attempt to use irrational fear to bolster resistance against nuclear.
These are people who have no problem with lies, to them the end justifies the means, they will do anything they can, including breaking laws to stop nuclear power. I've seen this in Ireland not only with nuclear but with the building of a gas plant, a small group of radicals broke into the facility numerous times doing whatever damage they could. And this was just for gas.
First it WAS a big deal. What happened is nothing to sniff at.
Sorry, but I think you're contradicting yourself here. First you say 4050 people affected and totaling "only" 90 deaths is not a big deal (which I would agree with) - and now you say the opposite?
If it was commonly agreed that the number of casualties was that low then I really don't get why even the pro-nuclear parties refer to it as the dramatic event that is to be avoided at all costs. Your average earthquake affects and kills more people than that...
Second, the problem is that the anti-nuclear movement [...] in an attempt to use irrational fear to bolster resistance against nuclear
I keep hearing that, but I'm really wondering what are the motivations here?
Yes, there are some environmental nut-jobs who will argue for the sake of it, but those are usually easy to spot. However, on top of that there is also a non-negligible number of more or less credible scientists and first-hand witnesses (doctors, nurses) who question the figure of ~4000 affected. When I see an interview with a nurse on TV who reports about entire villages in the area dying out because they can't make children without birth-defects, then I can't help but ask: Why should she make this up? Who is paying her to tell us lies?
And then, on the other side of the spectrum, we have a multi-billion dollar industry and entire countries depending on the perception that nuke plants are "safe enough".
I'm not claiming to have the definite answer. I just don't understand where people like you are taking their confidence from.
>I'm not claiming to have the definite answer. I just don't understand where people like you are taking their confidence from.
I get my confidence from my understanding of nuclear energy. I'm not a nuclear scientist, but if your even remotely technically inclined(or just make an effort to understand) the basics are not hard to learn.
Most people think it's beyond their ability to understand how nuclear works so they don't even try, it might as well be black magic to them. It's then really easy to scare them with nuclear horror stories, and no amount of facts can undo that because they haven't got the fundamentals to understand those facts.
Did you know that in 1957 there was a fire in a military nuclear reactor in the UK burning for 2 days before it was shut down? Much of this burned nuclear material was passing almost freely into the atmosphere with not a single dangerous dose of radiation.
Or in another accident in 1961 three operators were killed(not by radiation), one of which was stuck to the ceiling with debris from the initial explosion. The rescue team used meat hooks on sticks to retrieve the body(in parts), being able to spend less than 57 seconds in the area. The bodies were so radioactive that they had to be berried in lead caskets.
I'm not a nuclear scientist, but if your even remotely technically inclined(or just make an effort to understand) the basics are not hard to learn.
Oh, I think I do have a basic grasp.
However, I'm not sure how your two stories relate to either Chernobyl or a potential meltdown in Japan at all.
Are you trying to suggest that nuke plants are inherently harmless, because even fires can burn in them for 2 days without anything bad happening?
I guess it boils down to that I have a different understanding of the risks of nuclear plants - physics aside. People like you (sorry for generalizing) repeatedly claim that a meltdown is a normal and planned failure-mode. The core melts, the containment catches the radioactive blob, it cools down, all is well.
This sounds nice in theory. My problem is that it doesn't jibe at all with what we hear from japan these days. It doesn't sound like they're following a boring disaster-plan. It sounds more like they're pretty much in panic-mode. But perhaps this is just the media-spin, we'll know in a few weeks...
I wonder how you can claim that when, depending on who you ask, the figure varies between 50, 50000 and "hundreds of thousands".
The figures you cite are from IAEA, which arguably is quite a biased source. Let's also not forget that it's very difficult to track and correlate the health of >600k people over 20+ years - even if you try to do it in best honesty.
As a counter-point, here's a study[1] that claims ~1 million deaths and according to wikipedia: "draws on previously classified post-Soviet records and reports by Eastern European scientists and medical experts that have largely been ignored by the IAEA and UNSCEAR".
I haven't read it, it may be fear mongering material. But then again, if really only 4050 people were affected, why is everyone making such a big deal about it?
[1] http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3...