Chernobyl consequenses

[Kärnfysikern]

Here is a IAEA report on the consequenses of chernobyl. Not current news since its from 2005 but I dont think it got the media attention it deserved. But I guess it sells more papers to scream wolf...

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Boo.../chernobyl.pdf

The most interesting thing is that thyroid cancer is without a doubt the most serious consequens and whats more interesting is that it could have been avoided. So chernobyl wasnt the killer of millions that many people would think. The absolute worst case scenario for a reactor wasnt as bad as the enviromental fanatics try to paint it.

This quote is also interesting

It should be noted that the average
doses received by residents of the territories
‘contaminated’ by Chernobyl fallout
are generally lower than those received by
people who live in some areas of high
natural background radiation in India,
Iran, Brazil and China (100–200 mSv in
20 years)

This quote is about the number of deaths caused by chernobyl

The number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl accident has been of paramount interest to the general public, scientists, the mass media, and politicians. Claims have been made that tens or even hundreds of thousands of persons have died as a result of the accident. These claims are highly exaggerated

The number of deaths due to acute radiation syndrome(ARS) during the first year following the accident is well documented. According to UNSCEAR (2000), ARS was diagnosed in 134 emergency workers. In many cases the ARS was complicated by extensive beta radiation skin burns and sepsis. Among these workers, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Two more persons had died at Unit 4 from injuries unrelated to radiation, and one additional death was thought to have been due to a coronary thrombosis. Nineteen more have died in 1987–2004 of various causes; however their
deaths are not necessarily — and in some cases are certainly not — directly attributable to radiation exposure.

The international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposures (liquidators working in 1986-1987, evacuees, and residents of the most ‘contaminated’ areas), the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent. This might eventually represent up to four thousand fatal cancers in addition to the approximately 100 000 fatal cancers to be expected due to all other causes in this population

So about 4% of cancer deaths are linked to chernobyl among the most exposed. 4000, not millions like greenpeace morons would like us to belive. 4000 deaths are 4000 to many, but putting this against the bhopal disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
its obvious that the nuclear industrie isnt the grand devil its painted to be.
Most of those 4000 deaths could probably have been avoided aswell if people hadnt consumed milk from cows eating contaminated grass.

Put all of this up against this(I dont know how credible this page is though) and to me its pretty ****ing obvious that nuclear power would save far more lifes than it could potentialy take even if something like chernobyl happened again(and Im more worried about a meteorite smashing down on my head than that happening).

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0817-01.htm

Reducing air pollution in just four of the world's largest cities--New York; Mexico City; Sao Paulo, Brazil; and Santiago, Chile--could prevent 64,000 premature deaths and 37 million lost workdays over the next two decades, according to research that examines the health effects of the use of fossil fuels.

[RA]

Maybe you said but my add kicked in. When will people be able to go back there??

[Kärnfysikern]

Maybe you said but my add kicked in. When will people be able to go back there??

Most areas can be repopulated now. The radiaton levels have already dropped several hundrad times since the accident.

I think its just the imidiet area around the plant that needs to be keept safe. I havent read the whole IAEA article yet. I just focues on the health consequenses.

[IronFreakX]

According to his post, they can now.

[thegodfather]

So Johan, what if the immediate population had been supplied with Iodine pills?

[Kärnfysikern]

So Johan, what if the immediate population had been supplied with Iodine pills?

Cant say for sure since I dont know much about the biological effects. But I would guess that if everyone in the area would have eaten iodine pills daily(like around swedish plants)it would have cut down cancer alot. Somewhere in the article it was stated that handing out iodine pills after the accident cut down possible cancer cases 6 times.

[MatrixGuy]

Was it true that plants and trees started growing upside down? or did i dream that? lol.

[Kärnfysikern]

Was it true that plants and trees started growing upside down? or did i dream that? lol.

you dreamt that the area around chernobyl is acctualy the area with the most vivid(is this the right word in this contex??)wildlife nowdays since there is no human disturbance anymore.

[MatrixGuy]

you dreamt that the area around chernobyl is acctualy the area with the most vivid(is this the right word in this contex??)wildlife nowdays since there is no human disturbance anymore.

I can't believe i thought that now. I would love to see what it looks like round there.

[Doc.Sust]

i have heard both sides of the story, most scientists agree the radiation did not have the huge adverse negative effects that were predicted, but who is to say where that info is coming from. i know this, we all receive hefty doses of radiation throughout our lives from simple things like a ride in a jet to x-rays, but i still wouldnt want to put my money where my mouth is and be put in a situation like chernobyl to see if the radiation disaster was just a myth. IMO, everyone has different adverse reactions, some more, some less, depending on genetics and exposure, who is to say that without a doubt that the radiation really wasnt that bad? truth is a believe no one can really tell

[Kärnfysikern]

i have heard both sides of the story, most scientists agree the radiation did not have the huge adverse negative effects that were predicted, but who is to say where that info is coming from. i know this, we all receive hefty doses of radiation throughout our lives from simple things like a ride in a jet to x-rays, but i still wouldnt want to put my money where my mouth is and be put in a situation like chernobyl to see if the radiation disaster was just a myth. IMO, everyone has different adverse reactions, some more, some less, depending on genetics and exposure, who is to say that without a doubt that the radiation really wasnt that bad? truth is a believe no one can really tell

I agree with alot you say. But of all things written about chernobyl I trust this article the most since its from IAEA

I just think its bad how environmentalist always spins everything connected to nuclear out of proportion. Honestly I cant even understand why they opose nuclear power in the first place. Its the most environmental friendly and affordable power source we have aviable.

A good example is a incident we had in a swedish reactor last week. Imidietly greenpeace started screaming we wheren near a mealtdown and it was the worst accident since chernobyl(where they get that from I dont even know since nothing happened except a power failure). While every expert except one say its total bullshit and that it was nowhere close.

The scaremonger they use against nuclear power is just as twisted as the medias reports on steroids unfortunaly the avarage joe belives it all