Skip to main content

View Diary: Hansen: Nuclear power has prevented 1.8 million deaths (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  WHO ? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mary Mike, greendem, edrie

    http://www.who.int/...

    “The primary concern identified in this report is related to specific cancer risks linked to particular locations and demographic factors,” says Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director for Public Health and Environment. “A breakdown of data, based on age, gender and proximity to the nuclear plant, does show a higher cancer risk for those located in the most contaminated parts. Outside these parts - even in locations inside Fukushima Prefecture - no observable increases in cancer incidence are expected.”

    In terms of specific cancers, for people in the most contaminated location, the estimated increased risks over what would normally be expected are:

        all solid cancers - around 4% in females exposed as infants;
        breast cancer - around 6% in females exposed as infants;
        leukaemia - around 7% in males exposed as infants;
        thyroid cancer - up to 70% in females exposed as infants (the normally expected risk of thyroid cancer in females over lifetime is 0.75% and the additional lifetime risk assessed for females exposed as infants in the most affected location is 0.50%).

    If a life is cut short by a day it is called a death .

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

    by indycam on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 10:34:34 AM PDT

    •  Exposed as infants? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy, alain2112

      That would be how many?

      Also note that the WHO makes these estimates using the LNT hypothesis, which did not hold true at Chernobyl (where doses received by liquidators were much higher than at Fukushima).

      We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty. -- G.K. Chesterton

      by Keith Pickering on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 10:42:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "That would be how many?" (0+ / 0-)

        It would be all of the ones that were ,
        not one more or less .
        Unless you can find "zero" to be the number ,
        the number is more than zero .

        Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

        by indycam on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 10:46:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So let's compute that (0+ / 0-)

          Population of Namie, only town in WHO's most affected zone:
          22,000
          Fertility rate in Japan: 8 per 1000.
          Number of infants under age 2 in Namie at the time of the accident was therefore: 352.
          Additional risk of thyroid cancer in those 352 infants: 0.5%
          Number of infants expected to develop thyroid cancer from Fukushima: 1.76
          Survival rate from thyroid cancer: 99.9%.
          Additional deaths from thyroid cancer due to Fukushima:
          0.00176

          So let's add that 0.00176 additional deaths to the total, and woooo, nuclear sure looks a lot more dangerous now.

          We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty. -- G.K. Chesterton

          by Keith Pickering on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 10:58:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Survival rate from thyroid cancer: 99.9%." (0+ / 0-)

            Does thyroid cancer take any days off a persons life ?

            and woooo, nuclear sure looks a lot more dangerous now.
            I was not and am not making any comment about "dangerous" .
            You are barking up the wrong tree .
            That means that even if the area around Fukushima had not been evacuated, it is quite likely that not one person would have died from radiation.
            This comment is interesting . The stress alone would have done some people harm , rational or not .

            Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

            by indycam on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 11:35:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, it can (0+ / 0-)

              Especially if they're in the US and don't have health insurance

              The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them. - Albert Einstein.

              by Cvstos on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:26:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  On that we agree (0+ / 0-)

              It's the fear of nuclear power that kills, not the reality of it.

              So why are the anti-nukes so engaged in fear-mongering? Don't they realize they're killing people?

              We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea, and we owe each other a terrible loyalty. -- G.K. Chesterton

              by Keith Pickering on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:55:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You want me to explain to you (0+ / 0-)

                something I have not said ?

                Don't they realize they're killing people?
                Tisc Tisc
                On that we agree
                It's the fear of nuclear power that kills, not the reality of it.
                What you see as black and white , I see as shades of gray .  I'll not say no deaths .

                Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

                by indycam on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 01:31:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  THANK you! that is the point i was trying to make (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      S F Hippie, Sandino

      as well.

      and the airplane analogy is absurd.

      a plane crashes - several hundred people die - the wreckage is cleared - life rebuilds with little impact other than sorrow.

      a nuclear plant has a major issue - for example, chernobyl is still totally uninhabitable 25 years on and will be for perhaps hundreds of years to come.

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 01:26:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy

        people do live and work there, Chernobyl that is.  

        Since we're discussing land issues as opposed to deaths, global warming is expected to have an affect on where people can and can't live in the next hundred years.

        •  Yes, after the local government spent (0+ / 0-)

          20 years unsuccessfully displaying the horror of it all to the international community in hopes of $$s being thrown their way, they shifted gears and decided that the place was safe for both tourism and habitation.

          go figure.

          •  oh HELL no, they didn't! the people who (0+ / 0-)

            returned to chernobyl are mostly older women and their families who didn't want to leave their ancestral homes - and they returned DESPITE being told by the government that they couldn't.

            Three months after being relocated, she returned with her husband, her mother-in-law and a handful of other members of their collective farm. When government officials objected, she responded, 'Shoot us and dig the grave; otherwise we’re staying.’

            Hanna was among some 1,200 returnees, called 'self-settlers’, most over the age of 48, who made their way back in the first few years after the accident, in defiance of the authorities’ legitimate concerns. For despite the self-settlers’ deep love of their ancestral homes, it’s a fact that the soil, air and water here in what is now known as the Exclusion Zone, or Zone of Alienation, are among the most heavily contaminated on earth.

            Today 230 or so self-settlers remain, scattered about in eerily silent villages that are ghostly but also somehow charming. About 80 per cent of the surviving self-settlers are women in their seventies and eighties, creating a unique world of babushkas, to use a Russian word that means 'grandmother’ but also refers to 'old countrywomen’.

            please, before you make such a wildly inaccurate statement, check out the facts first.  and... read the entire article.  it is a wealth of knowledge about the spirit of these women - one of whom has thyroid cancer.  fortunately, the government gives them a stipend and medicines and health coverage.

            sheesh! THIS is a thriving town?  

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:15:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  you are kidding, right? you DO know why (0+ / 0-)

          "people" are "living in chernobyl?

          it isn't because they have resettled. it is because the cleanup is still going on - workers are allowed in only two weeks at a time due to the high radiation - and they are there to repair the sarcophagus that contains the spill is cracking - it will take 80 million to repair it

          this article on the site "english for beginners" sums up what is going on in simple terms.

          and THIS article from the telegraph tells exactly WHO has returned and why - it is a good, but sad read on the babushkas of chernobyl.

          your somewhat flippant comment

          people do live and work there, Chernobyl that is.  
          doesn't begin to depict the tragedy of an area that received 400 times the radiation of hiroshima - and the tragic impact on the lives of the people who lived there.  trying to equate this to global warming doesn't work - and your attempt at minimizing the impact of such a horrific disaster is counterproductive to ALSO working to alleviate global warming.

          these are not competing disasters (MY disaster is worse than YOUR disaster... neener, neener, neener!) - they are SIMULTANEOUS disasters and all need addressing.

          as long as there remains the "one solution only will work" attitude, we will only have arguments, not solutions.

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:05:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site