Skip to main content

View Diary: Was Fukushima inevitable? (35 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually some decent research out of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, Sandino

    Eastern Europe shows that over one million people either ended up  suffering from cancer or dying from it due to Chernobyl.

    So you can think about that research, consider what it means that the Major Usual Suspects in our governments, health orgs, and Big Media refuse to bring that research to light,  and so you can blithely go on pretending this energy source is safe. or you can wake up!

    Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

    by Truedelphi on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 04:53:31 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  sources please. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Polly Syllabic, alain2112

      else you've expressed an an opinion. I don't follow these things very closely but I am fairly well versed and I haven't seen any reputable—one sponsored by an organization without a political agenda—study that claims one million cases of cancer attributable directly or indirectly from the Chernobyl accident.

      •  There's another issue (0+ / 0-)

        Consider this: over their lifetime, the average person has about a 1 in 3 chance of having some form of cancer. Many of them never find this out: they die of something else first, or it's benign tumor, or it's so minor it's never discovered.

        Now what happens if you subject a population to intense screening for cancer due to, let's say, possible radiation exposure? Your cancer rates for that population are going to go up, not due to more people getting cancer but because more people are detected having cancer earlier than they otherwise would have (if at all).

        Also, ironically, deaths due to cancer are very likely to go down. Why? because that intense cancer screening is going to find tumors that would be fatal early enough to treat them more successfully.

        This is exactly what happened after Chernobyl. In that case, there was possibly a small, legitimate spike of cancer in the vicinity among the civilian population due to radiation release in addition to the increase in cancers that would otherwise not have been detected, but the survival rates for people with detectable cancers actually increased because they were detected early due to the intense medical monitoring.

        One of the problems with getting good stats on radiation exposure and deaths is due to this: separating out the cancer rates that one would expect to see without the exposure, and then factoring in how many people were actually saved because testing them revealed pre-existing problems that had nothing to do with the exposure.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site