muso wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 7:48pm:


yes muso its always good to be back on topic



1 cancer in 4999 is approximately 20 in every 100,000 children which is a for 10-14 year olds.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 9:19pm:


Should this be a surprise..??
Well  maybe to those who argue in favour of nuclear power.

Look, I created another thread for this, Chimp. Please try to stay on topic.

Tokyo study shows that the White Blood Cell count for a large sample of children has decreased since the Fukushima meltdowns and ongoing releases of radionuclides.

Normal WBC count ~ 4000
Average WBC count for children examined ~ 2500

Accepted threshold WBC in children > 3000

short term its coal fired power stations - but that's not the whole picture is it muso,

If you close down nuclear and coal fired stations tomorrow, you still have nuclear waste to deal with.

Chernobyl will continue to kill for at least 6 centuries to come - just in terms of Cs137 and Sr90 alone.

Nuclear power contributes less than 15% of the worlds power requirements.

Nuclear power stations routinely release nuclear nasties such as tritium (H3) which has a half life of 12 years. Tritium lingers in the environment for betweem 10 and 20 half lives (120 to 240 years)

These substances are not only extremely toxic and long lived, they bio- accumulate in the food chain.

Nuclear power is totally un-defendable, on economic, environmental or efficiency grounds. Linked to the Nuclear weapons industry.

Radioactive release contaminates the Gene pool - not only in the human species but all life forms that come in contact with these poisons.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

Deaths per TWh for all energy sources. Rooftop solar is actually more dangerous that Chernobyl.

Energy Source              Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average               161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China                       278
Coal – USA                         15
Oil                                36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                    12
Peat                               12
Solar (rooftop)                     0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind                                0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro                               0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)    1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

muso wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 11:49am:


Your post reminds me of the spin methodology used by AGW deniers.

You're quite welcome to self indoctrinate and spread as much MOX fuel dust, hot particles and nuclear fleas on your toast each morning as you like.

Is there an increase in the incidence if cancer for children who live near nuclear power facilities?

Shhhhhhhhhh, only present data on the basis of fictitious deaths per TWhr of power generated. That will hide the real story.

You should never discuss things that you have minimal understanding of and wish to infuse with a political poison.

That's what EXXON puppets do in the mass media to confuse the public on the effects of rising CO2 emissions.



Of course the 500,000 fatality figure (465,000 to be more precise) is an estimate made by the Soviets

The New York Academy of Sciences report that was released a few years ago estimates that there were 985,000 additional deaths caused the Chernobyl radiological event from the years 1986-2003.

That is ONE core meltdown which was brought under control relatively quickly by the Soviets who used over 600,000 personnel (mainly military) to tackle the meltdown.

Fukushima has 3 full core meltdowns, whose location is currently unknown, and several spent fuel pools dangling precariously 35m above the ground.

Cancer detection in children around Fukushima has already been detected, at least 2 years earlier than the Chernobyl radiological event.

Shhhhhhh...

its about markets, corporate profits, and the USA wants Japan to continue along this madness.

As we speak Japan's 52 nuclear reactors are offline. (with the exception of perhaps one which may have been re-started).

When fully operational Japan met 30% of its power requirements via its nuclear reactors (supposedly)

They seem to be doing fine without them.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 12:35pm:


So called "dirty bombs" are - or do you mean that it's a byproduct of fast breeder reactors?