and I guess you have a reputable source for that, that isn't

http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11726

Emma wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 9:34pm:


no its not a surprise - totally predictable.

However, in the Chernobyl meltdown case, Children Thyroid cancers started showing up about 5 years after the disaster occurred. We are less than 3 years since the disaster and the cancer cases are flowing in at an increasing rate.

A survey of 80,000+ children living in Fukushima region showed that about 40% had nodules and abnormalities in their Thyroid glands. Compare that with a normal rate of less than 1 per 100,000.

Children are very sensitive to radiation - several orders of magnitude more sensitive than adults. And female children are twice as sensitive as male children.

This is only the tip of problem. The leukemias and other cancers will start to emerge, and also heart diseases (conduction problem in the human heart is linked with internal exposure to radionuclides such as Cesium 137.

Trouble ahead I'm afraid

It's quite possible that there will be an increase in thyroid cancer as a result of the Fukushima disaster, but it's difficult to get reliable (non-inflated) figures on this. As far as I am aware , the study was carried out by the Fukushima Medical University.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/incidences-of-thyroid-cancer-on...


Quote:

Which overall would you say kills most people, Nuclear Power Stations or Coal Fired Power Stations?

The only reason we have a nuclear waste problem is that governments have been too soft on the industry. Borosilicate glass is a secure way to store nuclear waste. It's expensive, but secure.

If we had Thorium accelerator based reactors, it would no longer be a problem. They can consume conventional nuclear waste.

I don't have any argument regarding nuclear power in Australia. It won't happen, so why bother?

In the medium term, reliable nuclear power stations will continue to provide a stop gap until we get something better.

However, I do have a problem with exaggerating the truth.

Looking long term - ie global warming,  coal wil have a much greatr consequence. It does even short term.

Nuclears ability to keep on killing for 1000's of years after it produced electricity is the problem.

Do we count Hiroshima and Nagasaki as victims of nuclear waste. Nuclear weapons are made of enriched waste.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2013 at 1:16pm:


You are too humble. Actually yours is a much better emulation of AGW denialism if I say so myself.

Quote:


That's right, deny the facts and go for the emotional spin.

Minimal information? Chimp - I do actually have experience in this field and I go through practical field exercises in dealing with radiological incidents every 12 months. What is your experience, other than reading blog articles?

Quote:


Chimp, We've already been through that. What did the vast majority of the best qualified in the field of radiology state?  See if you can remember. It related to a public statement in 2012.

You can go as hyperbolic as you like, but I'm not buying your over exaggerated nonsense - not because I'm secretly supporting the "evil" nuclear industry, but simply because it's exaggerated nonsense. If we are to make informed decisions, it should not be on the basis of exaggerated nonsense.

You are capable of better than that.

Why isn't the WHO, the worlds leading health risk investigative body, allowed to conduct analyses and surveys relating to radiological events WITHOUT the explicit consent of the International Atomic Energy Agency? (an agreement arrived at in the 1950s)

And one of the primary goals of the IAEA is to promote the Nuclear Power industry - its in their charter.

What an evil industry that lies on a daily basis.

muso wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 5:32am:


The undamaged fuel bundles first. Good luck to them.

Do you know where the melted coriums are in reactor buildings 1,2 and 3? Try and find out.

The Fukushima reactor facility is not only built in a tsunami and earth quake prone region (like most of Japans reactors), it sits right on an old river bed. They built up the soil prior to constructing the facility. There are natural water flows, and ground flow movement beneath the reactors at Fukushima.

How many nuclear reactors are online in japan as we speak muso?

Its astounding that you defend the most hideous and corrupt industry on the planet - nothing even comes near it.

...you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself you filthy floating decanted fluidised stream of skunk spray emulsion

muso wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 9:44am:


...take it up with Mr, Marui - he doesn't emit foul odours and putrid immoral stenches

"Fukushima Daiichi was built some 40 years ago on the site of a river that was diverted in order to situate the plant, Mr. Marui says. It should have been clear that lots of groundwater would be rushing through the site, he says, and that any walls or barriers built on the seaward side would soon be overwhelmed—something that, indeed, has happened in recent weeks."

muso wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 10:53am:


Not sure about the actual pathway the river took, just that they had to divert it in order to build the Fukushima facility. There was quite a bit of "earth" and aggregate trucked in to build up the fukushima - apparently a little too low. Still too low, seeing as they built a 5m Tsunami wall, and where hit with a 16m Tsunami - heights which have historical precedence in the area.

Source?

By the way on the subject of low level radiation, there is plenty of evidence that low levels of radiation (between 100mSv and 250mSv/year) actually reduce the risk of cancer due to increased DNA repair. That's including internal and external doses. I mentioned Radium Springs once before, but here's another example:

Quote:


I don't doubt that there may have been people exposed to dangerous levels of radiation around Fukushima, especially in areas to the NW of the Power Plant, which delayed evacuation, but the problem is largely confined to that province.

muso wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 10:45am:
Therein lies one of the most intractable shortcomings of nuclear power: the human element. To quote from the foreword of the book We Almost Lost Detroit: Quote:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:


Of course I undestand this. I also realise that some elements bioaccumulate while others pass straight through.

Quote:


Cs137 is the least of your worries. It matabolises quite  readily. All depends on the dose of course.

Quote:


What is the mechamism for mobilisation of Plutonium? Japan has been living with trace quantities of Pu as a result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonations - but how did the Pu mobilise itself in the case of Fukushima?  The same goes for Am-241, which is a Pu daughter isotope. 

Quote:


There is an obvious threshold for radiation dose, as there is with any other toxin. OK, if you're writing a Safety procedure, then the Linear No threshold model is nice and conservative, but it's obviously wrong. The UN accepts that it's wrong and the UNSCEAR, has recently (2012) recommended policies that do not agree with the Linear No-Threshold model at exposure levels below background levels of radiation to the UN General Assembly from the Fifty-Ninth Session of the Committee. Its recommendation states that "the Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels."


Common sense prevails. Anybody who has had anything to do with radiological dose, as I have, knows that this is common sense.

We live on a planet with natural radioactvity. In the geological past, levels have been higher.  Do you deny this? Life has adapted in conjunction with this radiation. In fact there is considerable evidence that errors in DNA replication, lead to mutations, an essential ingredient for evolution. There is also evidence that low levels of radiation has a healing effect. The healing springs at Radium, Canada were well known for their effectiveness in healing minor and not so minor illnesses including rheumatism and arthritis.

Evidence from the  survivors of Hiroshima showed that those with low doses of radiation were less likely to develop cancers, and that the response to dose was anything but linear. 

Chimp,  I am not defending the Nuclear Industry. There were obvious flaws in the planning of the siting of Fukushima 1, obvious problems in the way that Tepco has dealt with the situations, and vast chasms in their Risk Communication strategy.

I understand this, and no nuclear power station should have been sited in an area such as this close to Tectonic plates.

What I object to is the unnecessary panic that is being caused by inaccurate and nonsensical reports.

The fatality rate for Chernobyl that you quote are based on attributing every single death from cancer to the incident.  That is clearly not correct.

The fact of life is that nuclear activists tend to grossly exaggerate to the point of being nonsensical.  At the same time, Tepco is guilty of covering up or delaying the release of some information. To find the truth of the matter requires individual thought.

You didn't provide a source. I presume that's because it's from one of the more feral actvist sites, and you were embarrassed to divulge that fact.

Grey wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:


US and Russian analysts have both agreed that even a conventional war that uses non-nuclear weaponry would create a catastrophe if nuclear power stations are targets.

there are about 500 nuclear power plants in the world today. The USA has about 110 spread out over most of its states. Imagine meltdowns at even 20% of these reactors? Its very easy to do with a few conventional bombs or missiles.

Any sort of natural or human made event that threatens the cooling or control systems of these nuclear reactors has global ramifications.

The 1859 Solar storm (the Carrington event) wiped out every electrical device on the planet at the time (although there weren't many at the time and they had poor shielding).

A similar event today will certainly cause havoc with power transmission, computer systems and communication etc.

Most nuclear power facilities are not equipped to endure such an event.

And such an event will occur sooner or later

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:


Chimp, You are the one denying science here. UNSCEAR is to the IPCC as Chris Busby and Arnie Gundersen are to Christopher Monckton and David Evans.  They are the lone eccentrics trying to baffle brains with bullsh1t.

muso wrote on Dec 6^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:


Cs137 mimicks Potassium when it enters the blood stream. its predominantly a Muscle seeking substance.

Sr90 emulates Calcium and is a bone tissue seeking radionuclide.

Do you know what Uranium and Plutonium like doing when they enter body mr muso?

Check out where Cs and Sr are in the periodic table Mr Muso,

Now you haven't answered my question on Cs137 metabolism and its relevance to Cs particles being lodged in organs such as the Lungs or intestine wall etc.

I hope youre not avoiding the question mr muso

We wouldn't to hear crickets again now would be mr muso

Chimp,

I apologize for the fact that I can't answer every post of your instantaneously. It stems from tha fact that I have a life.  I know that Cesium is the most electropositive of all elements. I don't know if you know the implications of that or not. Cesium and Iodine were both present in the Fukushima fallout because they are volatile. Cesium metal melts at 28 degrees. If you add a grain of Cesium metal to water, it reacts explosively. In the case of fallout, it is present either in volatile salt form, such as Cesium Iodide or it reacts to form oxides and hydroxides.

Now one of the implications of the electropositivity of Cesium is that all its salts and compounds are soluble. THe smallest grain of fallout containing Cs compounds will dissolve in droplets of water. In fact CsOH is deliquescent.  It attracts moisture from the air. Typically you can tell if there has been a reactor malfunction by the characteristic red stains, and if you see purple gas, the steps you should take can be summarised as large and away from the area.

Why do you think that is?

I don't know why you're talking about Uranium and Plutonium. These were major problems at Chernobyl, mainly due to the graphite fires that provided a mechanism for their mobilisation.

So anybody who talks about particles of Cesium in the lungs is only good for doing the odd bit of paper shuffling. Arnie Gundersen's nuclear experience consisted of paper shuffling, so it sounds like the sort of uninformed utterance that he would come up with. They are certainly not competent to call themselves experts in radiological science.

I see that you're still cringing about revealing your sources.   

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2013 at 8:38pm:


Utter horse feathers. It was a hydrogen gas explosion. You are actually believing Chris Busby and Arnie Gundersen. (First signs of insanity)

Chimp, I challenge you to stop reading that crap, and read some real scientific papers by independent writers.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21139-fukushima-scare-prompts-look-at-crit...


Quote:


Chimp,



What would happen if a 1 micron sized particle of icing sugar "lodged" in your lung? Hmmmm?

Do you have any vestigial common sense ?

muso wrote on Dec 6^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:


Which explosion are you referring to? there were 3.

Why do you comment on things you haven't even examined.

If you want download the footage of the EXPLOSION in question, and estimate the speed of the explosion front.

Traveling at greater than the speed of sound implies its a detonation.

There was also a moderated prompt criticality at Chernobyl too.

This has been confirmed by the Russians, via isotopic ratio analysis

Its not secret muso

you're starting to embarrass yourself now - see what happens when you comment on things you know very little about?

(you do realise that there was MOX fuel, at the Fukushima reactor facility? You do know what it is don't you muso?)

muso wrote on Dec 6^th, 2013 at 9:03pm:


nope - reactor 3, the MOX fuel reactor



explosion front traveling at greater than the speed of sound - detonation, not a deflagration.

A moderated prompt criticality occured

Where is your evidence that there was widespread contamination with Uranium and/or Plutonium?

Quote:


All explosions have a velocity greater than the speed of sound. It was an explosion caused by hydrogen combusting. The fact that it was propagated at greater than the speed of sound does not preclude what actually happened.

incidentally, Neutron bursts were detected over a dozen times emanating from the crippled Fukushima plant - as far as a mile away

I wonder where these neutrons came from muso?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2013 at 9:35pm:


LOL - ok, give me the "source" of this information. I have a hunch where this gem came from. Hint: Cf-98.

Here is the official report. What do you make of it as a layman?

http://fukushimafaq.wikispaces.com/file/view/rst+assessment+26march11.pdf

(probably the same as Gundersen did, since he's a layman too.)

muso wrote on Dec 6^th, 2013 at 9:58pm:


How do you figure that Muso, given his background -


Arnold "Arnie" Gundersen is a nuclear power expert, nuclear power whistleblower and a former nuclear industry executive and engineer with over 30 years of experience.

Gundersen questioned the safety of the Westinghouse AP1000, a proposed third-generation nuclear reactor and has expressed concerns about the operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. He served as an expert witness in the investigation of the Three Mile Island accident and has provided commentary on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

Gundersen is a graduate of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1971), with a B.A. in nuclear engineering, and holds a master's degree in nuclear engineering, gained on an Atomic Energy Commission Fellowship (1972).

From 1972 to 1976 Gundersen worked at the Northeast Utilities Service Corporation as a nuclear engineer; and from 1976 to 1979 at New York State Electric & Gas as an engineering supervisor. From 1979 to 1990 Gundersen was employed at Nuclear Energy Services, a Danbury, Connecticut-based consulting firm. Gundersen served as an expert witness in the investigation of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident.

perceptions_now wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 7:28am:
Honestly Muso, its like arguing with a denialist (forget the facts if they get in the way of what you want to believe).  Disagree with Gundersen all you please but maintaining this line that he doesn't have to credentials to say what he is saying is just utter bullcrap.  Clearly the Nuclear industry is trying to do to Gundersen what the denialists have been doing to climate scientists and I'm saddened that your pushing the same line Muso.  From what i can tell the only thing Gundersen has done wrong is out the nuclear industry over and over for their wrongs.  No wonder they are hell bent on dirtying him. 

And another thing.  Nobody and I mean nobody with an ounce of common sense would argue for the uninterrupted continuation of the nuclear industry after what has transpired at Fukushima (esp after Chernobyl and the string of nuclear accidents since the 70s).  Its just STUPID.  Has it ever occured to you that in yor keenness to avoid an over-reaction you are ignoring the scale of the disaster at Fukushima.  Its not as if this is an airplane that has gone down or a building that has collapsed.  When something like Fukashima goes wrong, whole tracts of viable working land (and sea) is rendered dangerous for decades (and some times centuries) and vast numbers of people's health is put at risk and in view of all that you are saying "Now, now dont go panicking". FFS!!!  This industry has got to shut down.  By all means after it has shut down do all the talking you like. Gather all the information you like and put your case for a safer industry but in the meantime this industry MUST BE SHUT DOWN!!!!!

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 9:34am:


Fukushima is an extreme example. However, I'm not denying it was a serious incident.

What I do object to is the over-inflated accounts that come from activists like Gundersen.

Chimp keeps drawing me in to the local situation at Fukushima, probably because its what he likes doing best.

I'm concerned about the over-inflated worldwide effects and the exaggeration of nuclear activists. The sleight of hand of Gundersen in saying - it was not a deflagration - it was a detonation. Hydrogen gas can detonate and propagate faster than the speed of sound. It's a total non sequitur to say that it was therefore a PROMPT Criticality. 

The hydrogen explosion at the Unit 4 SFP di result in damage to the fuel rods and ejection of fuel outside the pond. The neutrons detected outsude the facility were due to these particles, which were subsequently bulldozed into the ground.

Another report of a neutron "source" found a mile away from the plant was literally an industrial "Neutron Source". You might want to Google that, but its used for process control purposes. It's a small piece of hardware that was blown off the superstructure by the hydrogen explosion.

My agenda, if I have one is related to nonsensical reports designed to incite panic in people.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

....measuring the ratio of two specific Xe isotopes in the plume, enables one to confirm whether a prompt criticality occurred.

The explosion at Reactor 3 was definitely a detonation type explosion (an event that Nuclear power stations do not design for, because detonations aren't supposed to occur)

There are two facts that support the detonation explosion scenario. Firstly there was a red flash seen in  the video when reactor 3 exploded. Deflagration type explosions do not produce red flashes.

Secondly you can estimate the speed of propagation of the explosion front from "frame by frame" video analysis. The estimate confirms a greater than the speed of sound front velocity - ie a detonation.

The Japanese Authorities also found fragments of fuel rods and pellets contaiing Plutonium, Uranium etc, as far away as 5 km from the reactor explosions. These fragments are assumed to be from the reactor 3 explosion.

Americium was also detected in New England. Pu and Am are whats called transnugenics - ie elements heavier than Uranium created in the fission reactions

Don't worry about anything ladies and gentlemen

The Japanese have now passed a secrecy act.

You can be jailed now for basic investigative journalism or making public STATE SECRETS.

(The USA like this development, which explains their silence on the matter)

What I often hear is that solar energy can't deliver base load power for industry.

This solar furnace in france, operating since 1970, produces temperatures up to 3,500c. With a set up like that we could smelt the Pilbarra iron mountains on site.

Grey wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 9:22pm:


Solar thermal technology currently delivers electrical power 24/7 (ie base load). Thermal storage using molten salts is well advanced



Solar Tower technology where a natural draft is created in a vertical tower, using a glass canopy, is also base load (power drops to about 50% overnight, with heat from the warm ground underneath the canopy releasing its heat at night)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 9:35pm:


you are aware of thermal storage technology?

You need to keep up with the advances gizmo

ignorance will eat you up in the end and dump your smelly carcass upon the putrid skunk piles of Hades

it_is_the_light wrote on Dec 9^th, 2013 at 6:31am:


I have seen this segment of the movie.

I am sure if you sieve through documentaries, commentaries, movies pre-2011 you will find many "apparent" predictions of the Fukushima meltdowns.

There are similar movies relating to 9/11.

WOW - there is a MAP of Japan showing something happening on the coast NEAR Fukushima.

So what?

Japan has about 53 Nuclear reactors, most of which are on the coast in earth quake zone and susceptible to Tsunamis.

There has always been a real and significant probability of a nuclear disaster in Japan, especially seeing as Japan sits right on the RING of FIRE - the worlds most seismically active region in the world (especially with respect to the REALL BIG earth quakes 8+, and on 3/11 Japan was slammed with a 9+ earth quake)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 10:29pm:

Mike Barnard commented on solar towers in Quora: Quote:

The water used in a desperate bid to "cool" these fuel rods has been steadily leaking into the soil and seeping into the nearby Pacific Ocean.
This should come as no surprise. Water is being contaminated at a rate of 400 tons per day in order to keep the superheated rods stable.

So what does this mean to Japan's nervous Pacific neighbours?

If Japan has its way, they won't find out.

Japan's parliament has just adopted a controversial new law on protecting "state secrets".

The law allows government ministers to designate as a state secret information related to defence, diplomacy, counterintelligence and counterterrorism.

It's a definition so vague many suspect it's really aimed at tightening the lid on the increasingly embarrassing state of Fukushima.

How much worse can it get? How bad is it so far? Will it affect those as far away as the United States and Australia?

Here's what we know so far:

Fuel-rod removal challenge

Clean-up workers have begun the process of moving 1533 fuel rods from the raised cooling pool in Reactor 4 of the crippled plant. This is considered a vital task as the weakened structure is likely to topple in any future big earthquake.

If it collapses, the fallout would likely be 10 times worse than that experienced in Chernobyl.

This is why Japan regards the raised level of polluted water spilling into the adjacent harbour to be "acceptable".

The process involves 36 volunteers using a crane to reach down into the pool to pluck the fuel assemblies out of the pond and lift them into a waiting protective cask. These are then trucked to a nearby - more secure - storage facility.

The process is expected to last well into 2014.

And that's just for one reactor.

There are three other reactors needing similar attention.

They have similar numbers of fuel rods. All were running at the time of the tsunami and suffered differing degrees of "melt-down".

Digging these molten cores out of the steel-and-concrete cladding designed to contain this style of disaster will not begin until after 2020.


Read more, it's a long article.

http://www.news.com.au/world/three-years-on-from-japans-nuclear-emergency-the-fa...

Grey wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 11:02pm:


Yes actually it DOES...it's a furnace, not a power generation system..
It is NOT in anyway a set up to produce 'base-load' power it's something that uses power, not a thing that generates it.
'

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 9^th, 2013 at 5:15pm:


Gizmo as I've said and really there's no controversy about it, residential houses can produce more than enough power for their own use. So the 'cant produce base power' argument relates to the enormous draw of industry, in particular furnaces. How can it matter whether furnaces get powered off a grid or simply by focusing solar power directly?

Other than the latter being a hell of a lot cheaper.

December 2013

51 naval personnel serving on the USS Ronald Reagan, which was located just off the coast of Fukushima during the nuclear meltdowns, have been diagnosed with cancer.

Many other personnel have also reported a variety of illnesses and conditions.

The USS Ronald Reagan was basically inside the fall out plume. This vessel is equipped with radiation detection equipment. Once the levels climbed to unsafe levels, the USS Ronald Reagan moved away from the Japanese east coast.

Mr photon,

Sadly that law suit against TEPCO by the Naval personnel of the USS Ronald Reagan, was thrown out of court just the other day.

There is a another attempt at legal action planned for January 2014

The science is in...nuclear is safe...the top climate scientists agree
Anyone who says different is a denier terrorist.

# wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 9:59am:


Not quite sure of the the exact scientific basis and parameters of "It seems to me" and "for mine"...

Well, if it's factual evidence you're after:

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


Even with the major incidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl, Nuclear wins hands down as the safest method of electricity generation.

Also:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/03/climate-scientists-support-nu...

Quote:

Does the death rate for nuclear take into account all the people killed by Godzilla?

Recently released Soviet documents estimate that at least 450,000 people died post Chernobyl fallout (military and civilian deaths).

The NY Academy of Sciences Report on Chernobyl fallout deaths from 1986 to 2003, put the fatality rate at 985,000.

One needs to distinguish between external and internal exposure to radionuclides and ionisation.

There is a Non-Linear zero threshold safety limit for exposure to radiation. And the risk to ones health caused by exposure to external/internal ionising radiation is CUMMULATIVE.

What people need to appreciate and come to grips with is the health risks associated with INTERNAl radiation exposure, as well as the Bio-accumulation of radionuclides in the earths biological and non biological systems.

We know from recent German (Kiks) and French studies that the incident of cancer in Children living near nuclear power stations increases significantly.

There is routine emissions of tritium (H3) which is NOT filtered out of nuclear power station waste water streams and air. Tritium is a small atom which is difficult and expensive to filter. It also has a dangerous half life of 12 years and can linger in the environment for 120 to 240 years.

The Northern Hemisphere has a higher level of radiation than the southern hemisphere. Studies confirm that your risk of cancer and other diseases is lower purely by living in the Southern Hemisphere.

There are many apologists in the mass media and even in Academia and industry that disseminate misinformation and deceptive scientific trickery. Beware of their lies and spin. They are equipped immorally like the Tobacco spin doctors and Global Warming denialist priests

So HOW MANY additional deaths have occurred in the global population since WW2 that can be attributed to the exposure of internal and external radiation?

cheers

Nuclear power is dangerous and must be stopped, meanwhile car driving is much safer and only killed a million people last year 

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 12:24pm:


You keep regurgitating this nonsense.

1. It wasn't the NY Academy of Science Report. It was published by their publishing house but they distance themselves from it. It was a compilation of a number of very questionable and shonky reports.

2. The UNSCEAR have categorically stated that you can't multiply miniscule exposures below background radiation by huge populations to arrive at mortality figures.

3. You can't take every person who dies of cancer and attribute it to Chermnobyl. People die of cancer all the time.

some people in here froth at the mouth and behave like an AGW denialist

Its funny how people can selectively sell out their principles and adherence to rationale to support or refute a cause/concept.

Fortunately its not a common trait amongst genuine scientists.

the battle continues.....

as it must, because the flow of lies is never ceasing

Written by Brian Krans | Published on 28 March 2013

Researchers studying the incident rate of cancer for 20 years after the closing of a nuclear power plant find a noticeable drop in cancer for women, children, and Hispanics.

Cancer and Nuclear Power

Closing a nuclear reactor in California has prevented an estimated 4,319 cases of cancer in the past 20 years, according to a new study released Thursday. Researchers studied the population of the state capitol of Sacramento, an area with more than 1.4 million people living within 25 miles of the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant.................

muso wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 3:47pm:



Thankyou, coming from you that means a lot