Search Results for: Chernobyl

|

Spirited debate about BEIR VII and Linear No Threshold (LNT) Dose Assumption

ByRod Adams

…e available. Same with iodine, one cancer, plenty of people in the case of Chernobyl. Chernobyl leukemia results show excess cancers. I’m not surprised logic and facts are nonsensical to you. DV82XL “the Japanese assumptions are based on individuals, not averages: More attempts to hide the flimsiness of your argument. The statement doesn’t even make sense within the context of the discussion. At any rate there are several studies that have been do…

| | | |

Fukushima Happened. Now What?

ByRod Adams

…oke and mirrors of the worst sort. John Englert Fukushima was an accident; Chernobyl was not. Chernobyl was deliberately put into a dangerous configuration with multiple layers of safety systems disabled just to allow the political leaders of the former Soviet Union to conduct their idiotic “test” on the plant. Daniel And there are quite a few Chernobyl type of reactors out there. I think Armenia has some. The IAEA inspects the safety of these pla…

| |

Why did gullible reporters promote a student paper about nuclear facility security?

ByRod Adams

…s come in at the 1 to 10 mSv/yr range”.  But we also know this: … as the Chernobyl Forum states, the mental health impact of Chernobyl was “the largest public health problem created by the accident” – a conclusion of great significance for Fukushima[ii]. In particular, this suggests that ideologically-motivated anti-nuclear campaign groups – some of which continue to stir up scientifically unwarranted fear of radiation in the affected Japanese p…

| | | |

UCS is guilty of harming humans by reinforcing fear mongering

ByRod Adams

…uotes as the word suggests it is natural, while it is a mix of natural and Chernobyl generated low level radiation in Bayern (~1000 miles from Chernobyl; caused by the accident). Brian Mays Hey, SuperTroll is back! And he’s brought a link to the same crappy paper that he has been linking to for months now on this site. How utterly predictable! SuperTroll – I realize that your background in science is somewhat lacking, but you should know that just…

Horror films create temporary fake fear from commonplace situations

ByRod Adams

…eal consequences that have been documented to have occurred as a result of Chernobyl, which was one of the very worst possible things that could realistically happen at a nuclear power plant. We must recognize the that most of the health impacts were optional, and imposed by incorrect government edicts. We must encourage our friends in Japan to apply Chernobyl lessons to the events at Fukushima and stop making matters worse by spreading irrational…

|

Why does conventional wisdom ignore hormesis?

ByGuest Author

…yroid cancer incidence in children following the nuclear meltdowns in both Chernobyl and Fukushima, there is evidence even in the more plausible instance of Chernobyl that this putative increase may be an artifact of the new onset of screening. There was no baseline measurement of the rates of such cancers prior to either accident, so any claim of an increase is unfounded, especially in the case of Fukushima. The intense screening for thyroid canc…

| | | | | | | | |

Sad-ending story of EBR-II told by three of its pioneers

ByRod Adams

…Safer for the fossil-fuel interests you’re protecting. Engineer-Poet E.g. Chernobyl alone will take a million lives or more. The radiation levels from Chernobyl are a fraction of those in parts of the world like Kerala and Guarapari where no adverse effects have ever been observed. Read e.g. the NYAS book The NYAS published it.  It did not review it or endorse it.  It happens to be a translation of a bunch of un-reproducible claims, originating i…

|

Butterflies are not human analogs. Radiation not only mutagen released in Fukushima by tsunami

ByRod Adams

…ote Introduction. book, 2006, was co-edited with Dr. Alexey Yablokov “ECRR Chernobyl: 20 Years On” http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobylbook2009.htm the book!! http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/chernobylebook.pdf Spanish http://ciaramc.org/ciar/boletines/cr_bol226.htm “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment” Alexey Yablokov, Vasily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko Contributing Editor, Janette Sherman NY Acade…

|

No more collective dose!

ByGuest Author

…ged human sex odds at birth after the atmospheric atomic bomb tests, after Chernobyl, and in the vicinity of nuclear facilities. (which implies enhanced DNA/gene damage). PubMed did also not miss the earlier, less thorough/solid 1999 publication: European stillbirth proportions before and after the Chernobyl accident by Hagen Scherb etal. May be it was missed by PubMed because it was in a special issue? Bas Jmdesp This “not-indexed by PubMed” may…

|

Petition – Stop wasteful practice of using LNT as basis for illogical regulations

ByRod Adams

…arding congenital malformation with similar groups that got ~10 times less Chernobyl radiation; and with the same situation before Chernobyl in the same district. That delivered the highly significant (p<0,001) results regarding still birth, Down, etc. Your background radiation remark High background radiation implies ~10mSv/a. LNT predicts raised cancer chance of ~0,1% for 10mSv. You need a study group of millions of subjects and a control group…

Low dose radiation doesn’t cause cancer, it helps prevent it
| |

Low dose radiation doesn’t cause cancer, it helps prevent it

ByRod Adams

…orted by Chernobyl Forum report. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf “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…

There Will Be Winners When Ignalina Shuts Down; The Winners Will Not Be Lithuanian Power Customers

ByRod Adams

…substantially modified. In particular it does not suffer the drawbacks of Chernobyl which caused the trouble. Therefore your “another Chernobyl” claim is a scarce tactics inconsistent with facts. The replacement power will be coal, emitting SO2, NOx, particulates, mercury, arsenic, cyanide, benzene, benzyl chloride, methyl chloride, acetaldehyde, toluene, methyl-ethyl ketone, tetrachlorethylene, hydrogen fluoride, and other yummy stuff. However i…

End of content

End of content