Mark wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:38:03 +0100, "LSR" wrote:

mogga wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:32:40 +0100, "LSR" wrote:

"Horizon" on BBC2 yesterday was pretty interesting . Tens of
thousands of deaths were predicted from Chernobyl using the standard
model, which extrapolates from the high exposures of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. In fact there have been well under 100 deaths (I think it
was 47). There has been no increases in leukemia, and the local
wildlife is thriving in spite of constant exposure for 20 years now..

The conclusion was that low radiation exposure was at worst harmless
and might even be beneficial, as certain protective genes are
"turned on".
Was it sponsored by BNFL?
No, by the Chernobyl Forum, "an international organisation of scientific
bodies including a number of UN agencies". Link he
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm

(nb no. of deaths is 56, not 47)

Still, don't let the facts get in the way...

Are we really confident that the death statistics are correct? I'm
sure the authorities there would anxious to minimize the bad
publicity.

Mark
According to the BBC website the data comes from the IAEA ..the
international atomic energy agency or whatever.

DEFRA's own statistics make interesting readings.

50% of all radiation we currently receive is from natural RADON.
14% is from X-rays and other medical stuff.
Cosmic and other natural radiation accounts for most of te est.

Fallout from Chernobyl and nuclear industry sources is utterly trivial
by comparison.