On 7 Aug, 20:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:
On 07/08/2010 16:21, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll
from
Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths

I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about
100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.

My claim has about as much value as that made by (some unknown numpty)
at the WHO.

The WHO estimate is based upon the number of people who suffered from
thyroid cancer as a direct result of exposure to radiation. While all
but nine recovered, the probability is that the majority will have a
reduced life expectancy. However, the real point was that, even
including the highest number of deaths that anyone can come up with,
nuclear power still comes out as by far the safest form of energy.

Colin Bignell

In the latest New Scientist there's an article about the effect of
radiation on health. Well worth reading. In summary single large doses
are invariably bad for you. Slightly smaller doses spaced out to allow
the cells to recover (as in radio-therapy) need not be bad. Lower level
up to about 1000 times current 'safe levels' seem to do little or no
harm. Our cells have evolved with an ability to recover from background
and cosmic radiation. Once the initial high levels of radiation fell
away in Nagasaki the population actually turned out to have only
slightly higher levels of illness than similar cities elsewhere in Japan.

Got a link for that?

Cant find it on the new scientist site.



Peter Scott- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You probably won't. It's ********.