On 01/06/2013 07:26, harry wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:32 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 31/05/13 23:33, Brian Gaff wrote: But this is not smoke and mirrors this has a potential danger after all.
Brian

What potential danger would that be then?

You will trip and break your neck falling off Hay Tor in a panic
because you discover its more radioactive than the Fukushima exclusions
zone?



The predicted number of people to die is 4000 due to the Chernobyl
disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...l_Forum_report


It is predicted that *up to* 4000 people will die or suffer early deaths
as a result of the radiation. However:

Known deaths that can be directly attributed to radiation are 47
emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome and 9 children
who died of thyroid cancer. The latter could have been avoided had the
Soviet authorities admitted to the accident sooner and distributed
iodine tablets immediately. There has been no statistically significant
change in the number of cancer deaths in the area to support the estimate.

The estimate is based upon the linear no-threshold model, which is
always used because it gives the worst possible case. However;

The French Academy of Science report in 2005 states: 'In conclusion,
this report raises doubts on the validity of using LNT for evaluating
the carcinogenic risk of low doses ( 100 mSv) and even more for very
low doses ( 10 mSv)'

The Health Physics Society's position stated in 1996 and restated in
2010 is: 'In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health
risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative
estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem (50 mSv) in
one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem (100 mSv) above that received from
natural sources.'

The American Nuclear Society states: 'There is substantial and
convincing scientific evidence for health risks at high dose. Below 10
rem or 100 mSv (which includes occupational and environmental exposures)
risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are
non-existent.'

Taking 100mSv as the threshold will approximately halve the number in
the estimate, as it will only leave the 2,200 early deaths that might
occur among the liquidators, who are estimated to have received doses
averaging around 165mSv. Even those are far from certain. Note that
'early death' includes a fairly high proportion who are statistically
likely to lose a few months off their lives, rather than years.

The same WHO report also found that 'Poverty, “lifestyle” diseases now
rampant in the former Soviet Union and mental health problems pose a far
greater threat to local communities than does radiation exposure.' and
'Persistent myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation have
resulted in “paralyzing fatalism” among residents of affected areas.' In
other words, the fear of radiation is far worse than the radiation itself.

Even including 4,000 deaths from Chernobyl, a one off event that was due
to a design flaw that will never be repeated, nuclear energy is still
the safest form of energy generation by far.

Colin Bignell