On 19-Dec-16 5:19 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2016 09:39:12 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2016 09:09, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/12/2016 09:05, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 21:02:27 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 17/12/2016 18:42, mechanic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:47:37 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:
There have been deaths from the evacuation, just as there would be
from someone falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
panic.
You think the evacuation was unnecessary? What would have happened
if there was no evacuation? You think everyone should return to
their homes and get on with their lives as before?
Go on then, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THE RADIATION?
Harry won't tell us...
Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself?
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...r-still-affect
s-32-million-japanese
Because to admit that the answer is close to zero would not support
his scare story agenda?
Even solar power kills more people per TWh generated than nuclear.
Tens of thousands of lives have been shortened.
If these people had remained near the zone,there would have been more
deaths/lives shortened.
But they were evacuated and given iodine pills.
That's Chernobyl you're thinking of. Where there were no iodine pills
given. And the WHO estimate is up to 4000 lives "shortened". But no one
knows by how much. And that's over a time period when millions will die
of cancer anyway.
The WHO used the linear no threshold model to come to that conclusion.
They did so intentionally, because it gives the worst case. However,
there is absolutely no evidence of harm from doses below 100mSv and, if
that is taken as the lower limit, the number at any risk at all falls to
around 2,200 clean up workers. However, although radiation induced
leukaemia is known to appear around 2-3 years after exposure and hard
cancers should appear within 20 years, neither have appeared in
statistically larger numbers than they would in the general population.
Drinking and suicide are considered to be much more probably causes of
death among the clean-up workers.
So your numbers for Fuk are cock. As usual.
I think we can safely assume that for anything Harry posts.
--
--
Colin Bignell