On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 22:11:51 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Mark
Allread scribeth thus

environment€¦radiation that doesn't stop at the West Coast. BioSuperfood
is priceless in that regard." -- Jeff Rense end quote

He the same copywriter for Russ Andrews perchance;?....

More like Rus (single 's')Andrews, see ...

http://www.deceptionartist.com/single.html

On 18-Dec-16 9:48 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.

Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff
like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem.

That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited.

Dont get tsunamis there, stupid.


You really are a thicko aren't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607

That's not a tsunami, stupid.

Trivial to make it immune to floods like that.

They did, in fact, take account of that event in their flood planning.
IIRC, the outer defences will withstand 50% higher water and the
critical systems have their own independent and better defences.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On Sunday, 18 December 2016 09:48:15 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.

Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff
like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem.

That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited.

Dont get tsunamis there, stupid.


You really are a thicko aren't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607

That's not a tsunami, stupid.

Trivial to make it immune to floods like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunam...ure_tsunam is

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18-Dec-16 9:48 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.

Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff
like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem.

That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited.

Dont get tsunamis there, stupid.


You really are a thicko aren't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607

That's not a tsunami, stupid.

Trivial to make it immune to floods like that.

They did, in fact, take account of that event in their flood planning.
IIRC, the outer defences will withstand 50% higher water and the critical
systems have their own independent and better defences.

Yeah, they just stuffed up a bit of the detail and it would have been
completely trivial to make Fukushima completely immune to that
tsunami so they could have just yawned when it happened.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 09:48:15 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.

Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff
like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem.

That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited.

Dont get tsunamis there, stupid.


You really are a thicko aren't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607

That's not a tsunami, stupid.

Trivial to make it immune to floods like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunam...ure_tsunam is

Trivial to make it immune to those too.

Fukushima would have been immune to that one
too, they just ****ed up a bit of the design detail.

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...

Andy

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...

Andy

Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself?
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...llion-japanese

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...

Andy

Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself?
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...llion-japanese


Why not answer the question?

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...

Andy

Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself?
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...llion-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.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.

On 19/12/16 13:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.

some estimate 0, and they have been so far correct.

On 18/12/16 10:33, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 17 December 2016 18:43:47 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...-idUSKBN13Y047

Nuclear is NOT safe or cheap option.

Perfectly safe if you dont do really stupid stuff
like siting it where a tsunami can be a problem.

That's exactly where Hinkley Point is sited.

Dont get tsunamis there, stupid.


You really are a thicko aren't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607

You really are a thicko aren't you?

"A chiselled mark remains showing that the maximum height of the water
was 7.74 metres above sea level"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristo...l_floods,_1607

Now look at what ****ed up Fukushima,

"The tsunami waves reached run-up heights (how far the wave surges
inland above sea level) of up to 128 feet (39 meters)"

http://www.livescience.com/39110-jap...ami-facts.html

On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took
measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were
unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter.
There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure
level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the
natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y

OTOH, around 761 people were identified as having died as a direct
result of the evacuation.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.

So implausible as can be discounted out of hand.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 19/12/2016 12:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took
measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were
unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter.
There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure
level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the
natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y

and to put those figures into context:

https://xkcd.com/radiation/

50mSv being the maximum annual dose permitted for people working with
radio nucleotides.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 19/12/16 15:10, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2016 12:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took
measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were
unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter.
There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure
level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the
natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y

and to put those figures into context:

https://xkcd.com/radiation/

50mSv being the maximum annual dose permitted for people working with
radio nucleotides.



and there being strong evidence that you need over 100mSv in a SINGLE
DOSE to actually measurably increase cancer risks.

On 19/12/16 14:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

I have had more than that from cat scans and angiograms.

The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took
measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were
unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter.
There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure
level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the
natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y

OTOH, around 761 people were identified as having died as a direct
result of the evacuation.

yip. That's the sort of murderous **** harry is.Solar Panels and lack of
reliable electricity kills more people than nukes ever have.

On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


What do they think is going to happen to cause that?

On 19/12/16 16:13, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


What do they think is going to happen to cause that?

Mass alteration of the laws of physics and biology to match the
discredited LNT radiation models.

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...

Andy

Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself?
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...llion-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.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

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.

On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

Because they were evacuated.

On 19/12/16 18:20, harry wrote:
Tens of thousands of lives have been shortened.
Lie.

If these people had remained near the zone,there would have been more deaths/lives shortened.
Lie.
But they were evacuated and given iodine pills.
True. Not that they needed any. i-131 contaminatin was almost non-existent.

"A later, 12 April 2011, NISA and NSC report estimated the total air
release of iodine-131 at 130 PBq and 150 PBq, respectively €“ about *30
grams*"

Wow. Just over an ounce of radioactive iodine.

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.

Just because someone plucks some number out of their arse...

"harry" wrote in message
...
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...

Andy

Are you so thick you can't find out for yourself?
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiatio...llion-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.

That claim is straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.

If these people had remained near the zone, there
would have been more deaths/lives shortened.

Far fewer actually given how many died due to the evacuation.

But they were evacuated

And that killed FAR more than would have died if they hadn't been.

and given iodine pills.

On 19/12/2016 16:22, harry wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

Because they were evacuated.

Harry, that link you gave said that 1700 people were killed as a result
of the evacuation. The number you won't give is now officially one -
that is one person's family has been paid compensation because it is
possible his death was caused by the radiation he received working on
the cleanup. (Possible, not certain)

If I suggested a vaccine against flu, and it killed 1700 people there
would be an outcry - and that's a disease that kills on average 600
people a year. There is no evidence whatsoever that the number of deaths
from Fukushima would have been higher than the 1700 that the evacuation
killed, which means that the fear of radiation - which you share -
killed many more people than the radiation itself.

You need to put these things into perspective.

How many people would die if we relied on coal?
How many people would die if the power goes off one cold January night
when the wind isn't blowing, and the sun doesn't shine?

Andy

On 12/19/2016 1:10 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2016 12:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took
measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were
unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter.
There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure
level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the
natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y

and to put those figures into context:

https://xkcd.com/radiation/

50mSv being the maximum annual dose permitted for people working with
radio nucleotides.


And that is for special cases only, the general figure being 20 mSv.

On 12/19/2016 12:50 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.

So implausible as can be discounted out of hand.


Perhaps someone has added up the global numbers for the next million years.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:50:47 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.

So implausible as can be discounted out of hand.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...ill_ die.html
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/5-y...h#human-health
https://www.techinasia.com/japan-youtube-protest
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11668

On 19/12/2016 17:19, 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.

So your numbers for Fuk are cock. As usual.

The WHO published some quite detailed reports:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../2005/pr38/en/

"The reports estimate for the eventual number of deaths is far lower
than earlier, well-publicized speculations that radiation exposure would
claim tens of thousands of lives. But the 4000 figure is not far
different from estimates made in 1986 by Soviet scientists, according to
Dr Mikhail Balonov, a radiation expert with the International Atomic
Energy Agency in Vienna, who was a scientist in the former Soviet Union
at the time of the accident."

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:50:47 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.

So implausible as can be discounted out of hand.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...ill_ die.html

Just because some ****wit claims something...

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/5-y...h#human-health

Just because some ****wit claims something...

https://www.techinasia.com/japan-youtube-protest

Just because some ****wit claims something...

http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11668

Just because some ****wit claims something...

On 19/12/2016 21:59, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:50:47 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.

So implausible as can be discounted out of hand.


http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...ill_ die.html
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/5-y...h#human-health
https://www.techinasia.com/japan-youtube-protest
http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11668

Someone else who obviously does not read the links they post.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 19-Dec-16 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

Because they were evacuated.


An exercise that directly resulted in the deaths of 761 people who, had
they remained, would still not have received dangerous doses of radiation.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 19-Dec-16 9:59 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:50:47 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 19/12/2016 11:56, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.

So implausible as can be discounted out of hand.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/new...ill_ die.html

Which bases its predictions on the discredited linear no threshold model.

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/5-y...h#human-health

The links from which include information on the benefits of low dose
exposure to radiation.


--
--

Colin Bignell

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

On 20/12/2016 09:55, Nightjar wrote:
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,

It amazes me that people still use LNT for predictions when there is
copious evidence that its hopelessly inaccurate.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 20/12/16 15:31, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:32:03 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:


It amazes me that people still use LNT for predictions when there
is copious evidence that its hopelessly inaccurate.

I have a sneaking idea that the NRPB still uses it as a guiding
principle when setting radiation exposure limits, BICBW.

well yes, that's the whole point.

The industry is held to unbeleivably tight emissions, but they are
totally unnecessary.

And lead to serous public misunderstanding and fear in the face of
radiation levels that are simply not an issue at all.

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/P...ear_Energy.pdf

"Radiotherapy of deep cancers would not be possible if LNT was applicable."

"At Hiroshima and Nagasaki these (bombs) promptly killed at least a
quarter of the population of 429,000. In 1950 when reliable records were
compiled, only 283,000 survivors could be traced, and their medical
health has been followed ever since.

Individual doses have been reconstructed for 86,955, knowing
where they were when the bomb detonated and checked with their
radiation history as recorded by chromosome abnormalities and
unpaired electron densities (ESR) in their teeth. The average whole
body dose was 160mSv from the acute X-ray and neutron flux.
An unknown number of citizens succumbed to ARS and some will have died
of cancer before 1950, but most cancers would be expected in the period
1950-2000 and these data are available. Similar data for inhabitants of
other Japanese cities have been analysed for comparison.

Of those with a reconstructed dose 10,127 died of solid cancers compared
to 9,647 expected from data on other cities; for leukaemia the numbers
are 296 and 203. These numbers mean that overall cancer rates increased
by 1 in 15 due to the radiation. For the 67,794 survivors with doses
less than 100mSv the numbers are 7,657 and 7,595, and for leukaemia 161
and 157. The extra deaths (measure as 62 and 4) are smaller than the
typical random error to be expected statistically (90 and 13), and so
cannot be considered significant measurements at all.

So for these 67,794 people all that we can say is that the cancer risk
is not much more than 1 in 1000. For comparison, the chance of dying in
a road accident in a lifetime varies between 3 and 6 in 1000. So for all
practical purposes there is a threshold of risk at 100mSv - what happens
at lower doses is unmeasurable, even when nuclear bombs are dropped on
two major cities and the health of the survivors is followed for 50 years. "

"The accident at Chernobyl was more than 25 years ago and what happened,
who suffered and how, has been extensively reported in publications by
the World Health Organisation, the United Nations and the International
Atomic Energy Authority. The known loss of life as a result
of radiation exposure includes the 28 firefighters who died of ARS
and 15 children who died from thyroid cancer. They report that there is
no firm evidence for any other loss of life due to radiation, either
individually identified or statistically shown.

"The higher numbers sometimes reported are based on paper calculations
simply multiplying risk coefficients (eg 5% risk of death per Sv) with
low doses rates near natural levels accumulated by many people and added
up over many years. Such coefficients are a feature of the discredited
LNT model. But *even the International Commission for Radiological
Protection (ICRP) that still champions LNT* has cautioned that such
calculations €œshould be avoided€�."

On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took
measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were
unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter.
There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure
level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the
natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y

OTOH, around 761 people were identified as having died as a direct
result of the evacuation.

--
--

Colin Bignell

They had low radiation exposure because they were evacuated.
If they hadn't been evacuated, most would be dead by now.

On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 09:27:26 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

Because they were evacuated.


An exercise that directly resulted in the deaths of 761 people who, had
they remained, would still not have received dangerous doses of radiation.

--
--

Colin Bignell

So why haven't they all gone back?

On 20/12/16 17:47, harry wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

The French Institute for Radiological Protection & Nuclear Safety took
measurements that indicated that, outside the plant, levels were
unlikely to exceed 30mSV/y for the first year and falling thereafter.
There is absolutely no evidence for any adverse effects from an exposure
level below 100mSv/y and people quite happily live in areas where the
natural background radiation can give doses as high as 50mSv/y

OTOH, around 761 people were identified as having died as a direct
result of the evacuation.

--
--

Colin Bignell

They had low radiation exposure because they were evacuated.
If they hadn't been evacuated, most would be dead by now.

Blatant lie.

On 20/12/16 17:48, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 December 2016 09:27:26 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 4:22 PM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2016 12:47:39 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 19-Dec-16 11:56 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:02:25 +0000, 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?

More relevant to ask how many WILL be killed as a result of
radiation exposure. Some estimate 5000.


Only the nutters.

The criteria for the evacuation in the area of Fukushima was an exposure
level of 20mSv/y. Subsequent investigation of 1700 evacuated residents
showed that two thirds had received doses of less than 1mSv/y, 98% had
received doses of less than 5mSv/y, while just 10 people had received
exposures of more than 10mSv.

Because they were evacuated.


An exercise that directly resulted in the deaths of 761 people who, had
they remained, would still not have received dangerous doses of radiation.

--
--

Colin Bignell

So why haven't they all gone back?


Politics.

The Jap government is torn between 'we overreacted. its all a load of
cobblers and we should never have evacuated you ' and 'we will clean
this up so that even the most ardent green idiot will say how well we
have done'

The problem lies with te regulatory regme which s massively
conservervative, and the stupidity of harry ^H^J^H^H^H the public, who
think that any breach of the regulatory regime is a 'disaster'.

To put that into perspective Fukushima was classed as a radiation event
the same level as Chernobyl, the worst possible radioactive release. And
yet no one has died, or will die. Or even get sick, as a result.

More people died at Chappaquiddick...