PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Chernobyl 25 years on: a poisoned landscape
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:48 am    Post subject: Chernobyl 25 years on: a poisoned landscape Reply with quote

Quote:
The Guardian - 27/03/11

As Japan struggles with its nuclear plant crisis, the site of the biggest atomic disaster in history remains a grim, radioactive monument.

Article continues ...

Quote:
In the blast's immediate aftermath, 31 plant operators and firemen died – they were not told the reactor was the cause of the blaze or that radiation levels were lethal – while thousands more people, living on land that is now in Ukraine and Belarus, received doses that undoubtedly shortened their lives, although scientists still dispute the death toll. The World Health Organisation puts it at 4,000; Greenpeace says 200,000.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:28 am    Post subject: Re: Chernobyl 25 years on: a poisoned landscape Reply with quote

Quote:
The Guardian - 27/03/11

Quote:
.... although scientists still dispute the death toll. The World Health Organisation puts it at 4,000; Greenpeace says 200,000.


And An Inspector Calls thinks it's insignificant. Evil or Very Mad
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:31 am    Post subject: Re: Chernobyl 25 years on: a poisoned landscape Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
Quote:
The Guardian - 27/03/11

Quote:
.... although scientists still dispute the death toll. The World Health Organisation puts it at 4,000; Greenpeace says 200,000.


And An Inspector Calls thinks it's insignificant. Evil or Very Mad


Sorry to detain you with a few facts, I know they can get in the way of your many prejudices:

I'm reporting the opinion of the WHO

Quote:
5 September 2005 | Geneva - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.



But of course, those scientists are all liars. And of the 4,000 people who could die of radiation, as it's now 25 years since their exposure that figure becomes very tenuous as they should really have shown symptoms much earlier.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is really rather difficult to predict how many excess deaths from Chernobyl fallout will occur. When an individual dies of cancer it is impossible to tell whether it was because of a radioisotope from Chernobyl, Dartmoor or a cigarette (or something completely different). The epidemiology is so complex that we will never know how many people die from that accident of from Fukushima.

Anyone who puts a definitive figure on these events without the caveat above is probably pursuing some other agenda.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:20 am    Post subject: Re: Chernobyl 25 years on: a poisoned landscape Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
kenneal wrote:
Quote:
The Guardian - 27/03/11

Quote:
.... although scientists still dispute the death toll. The World Health Organisation puts it at 4,000; Greenpeace says 200,000.


And An Inspector Calls thinks it's insignificant. Evil or Very Mad


Sorry to detain you with a few facts, I know they can get in the way of your many prejudices:

I'm reporting the opinion of the WHO

Quote:
5 September 2005 | Geneva - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.



But of course, those scientists are all liars. And of the 4,000 people who could die of radiation, as it's now 25 years since their exposure that figure becomes very tenuous as they should really have shown symptoms much earlier.

In the same period, wind has killed 73 - mostly young men.
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

Of course, that really is a complete lie. Wind has really killed nobody has it Kennie?

The WHO? I suggest you read the following article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Guardian used to be a newspaper with a great deal of integrity . . .

The claimed distortion by the IAEA may well be correct, but the investigating committee for the WHO study was heavily populated with experts having no connection to the IAEA whatsoever.

The report was also the subject of a BBC Horizon programme:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm
Youi might do well to read the resume of the programme's content. The programme gave the impression of a disaster swamped with investigating scientists throughout the time since the accident.

And Biff, I think the original report summary already has an adequate caveat in the phrase "A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago". You obviously need the shouting or a course in comprehension. Otherwise, I suggest you suggest your caveat to Greenpeace and the Guardian.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
2 As and a B



Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 2592

PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Chernobyl 25 years on: a poisoned landscape Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
I'm reporting the opinion of the WHO

Quote:
5 September 2005 | Geneva - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

The clue there to the discreprency is the term "directly attributed," i.e. a clear cause-and-effect link. As we all know, radiation can cause cell damage resulting in birth malformations and cancers, the causes of which are not clinically distinguishable from 'natural' causes, except by epidemiological study. Even then, clusters of cancers, like around Windscale/Sellafield, can be attempted to be denied as being just 'natural variations'.
_________________
I'm hippest, no really.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Chernobyl 25 years on: a poisoned landscape Reply with quote

Aurora wrote:
The WHO? I suggest you read the following article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/who-nuclear-power-chernobyl


Shocking collusion there to cover up what "clean, safe" nuclear does to people. If it was that clean and safe, why would they need an agreement like that? There should always be independent checking on any big organisation.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well it's time to come clean (on the original topic...). My sister-in-law is a medic and has nursed, and given advice about, Chernobyl victims. Which means I have direct, credible, evidence about how widespread the problems are! Erm, in the 2 countries who do any talking. The third one (Belarus) is a bit N-Korea-esque and you don't get to hear much from in there. Chernobyl is near the Ukraine's Belarus border, so a lot of the story won't get heard until/unless Glasnost ever reaches Belarus.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, so what do you think of Mark Peplow's article published in Nature on Monday?

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110328/full/471562a.html

and this

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/280311/full/news.2011.181.html
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
nexus



Joined: 16 May 2009
Posts: 1307

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for those links. How worrying is all this, eh.....?

Quote:
Valeriy Seyda, a deputy director of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, explains that the plant's top priority now is to construct a new confinement shelter for reactor 4 before the sarcophagus becomes too unstable. If it collapses before the new shell is in place, it could throw up a cloud of radioactive particles and expose the deadly remnants of the reactor.
Replacing the rusting tomb

The plan is to build an enormous steel arch adjacent to the reactor and slide it along a runway to cover the building. The arch will reach 105 metres high, with a span of 257 metres — the world's largest mobile structure, according to its designers. It is expected to be in place by 2015 and should last for 100 years. It will enable robotic cranes inside to dismantle the sarcophagus and parts of the reactor. Long-term plans call for finishing the clean-up work at Chernobyl by 2065.

Some of the concrete trenches for the project are in place. But the international Chernobyl Shelter Fund that supports the US$1.4-billion effort still lacks about half of that cash, and the completion date has slipped by almost ten years since the shelter plan was agreed in principle in 2001. One of the key goals of a forthcoming conference — Chernobyl, 25 Years On: Safety for the Future — to be held in Kiev on 20–22 April is to secure more cash commitments from international donors. Meanwhile, Chernobyl is developing long-term storage facilities for the debris that will be hacked out of reactor 4; and for more than 20,000 spent fuel canisters from the site's other reactors, a facility that will cost about €300 million (US$420 million).

Although all those reactors have been shuttered, the plant continues to generate large amounts of radioactive waste — partly because of persistent flooding in some of the waste-storage buildings and reactor 4's turbine hall. Every month, at least 300,000 litres of radioactive water must be pumped out of the structures and stored on site.

Shocked
_________________
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Frederick Douglass
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bet none of that goes on the cost of Clean Nuclear electricity.

I wonder who the donors are?
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Guardian - 01/04/11

Nuclear's green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril

Article continues ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nature wrote:
with the billions that will be spent on remediation at Chernobyl


Those billions are being paid for by international funding. So it seems that the whole world, or a least the richer bits, which I suppose is fair, is paying for the insurance costs of nuclear power. Perhaps that should go on the cost of nuclear electricity so that those who use the most pay the most.

How cheap nuclear now, Inspector? And if you took an average of the 50 deaths quoted by the UN and the nearly one million quoted by the New York Academy of Sciences you would need wind farms to accelerate their rate of killing quite considerably to reach that total in a few thousand years.

What is as horrifying as the Chernobyl death toll itself is the fact that official bodies are trying to cover it up and that people like the Inspector are willing to be accomplices to the fact in order to facilitate the unachievable, perpetual economic growth, the biggest cancer of our time.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Chernobyl 25 years on: a poisoned landscape Reply with quote

foodimista wrote:
The clue there to the discreprency is the term "directly attributed," i.e. a clear cause-and-effect link. As we all know, radiation can cause cell damage resulting in birth malformations and cancers, the causes of which are not clinically distinguishable from 'natural' causes, except by epidemiological study. Even then, clusters of cancers, like around Windscale/Sellafield, can be attempted to be denied as being just 'natural variations'.
The Chernobyl Forum study also covered genetic defects - they were aware of the possibility. And whilst their cause might not be distinguishable it will be possible to detect any change in their rate of occurence. See also the posts in Mobbsey's reply to Monbiot in the News section.

As for cancers round Sellafield being linked to radiation dose from Sellafield - provide a link for that research which provides proof of causality will you? Because the Sellafield perimeter dose rate will be twice **** all of nothing and it is therefore impossible to provide a causal link. Same applies to all of the UK's nuclear power plants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group