Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We should stop running away from radiation

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 130 posts

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#91

Post by lukeschlather »

veidr wrote: post #28

The idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how many died as a result, is frankly idiotic. We do not and never will have such data. This is a pernicious meme that frequently recurs on this board. Reject it. (The Fukushima disaster, on the other hand, has occurred in the open within the context of a reasonably f…

While we can't make claims about totals, I think we can make some sweeping claims about relative harm.

Namely, that taking Chernobyl in its proper context (one nuclear plant out of many) and even taking Fukishima to be an event of similar magnitude, nuclear power plants still present significant advantages over coal from a pain-and-hardship caused per watt-hour generated.

No one's arguing that nuclear power is safe. However, I'd rather have the last unprocessable nuclear waste from a generation of reactors buried in a well-shielded container under my house than live downwind from a coal power plant. Ideally of course I would like neither, but the fact is millions of people live downwind from coal power plants, and that is a much bigger problem than Fukishima. That problem could be mitigated if as those coal plants die they are replaced with modern nuclear reactors. Yes, it will cause other problems, but these will be smaller when taken in aggregate. (Even if they are more dramatic when they happen.)

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#92

Post by JanezStupar »

lispm wrote: post #90
JanezStupar wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree with this last comment. However - I have two major issues with it. 1. You assume that green technocracy is "better" than current technocracy. Or are you proposing that we let hysteric extremist (fascist?) wing of green take over? 2. The largest issue of nuclear power is that people who are declaratively for saving environment block any and all attempts to improve current situation. In this sense - the…

The greens are definitely not fascist. I think you are confusing this. Fascist is the influence of huge corporations over people. Not the influence of people over themselves. Wow, Fukushima is caused by the Greens now? And I though it was caused by a greedy and incompetent company not willing to invest into safety. No company would invest into a newer model. These are extremely expensive. Like 5 billion Euro in weste…

Excuse me. I didn't mean to imply that all greens are fascist. And I also meant Green in the broadest possible sense - as in environmentalists of all denominations. And this context I meant the extremist faction(s) when I said fascist green extremists. Because they only have one agenda: Stop corporations. Stop Nuclear Power. Stop Consuming Carbon power sources. But I don't see an alternative proposal how to deal with everyday human existence in 21st century.

Saying renewables have loads of potential just doesn't cut it.

In US last nuclear power plant has been built in 1977. Something similar holds true worldwide (there haven't been that many nuclear power plants built since then). Nuclear power production is probably THE most regulated industry in the world (and probably state owned a lot). Newer better plants haven't been built since, guess who, didn't allow it. These old reactors should be shut down and replaced, but since coal power plants are also not allowed to be built (by guess whom) and there are only that many rivers you can turn into accumulation lakes (not to mention disastrous effect on environment - species are dying out due to hydro power). World is in this weird deadlock where we are forced to expand lifetimes of these old nuclear power stations, just to keep going.

And I'm accusing you of being disingenious by pretending that current renewable plans won't have adverse side effects. And by pretending that nuclear industry is in its current state due to greed of plant operators.

And you still haven't provided me with an alternative strategy for while we wait for renewables to save us. We have 40 years of burning coal to meet our demands for energy in front of us - whether you accept it or not. We could diminish some of that impact by building safer, better nuclear power plants.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#93

Post by sorbus »

callmevlad wrote: post #35
cperciva wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... children still affected by the Chernobyl disaster. The stories she told of kids powering through cancer would reduce most men to tears. You can go to hospitals anywhere in the world and hear exactly the same stories. Kids get cancer. It sucks, but it's a fact of life. Is there any evidence that these cancers were caused by Chernobyl?

Yes. - Between 1970 and 2001 thyroid cancer incidence rates in Belarus increased from 0.4 per 100 000 to 3.5 per 100 000 among males (+775%) and from 0.8 per 100 000 to 16.2 per 100 000 among females (+1925%). - The relative increases in areas with ‘higher exposure’ from the Chernobyl disaster exceeded those in ‘lower exposure’ areas with marked increases in thyroid cancer incidence rate ratios among both genders and…

By comparison, the total incidence of cancers among males aged 0-14 in SEER areas in the USA (representing 28% of the population, per their website) is 149.5 per million, and for females aged 0-14 is 128.7 per million. Thyroid carcinoma is at 0.9 per million in males, and 2.9 per million in females[1]. So, while they had a higher rate than in the USA even before 1970 (4 per million for males and 8 per million for females), I would be extremely doubtful that the increase in numbers is just due to an increase in diagnosis because doctors are expecting to see cancers.

[1] http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/childhood/adolescents.pd...

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#94

Post by callmevlad »

roel_v wrote: post #63
callmevlad wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. Saying that Chernobyl killed only 43 people is kind of like saying Hitler didn't really kill that many Jews.

Misclicked and really meant to downvote - your argument doesn't make any sense, because you're saying that 43 is not 'a bit' when compared to 6 million. 43 people really is only a small amount, and while it still is horrible for those involved, there are many things that kill many more people daily over which no fuss is made at all.

My point was that Hitler didn't directly kill that many people with his own hands, just like Chernobyl didn't _directly_ cause many deaths. But the consequences of that one accident and that one man went far beyond their _immediate_ impact that can be directly traced back. (In hindsight, I should have picked a different analogy ...)

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#95

Post by callmevlad »

innes wrote: post #87
callmevlad wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I mostly understand the scale of radiation we're currently dealing with in Japan, and it's mostly on the "safer" side. However, my issue is with taking an accident that deformed countless children, caused countless cases of cancer, and in general completely devastated the lives of (hundreds of) thousands of people - and essentially using it in a "How I Stopped Worrying and Love the Bomb" argument to get people t…

Hang on, chernobyl deformed countless children? Countless as in "too many to count", or faultless as in "i can't help indulging in hyperbole".

Countless as in "we don't have the ability to accurately count" ... "immeasurable" would have been more accurate.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#96

Post by sorbus »

stewbrew wrote: post #39

Who is "we"? If the the author speaks for himself, I have no objection against him moving to Fukushima or buying a house close to another nuclear power plant. I'm sure there are people willing to sell and the price for real estate in those areas has most likely dropped considerably in the last few decades.

I wouldn't be so sure about your implication that nuclear power plants reduce property prices: "In each of the seven regions, housing and real estate values have benefited from the operations of the nuclear facilities: total property values, assessed valuations and median housing prices have often increased at rates above the national and state averages. In each local area, housing prices were several times higher than prior to the opening of the nuclear facilities, and there is evidence that in Barnwell, proximity to the nuclear facility may actually increase housing values.[1]"

[1] http://www.misi-net.com/publications/IJNGEE-V1N1-06.pdf

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#97

Post by Tichy »

gommm wrote: post #82
Tichy wrote: post #80

Stopped reading at "more people have died from the Tsunami", which unfortunately was line one. if you want to make an argument about radiation, make it - Tsunamis have nothing to do with it, I don't think they are radioactive.

The blurb at the top is not always written by the same writer as the article... But even with that said, why doesn't it make sense to compare the number of casualties and damages between different accidents? It's a way to put things into perspective. People have in general a rather faulty sense of proportion and understanding of statistics.

A billion people die of old age all the time. That doesn't imply that we shouldn't care about other causes of death.

The Tsunami deaths have nothing to do with radiation. hence they don't belong into an article about radiation.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#98

Post by HelloBeautiful »

daeken wrote: post #24
dkersten wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that they covered up the Chernobyl accident for I can't remember how many days before even bothering to tell the locals that they're in danger. In the nineties, families in the country around where I grew up, here in Ireland, hosted children from Chernobyl every summer, so that they could breath clean air and eat clean food. I've also seen documentaries about birth defects in the years after the accide…

A good friend's wife spent a good bit of time in Belarus recently (well, 2006-2007), primarily assisting children still affected by the Chernobyl disaster. The stories she told of kids powering through cancer would reduce most men to tears. Really amazing what's still going on over there, to this day. The incident at Chernobyl might have occurred in the Ukraine, but it was not the most affected. Sad, even if I am a h…

>> The stories she told of kids powering through cancer would reduce most men to tears.

I've heard a few such stories myself recently. About children in Serbia and west Bulgaria, born around the depleted plutonium bombing.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#99

Post by Ratfish »

cperciva wrote: post #55
code_duck wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 10% chance of getting cancer is not small at all. It's pretty significant - thousands of products and substances have been banned for much less. The chance of getting cancer for current smokers, for instance, is said to be 10-15%. Do you think that tobacco smoke is a really puny carcinogen?

No, I don't think tobacco smoke is a puny carcinogen. Dosage matters. To get that 10% chance of cancer, you need to have what would be an almost certainly lethal dose of acute radiation. It's easy to get cancer by smoking. It's really really hard to get cancer from radiation without giving yourself a lethal acute dose of radiation in the process.

Have you a source for that? I could well believe that the cancer risk is low and obviously is is uncommon for a dose of radiation to be large, but 'comparatively large' doses of radiation are given regularly in hospital catheter labs, CT/PET scanners. And while generally these would be in the 10-20-30 mSv range, for many patients scans are repeated regularly for long time periods, rapidly reaching the 150-500mSv range discussed in the below article. Of course this is a fractionated dose and it would be much more dangerous as a single hit. I cannot find any reference to radiation dose verses cancer risk. Somewhat supporting you is this article which discusses over estimation of dose risk. Interesting discussion too: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc073513

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#100

Post by Ratfish »

cperciva wrote: post #42
callmevlad wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you happen to have a source for this? I'm finding it hard to imagine how a study like this can even take place given that there have (probably) not been many survivors among those who have received a dose of 4 Sieverts.

I don't know of any studies on people with such large doses of radiation, no -- but it's believed that cancer risk from radiation is proportional to the dosage received, and lots of studies have been done looking at populations in areas with higher/lower levels of background radiation.

It should be noted that UNSCREAR use the linear no threshold theory despite the lack of evidence regarding lower doses . Err on the side of safety.
Post reply on HN