I wonder, maybe someone can answer: why is Chernobyl still remembered while nobody talks about Fukushima anymore?
Chernobyl was a lot more serious? Fukishima hasn't killed anyone [1] where as Chernobyl killed at least 40 people directly [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disas... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_dis...
One was in 1986 and the other in 2011, so I would expect the safety to be better in the second one. Both were INES Level 7. And Fukushima hasn't killed anyone... yet.
I wonder, maybe someone can answer: why is Chernobyl still remembered while nobody talks about Fukushima anymore?
Chernobyl was a lot more serious? Fukishima hasn't killed anyone [1] where as Chernobyl killed at least 40 people directly [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disas... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_dis...
I am pretty sure Fukishima and Chernobyl will be considered equal especially since Fukishima is ongoing and will be for years. The water contamination will be very significant.
This lady reminds me of Tarkovsky's Stalker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalker_(1979_film) There was a very interesting documentary on PBS a month or two back about the 'Radioactive Wolves' of Chernobyl. Bottom line: they don't seem any more or less healthy than other wolf populations in the region, but do well because nobody hunts them.
Or better yet, Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky brothers which the film was based on.
But this doesn't have anything to do with radiation
Don't think I'd be quoting Madame Curie, if I were her.
Why not? I'm assuming you're implying that Marie Curie's research shortened her life. Marie Curie lived until age 66 in 1934. Life expectancy according to this (http://ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-stati...)
random google search for 1935 in France was 58.09. This means that Marie Curie's life was 113% longer then usual for her time. The current life expectancy in the USA is 78.74 according to the top google result, so if it helps you can think of her as living to about 89 in our terms. In other words despite her research she had a long fruitful life. I wish I had the chance to make as great an impact on the world as she did.
This lady reminds me of Tarkovsky's Stalker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalker_(1979_film) There was a very interesting documentary on PBS a month or two back about the 'Radioactive Wolves' of Chernobyl. Bottom line: they don't seem any more or less healthy than other wolf populations in the region, but do well because nobody hunts them.
I remember seeing a documentary like that on Finnish TV a couple of years back, but it wasn't just about the wolves - it included other animals too. They seem to be doing very well. Do you happen to remember the name of the documentary? It sounds very interesting.
Perhaps they do well, because the radiation kills off the weak ones relatively quickly (compared to other habitats), and thus the remaining population is actually stronger over time. For humans, that doesn't happen because we try to cure those afflicted which would've otherwise have been "naturally selected out", and so weakens the gene pool over time.
I live in a city in Brazil where there was a very grave cesium leak, and two people involved in the incident ended up eating a cesium sandwich, including a little girl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goiânia_accident#Ivo_and_his_da...
I understood that the two people ate a sandwich and a little girl. I'm glad that wasn't the case. This part seemed quite crazy, though: "She was buried in a common cemetery in Goiânia, in a special fiberglass coffin lined with lead to prevent the spread of radiation. Despite these measures, there was still a riot in the cemetery where over 2,000 people, fearing that her corpse would poison the surrounding area, tried…
I find it very understandable for people to be wary of radiating materials being brought into a sacred place, not trusting the promises of safety, if the reason was a radiation accident in the first place.
Chernobyl was a lot more serious? Fukishima hasn't killed anyone [1] where as Chernobyl killed at least 40 people directly [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disas... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_dis...
One was in 1986 and the other in 2011, so I would expect the safety to be better in the second one. Both were INES Level 7. And Fukushima hasn't killed anyone... yet.
There was no "yet" with Chernobyl. People died within weeks.
Don't think I'd be quoting Madame Curie, if I were her.
Why not? I'm assuming you're implying that Marie Curie's research shortened her life. Marie Curie lived until age 66 in 1934. Life expectancy according to this ( http://ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-stati... ) random google search for 1935 in France was 58.09. This means that Marie Curie's life was 113% longer then usual for her time. The current life expectancy in the USA is 78.74 according to the…
Life expectancy is a tricky statistic to use correctly, because it is significantly dragged lower due to the high rate of death in birth / infancy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy ). Once that hurdle is gotten over, your life expectancy increases dramatically, so it's not sure as to whether or not Curie actually lived a long life compared to contemporary adults.
Considering that we know that Curie's death was caused by longterm exposure to radiation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie#Death ), you could reasonably expect her to have lived a much longer life without such exposure.