Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 07:54:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
4000 from Chernobyl? And over half of those were directly involved in the clean-up?

How do we apply that to the Fukushima incident?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 08:07:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dunno - ask the WHO.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 08:09:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, by "Yes" you mean "No"?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 08:10:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you have any proper science to argue otherwise, let's see it.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 09:04:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd forgotten this, from that report: "Poverty, "lifestyle" diseases now rampant in the former Soviet Union and mental health problems pose a far greater threat to local communities than does radiation exposure."
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 08:09:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, the WHO/IAEA/UNDP numbers are far from being free of bias and politics. The often touted 4,000 number is actually a sub-sum of one category of victims who died due to one category of disease, there are larger numbers in that study alone; while there is no attempt at a true total estimate, and that not due to a total lack of research. Back in 2006, I wrote a whole diary about a critique of the 4,000 number and a review of research not previously available in English under the title Chernobyl's Downplayed Victims. Back then, in a separate Greenpeace-supported study by Russian Academy of Sciences scientists, a total of 212,000 deaths in Europe was estimated. Since then, a group led by another Russian Academy of Sciences scientist did an update and the New York Academy of Sciences published it in English, with a foreword written by a member of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences for further emphasis on new sources, under the title Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (which I mentioned in a Fukushima thread). Their ultimate estimate is 1 million, though most of the extra comes from (low confidence) low mortality rate estimates for other continents.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 12:25:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So the current best answer available to us is that we have no idea how many Chernobyl will kill and less idea how many Fukushima will kill?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 12:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Somewhere between four thousand and four hundred thousand, depending on your political preference.

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 01:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Make that 'somewhere between 9,000 plus and one million', and 100,000 would be a more realistic lower bound. (9,000 is the number deep in the WHO etc. study of which only a sub-total made it into the press release.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 02:04:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The high numbers are quite remarkably bad science, tough. Ive read what I can find in languages I understand, and.. eh, they ring every bell that gets set off when I read climate change denialist tracts, and they ring them hard. I have to classify some of them as deliberate attempts at deception, because nobody is that stupid and that clever at once.

 Good epistomology on it is however honestly very difficult, because chernobyl was located in the industrial heartland of the SU, which means it is horrifically polluted, chemically. The citizenry in those parts can be expected to suffer elevated rates of just about anything, with or without radiation, and we have no hard data on how radiation interacts with chemical toxicity in general. - We know that it is a very bad idea for radiation workers to smoke, but beyond that- nada.

The fatality numbers for fukushima are much more reasonably predictable, tough. And And while not zero, the main cause of death is not radiation, it is relocation stress.  - a lot of people got moved, and some of them were not in the best of health.

by Thomas on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 04:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well in science no number is certain. My point was that there is much more research out there that commonly assumed.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 02:00:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We also have no idea if neutrinos travel faster than light, exactly how much higher or lower the temperature of the earth will be a century from now, or if evolution is any more than a theory.

But - you know - so what?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jan 9th, 2012 at 02:13:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series