Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Somewhere between four thousand and four hundred thousand, depending on your political preference.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

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 ]


Occasional Series