NationStates Jolt Archive

A strange little article. A few snippets:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,519043,00.html
Enveloped in a permanent atmosphere of fear -- with intelligence agents in black coats constantly hurrying through the hallways -- about 150 men would lift the warm, spent fuel elements from the reactors and carry them to the radiochemical plant.

There, in a long brick building, workers, including many women, sat in a dimly lit environment and placed the encrusted rods into nitric acid, triggering a process that allowed them to remove the weapons-grade plutonium. While the same work was performed with remote-controlled robotic arms in the West, the Soviet workers were not even given masks to wear. There was nothing to stop plutonium gases from entering their lungs.

And yet the amount of health damage sustained by these workers was astonishingly low. The GSF study has examined 6,293 men who worked at the chemical plant between 1948 and 1972. "So far 301 have died of lung cancer," says Jacob. "But only 100 cases were caused by radiation. The others were attributed to cigarettes."

A series of X-ray tests was conducted, and police officers were assigned to guard the river. "We could only see the river through barbed wire or from a small wooden bridge," says a former resident. By 1960, 22 villages had been evacuated.

From the standpoint of Russian citizens' groups, which are currently suing for compensation in the courts, these official steps were half-hearted. In their view, the plant management committed "atomic genocide" against the ethnic Tatars living in the area.

But as the analyses show, even this accusation is exaggerated. The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) studied 29,873 people who lived along the Techa between 1950 and 1960. According to the NCI scientists, only 46 deaths came about due to radiation exposure.

In Hiroshima, on the other hand, radioactivity claimed surprisingly few human lives. Experts now know exactly what happened in the first hours, days and weeks after the devastating atomic explosion. Almost all of Hiroshima's 140,000 victims died quickly. Either they were crushed immediately by the shock wave, or they died within the next few days of acute burns.

But the notorious radiation sickness -- a gradual ailment that leads to certain death for anyone exposed to radiation levels of 6 Gray or higher -- was rare. The reason is that Little Boy simply did not produce enough radioactivity. But what about the long-term consequences? Didn't the radiation work like a time bomb in the body?

To answer these questions, the Japanese and the Americans launched a giant epidemiological study after the war. The study included all residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had survived the atomic explosion within a 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) radius. Investigators questioned the residents to obtain their precise locations when the bomb exploded, and used this information to calculate a personal radiation dose for each resident. Data was collected for 86,572 people.

Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:

87 died of leukemia;
440 died of tumors;
and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.
In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born.

Such statistics have attracted little notice so far. The numbers cited in schoolbooks are much higher. According to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, 105,000 people died of the "long-term consequences of radiation."

Especially surprising, though, is that the stories of birth defects in newborns are also pure fantasy. The press has repeatedly embellished photos of a destroyed Hiroshima with those of deformed children, children without eyes or with three arms. In reality, there hasn't been a single study that provides evidence of an elevated rate of birth defects.

A final attempt to establish a connection is currently underway in Japan. The study includes 3,600 people who were unborn fetuses in their mothers' wombs on that horrific day in August 1945. But it too has failed to furnish any evidence of elevated chromosomal abnormality.

Officially 47 people -- members of the emergency rescue crews -- died in Chernobyl from exposure to lethal doses of radiation. This is serious enough. "But overall the amount of radiation that escaped was simply too low to claim large numbers of victims," explains Kellerer.

The iodine 131 that escaped from the reactor did end up causing severe health problems in Ukraine. It settled on meadows in the form of a fine dust, passing through the food chain, from grass to cows to milk, and eventually accumulating in the thyroid glands of children. About 4,000 children were afflicted with cancer. Less well-known, however, is the fact that only nine of those 4,000 died -- thyroid cancers are often easy to operate on.

Would this make a difference to the way you see nuclear power, nuclear waste and maybe even nuclear war?

Would this make a difference to the way you see nuclear power, nuclear waste and maybe even nuclear war?I like the way they're saying that cancer is ok, so long as it can easily be operated on. When the author buys a vacation home in Chernobyl, let me know and I'll reevaluate my position.

I like the way they're saying that cancer is ok, so long as it can easily be operated on. When the author buys a vacation home in Chernobyl, let me know and I'll reevaluate my position.
I think the point is that there is a bit of a hype that was developed around radioactivity. You're pretty damn certain to die if you walk into a reactor core and actually get yourself lethal doses - but even if there's an accident at a nearby power plant the world won't end any more than if there is an accident at a chemical plant.

I think the point is that there is a bit of a hype that was developed around radioactivity. You're pretty damn certain to die if you walk into a reactor core and actually get yourself lethal doses - but even if there's an accident at a nearby power plant the world won't end any more than if there is an accident at a chemical plant.True, however chemical spills, while still very difficult to clean up, are easier to mop up than radioactive contamination. And 4000 cases of cancer... That's somewhere between three and four thousand family tragedies, even if only nine of them died.

Sure, radioactivity isn't necessarily deadly unless you ingest it, but when you do, you're guaranteed a slow and painful death.

Sure, radioactivity isn't necessarily deadly unless you ingest it, but when you do, you're guaranteed a slow and painful death.
See, that's the thing. These kids did ingest radioactive materials through thinks like cow milk. But far from being guaranteed to die, they had a 99.775% chance of surviving after an operation.

It's just that the popular belief in the deadliness of radioactivity doesn't seem to be backed by the data. But that popular belief is the major reason that nuclear energy is not as strongly considered in the fight against climate change and environmental degradation as it should be.

True, however chemical spills, while still very difficult to clean up, are easier to mop up than radioactive contamination. And 4000 cases of cancer... That's somewhere between three and four thousand family tragedies, even if only nine of them died.

But if they'd been prompter with handing out the iodine tablets then far fewer of those kids would have got cancer in the first place and possibly none would have died. You can't say the same thing for comparable accidents at chemical plants which have killed thousands with clouds of varied nastiness.

These stats at the beginning concentrate on deaths.

How many people of those people developed cancer but were successfully treated?

The figures for Chernobyl - er 4000 childhood cancers - i don't think that is acceptable. That's 4000 children without a thyroid relying on artificial thyroxine for life. Oh and that's the Ukraine - what about neighbouring former USSR states who's children were also affected but who now live on the other side of a pencil line on a map so are not counted?

See, that's the thing. These kids did ingest radioactive materials through thinks like cow milk. But far from being guaranteed to die, they had a 99.775% chance of surviving after an operation.Contaminated milk isn't the same as ingesting radioactive material. Litvinyenko was not so fortunate.

It's just that the popular belief in the deadliness of radioactivity doesn't seem to be backed by the data. But that popular belief is the major reason that nuclear energy is not as strongly considered in the fight against climate change and environmental degradation as it should be.It's not necessarily the lethality of the radioactivity that's the issue, but the fact that you can't see whether the milk, mushrooms, or what have you is contaminated. It's the fact that it can cause cancer and disabilites and that there isn't really much you can do to prevent it besides move away.

I'm a lot less skeptical of the safety of most nuclear power plants than my fellow environmentalists (albeit recent events in Europe have been a cause for alarm). However the sheer length of time that we have to deal with the repurcussions of nuclear waste and accidents makes it a less than desireable option. Storing the waste is going to be something we'll be dealing with for millenia, in some cases.

The damage of the Exxon-Valdez disaster is slowly being remediated, but Chernobyl is going to be uninhabitable for a long, long time.

But if they'd been prompter with handing out the iodine tablets then far fewer of those kids would have got cancer in the first place and possibly none would have died. You can't say the same thing for comparable accidents at chemical plants which have killed thousands with clouds of varied nastiness.Depends on the chemicals. I'm not particularly fond of those that can cause more damage than nuclear accidents, so I'm not going to bother defending them.

So.. the nukes were nothing more than a human experiment. Sickening. There may be some hype around radiation .. I do not know, haven't researched it myself. But the reason for the dropping is obvious.. testing. Pretty shitty when we don't need this in the first place. Tested on our own .. but they needed a more massive scale.

I smell a rat.

Thank you for clarifying this, another good reason to use nuclear weapons, nuclear power, uranium shells, etc.

shame most fail to see that the only way for our species to survive is not only to save our environment by using cleaner energy sources than the ones we use now, such as nuclear power, but more so if we want to stay on top of the food chain we naturally must make ourselves our natural enemies. 90% of humanity's problems would be solved if the worlds population would be cut in half.

This world of environmentalists, animal rights activists, rainbow huggers and boy lovers could use some more nuclear bombs dropped in my humble opinion.

Please send the guys that invade your country some letters they shouldnt. It helps, maybe, not.

now please enjoy my artistic side.

sending lettter ------> |---------invading-----------------------|

:D.................................................:sniper:
..:p..................................:mp5:
:D.....................................:mp5:
:p..................................................................:sniper:
.:D...................................:mp5:

Would this make a difference to the way you see nuclear power, nuclear waste and maybe even nuclear war?

There was a "Horizon" documentary on the Beeb a while back that said much the same thing as this.

While it might mellow one on Nuclear power, the bomb is still just too horrific to start contemplating. Personally, I find it all somewhat confusing, considering the terror with which radiation in society has been regarded for most of my existence.

See, that's the thing. These kids did ingest radioactive materials through thinks like cow milk. But far from being guaranteed to die, they had a 99.775% chance of surviving after an operation.

No, the thing is 4000 people got cancer. Operability is wholly irrelevant.

First of all, cancer cases for hiroshima were worse in the 1950s, not sixty years after. Second of all, I have scientific data in a book concerning Hiroshima and Nagasaki that put the death toll from leukemia alone at 9.3%, which would be around 14000 cases and not 87. These were deaths, not just cases. Most who would die, would die within two weeks, because the effect was essentially like AIDS, except short-term - if you could survive four weeks, chances were you'd live much longer.

From a book written by scientists, I might add.

I think the error the article makes is assume that radiation deaths must necessarily be long-term. It's quite the opposite: if you get a high dose of radiation, you will die within a week or two.

Another assumption the article makes is that burns cannot be caused by radiation. There is a reason why we have something called radiation burns

Edit: Finally, the article does not cite its sources. I would trust Wikipedia over this any day, if only because wiki provides sources.

I like the way they're saying that cancer is ok, so long as it can easily be operated on. When the author buys a vacation home in Chernobyl, let me know and I'll reevaluate my position.

There have been 57 direct deaths from the Chernobyl disaster: 47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer.

but even if there's an accident at a nearby power plant the world won't end any more than if there is an accident at a chemical plant.

Looking at Bhopal and the Union Carbide incident... it was pretty much the end of the world there.

it doesnt change my mind about nuclear bombs. they are far more powerful today than they were when used on japan.

i think that there could well be a good disposal method for nuclear power plant waste that wouldnt endanger the public and future generations. but in the US the hurdles for nuclear power are too high for any new plants to be built in the foreseeable future.

i love the pictures from the first atomic bomb tests. http://www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/TrinitySite/tpixind.htm

there are pictures of men getting their pics taken at the site after the first test http://www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/TrinitySite/trinitypages/jum3.htm

pictures of men carrying (half) the radioactive core at crotch height http://www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/TrinitySite/trinitypages/core.htm

and of course pictures of the first test itself. http://www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/TrinitySite/trinitypages/blst2.htm

The damage of the Exxon-Valdez disaster is slowly being remediated, but Chernobyl is going to be uninhabitable for a long, long time.


Chernobyl Area Becomes Wildlife Haven
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060701315.html

Actually, we've known for some time that a single, non-prolonged exposure to even relatively high levels of radiation isn't especially dangerous.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki blast zones were extensively studied, and the people exposed to those (and other) blasts and incidents were tracked and their eventual fates observed.

Provided you don't get a Gray 6+ exposure, the chances are quite good that you will not suffer severely from radiation exposure. At Gray 6 level and above, your bone marrow and the productive glands of your blood supply can no longer cope; they go into overdrive, trying to replace your rapidly dting blood cells, and are themselves weakened to the point that they soon simply shut down. Death is then certain.

The real threat of radiation is prolonged exposure. Low level exposure is unlikely to have any symptoms at all, until it's too late. And the body repairs cellular damage caused by radiation very slowly - so if you get a major exposure, but not enough to kill you, a relatively minor exposure ten years later could be enough to be fatal.

If you glow in the dark you never need a flashlight. :)

Radiation isn't dangerous, except in high levels... I spent several years working within spiting distance of an operational nuclear reactor, and received less of a dose of radiation than someone who spends their summers tanning on the beach.

I think the thread should have been called "Is Radiation really that deadly?" Proving that it tends to give people cancer rather than kill them hardly makes it benign.

I think the point is that there is a bit of a hype that was developed around radioactivity. You're pretty damn certain to die if you walk into a reactor core and actually get yourself lethal doses - but even if there's an accident at a nearby power plant the world won't end any more than if there is an accident at a chemical plant.

True enough, but neither is it true that "chemicals are not really that dangerous."

It entirely depends on the dosage level.

For example, consider the kind of radiation you're exposed to on a daily basis. Microwaves from mobile phone systems. Elecromagnetic fields from anything that consumes power. Natural background radiation from the bedrock and even from the walls of your house. Not really dangerous at all.

To illustrate this point: I used to work in a chemistry lab, where we routinely handled both natural uranium and depleted uranium. We had a geiger-counter to check the radiation levels. The walls of our laboratory (made of breeze-blocks) actually registered more radiation than even the natural uranium.

Hospitals regularly use radiation sources for diagnostic purposes. X-rays (whether from a 100 year old x-ray machine or a modern CAT scanner) are considered safe. More to the point, they are necessary to diagnose illnesses, so more people would die without them.
Gamma-ray sources which are used to kill off cancer tumours are however very dangerous. This is why they are kept in lead-lined rooms, usually in the basement of the hospital, and have very strict safety procedures applied to them. But still, they save a lot of peoples lives from cancer.

Consider another source of radiation: nuclear weapons testing. This spreads highly radioactive fission products into the stratosphere, which carries the resulting fallout everywhere in the world. A great deal of research was done in the 1960's to determine just how dangerous this is. The results eventually showed that for every bomb let off, the fallout would kill on average ten people. So it's probably a good thing that nuclear weapons testing is no longer allowed.

Now lets consider the highest possible levels of radiation. People have mentioned the Chernobyl accident, where the core of the reactor overheated, melted and exploded. The firefighers and other workers who dealt with the immediate aftermath (who were exposed to the reactor core) all died of radiation sickness within a week.

Even that isn't the most severe radiation source. The most dangerous radiation of all is produced by particle accelerators such as the super proton synchrotron at CERN. These machines are built underground for a very good reason. Every time they are operated, everyone has to be evacuated from the tunnels. This is because of the "synchrotron radiation" - intense and very powerful gamma-rays - produced when the machine is in operation. If you are exposed to this for as little as ten minutes, then you have only a 50% chance of surviving the next 24 hours. It really is deadly.

Has that answered the question?