Nuclear Meltdown?
Mar 16th 2011 | 8:33 am
#301
BE Site Lead
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 92,276
From: MA, USA
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
So even in a nuclear meltdown, worse case scenario, all at once, fewer people die from them. Disposal of waste, well it depends on the country, places like Japan, US etc, pretty safe, places like India, I might be a little more worried because of the political instability.
Also, Chernobyl, once you get past the hysteria of it all, only 50 deaths were actually attributed to the plant melting down.
Mar 16th 2011 | 8:39 am
#302
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,517
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
okay that number may be made up, but number of deaths are a lot less....China has about 20K mining deaths a year, else where it's around 5K a year.
So even in a nuclear meltdown, worse case scenario, all at once, fewer people die from them. Disposal of waste, well it depends on the country, places like Japan, US etc, pretty safe, places like India, I might be a little more worried because of the political instability.
Also, Chernobyl, once you get past the hysteria of it all, only 50 deaths were actually attributed to the plant melting down.
So even in a nuclear meltdown, worse case scenario, all at once, fewer people die from them. Disposal of waste, well it depends on the country, places like Japan, US etc, pretty safe, places like India, I might be a little more worried because of the political instability.
Also, Chernobyl, once you get past the hysteria of it all, only 50 deaths were actually attributed to the plant melting down.
Mar 16th 2011 | 8:43 am
#303
Rhino with a big horn!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,117
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
how on earth did you come to that conclusion?
If you're talking about my posts; I said the tie-on facemasks that arent air tight aren't any good. OK, I admit I never mentioned any other type, just assumed everyone would know that other masks that are properly fitted (ie airtight face seal) and have the proper filter cartridges attached do work. My bad. I will be more specific in future. But for the record here on this thread - if you are ever in a nuclear incident please do use a face mask but use the proper one.
Also Rambi please go back and read my post about the iodine tablets. I was talking about people in north america ingesting tablets today. Again my bad for not being more specific that for people currently living in Japan next to the exclusion zone, KI tablets are a good thing.
Nobody in North America is puking their guts up. Well actually probably many are
but not because of radiation sickness from Fukushima 
If you're talking about my posts; I said the tie-on facemasks that arent air tight aren't any good. OK, I admit I never mentioned any other type, just assumed everyone would know that other masks that are properly fitted (ie airtight face seal) and have the proper filter cartridges attached do work. My bad. I will be more specific in future. But for the record here on this thread - if you are ever in a nuclear incident please do use a face mask but use the proper one.
Also Rambi please go back and read my post about the iodine tablets. I was talking about people in north america ingesting tablets today. Again my bad for not being more specific that for people currently living in Japan next to the exclusion zone, KI tablets are a good thing.
Nobody in North America is puking their guts up. Well actually probably many are
but not because of radiation sickness from Fukushima How do you know nobody in North America is puking up? If they've taken iodine tablets then there's a fair chance that it'll make them sick. I made no suggestion that they would be puking up from radiation sickness from Fukushima.
And you did say ...
At the end of the day, I was just taking the piss out of the patronising tone of some of the posts on here. Tis fun to wind up the experts and looks like I've got a couple on the hook with a single post.
Last edited by Rambi; Mar 16th 2011 at 8:46 am.
Mar 16th 2011 | 8:51 am
#304
Rhino with a big horn!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,117
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
It would be interesting to see the figures on that. And I'm not sure how useful it is. It's like saying swimming with crocodiles is more dangerous than swimming with sharks.
Mar 16th 2011 | 10:40 am
#306
Account Open
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,298
From: Brisbane
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Perhaps charlie sheen would agree with you. But I think that bob is simply saying that it's like comparing road deaths, with air crash deaths. One is much more common and has a steady impact over time... an impact that we accept as a daily risk. One is much less common but far more shocking to the public psyche.
Mar 16th 2011 | 10:57 am
#309
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,517
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_...nobyl_disaster
lists 70 killed or severely injured, however even the 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Development Program estimated 4,000 deaths— "a figure that has often been criticized as being far too low and influenced by the IAEA’s pro-nuclear agenda."
http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/Chern...lion-7272.aspx
While the true figure probably lies somewhere between the two above, I think you're being very disingenuous to count only the immediate death toll and also disregard serious health problems.
lists 70 killed or severely injured, however even the 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Development Program estimated 4,000 deaths— "a figure that has often been criticized as being far too low and influenced by the IAEA’s pro-nuclear agenda."
http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/Chern...lion-7272.aspx
While the true figure probably lies somewhere between the two above, I think you're being very disingenuous to count only the immediate death toll and also disregard serious health problems.
Mar 16th 2011 | 11:05 am
#310
Greetings Traveller
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 278
From: Sydney
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
Re the people taking stable iodine miles away - if they think they are at risk from thyroid cancer due to what's happening now then by that logic everyone in the world will have had it already from the releases at Chernobyl, Windscale & atmospheric weapons test, & clearly that has not happened! They could genuinely risk getting a thyroid condition.
Mar 16th 2011 | 11:06 am
#311
BE Site Lead
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 92,276
From: MA, USA
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_...nobyl_disaster
lists 70 killed or severely injured, however even the 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Development Program estimated 4,000 deaths— "a figure that has often been criticized as being far too low and influenced by the IAEA’s pro-nuclear agenda."
http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/Chern...lion-7272.aspx
While the true figure probably lies somewhere between the two above, I think you're being very disingenuous to count only the immediate death toll and also disregard serious health problems.
lists 70 killed or severely injured, however even the 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Development Program estimated 4,000 deaths— "a figure that has often been criticized as being far too low and influenced by the IAEA’s pro-nuclear agenda."
http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/Chern...lion-7272.aspx
While the true figure probably lies somewhere between the two above, I think you're being very disingenuous to count only the immediate death toll and also disregard serious health problems.
Mar 16th 2011 | 11:16 am
#314
BE Site Lead
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 92,276
From: MA, USA
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=ht...human-toll.pdf
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_...l_mining_.html
There are probably much clearer and less biased sources, but literally hundreds pop up when you google.
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_...l_mining_.html
There are probably much clearer and less biased sources, but literally hundreds pop up when you google.
Mar 16th 2011 | 11:21 am
#315
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,517
Re: Nuclear Meltdown?
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=ht...human-toll.pdf
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_...l_mining_.html
There are probably much clearer and less biased sources, but literally hundreds pop up when you google.
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_...l_mining_.html
There are probably much clearer and less biased sources, but literally hundreds pop up when you google.
An interesting comment under the second one:
It's not that a nuclear accident in Japan, France or the USA is impossible. In fact, they have happened. There was Three Mile Island (multiple safety systems failed, core melted, nobody died) and a few people have died in Japan due to mismanagement of radioactive material. But so far, no mass casualties, and as long as the programs are run with as good or better safety compared to what all three have now, chances are it will never happen (well, maybe once every few hundred years if we all go nuts with nuclear power, but it's not much of a risk compared to the benefits of doing so). Especially with newer, safer designs which have already been tested.
Time will tell
