Greenwash

[MdB]

The idea that low levels of radiation can be beneficial is not such a strange idea. It is well documented that radiation at 270nm to 290nm is very beneficial at low doses though high doses gives you cancer(*). I could believe that the same thing could apply to other wavelengths including gamma radiation. There are some plausible arguments as to why it would be good for you. I am not sure I am convinced by these arguments but I would not rule them out. Alpha radiation (produced by Radon) on the other hand does a lot more damage so I would find it harder to believe that it was possible for it to be beneficial.

(*) I am of course talking about UV light and the generation of vitamin D in the skin.

 

[tom.harrigan]

biffvernon took issue with my assertion that some studies clain 54 deaths as a direct result of the Chernobyl accident up to 2004, and quite rightly so. I was incorrect, the number is 56.

The specific study was the 2005 report on the accident published jointly by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation. Whatever the final number of deaths turns out to be, it is evidently orders of magnitude less than was initially feared.

If you believe the moon to be made of green cheese hard enough, the facts will never disuade you.

T

 

[biffvernon]

I was incorrect, the number is 56.

LOL - He's even sure it's Stilton.

During a two-day conference in Vienna, the Agency presented a report claiming that ultimately some 4,000 deaths can be expected as a result of the world's worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986. According to the IAEA "fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster," to date. The IAEA study does not cover all of the populations affected by Chernobyl fall-out but merely considers those who received a high radiation dose in the immediate wake of the accident - namely those 'liquidators' drafted in to carry out the immediate clean up of the site.

However, at the IAEA hosted conference another UN body, The World Health Organisation (WHO), produced its own report, showing that the death toll would be over 8,000 if the local population around the stricken reactor where included. WHO also estimates from a study of some 76,000 'liquidators' that 216, and not 50, died by 1998.

Neither UN body takes into account the hundreds of millions of Europeans exposed to low doses of radioactivity as a result of the cloud of contamination which spread throughout Europe from Chernobyl.

Statements from the IAEA that many of the illnesses previously ascribed to Chernobyl fall out in earlier scientific studies can not be attributed to radiation exposure but are simply the consequence of 'stress and irrational fear' are highly misleading and unjustified the international environmental organisation said.

"It is appalling that the IAEA is whitewashing the impacts of one of the most serious industrial accident in human history. It is a deliberate attempt to minimize the risks of nuclear power in order to free the way for new reactor construction," said Jan Vande Putte, Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner.

The IAEA stated at the conference that previous researchers who have estimated the number of deaths in the range of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands have exaggerated the impacts. When questioned about the confusing figures presented at the conference, Mr. Bennet - chair of the Chernobyl Forum - confirmed that "the 4,000 figure was up in the air and was a very rough scoping estimate". The WHO report on which he contributed also confirms that "the actual number of deaths caused by this accident is unlikely to ever be precisely known"

"As we approach the 20th anniversary of the world worst nuclear accident, the victims of Chernobyl deserve more than this shoddy, incomplete and contradictory science. What they need is real science and real solutions to the continued suffering and ill-health brought about by the Chernobyl disaster," said Jan Vande Putte.

More

 

[tom.harrigan]

There's a more recent report at http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/index.html
published by WHO on the health effects of the Chernobyl accident.

It's a bit of a read.

 

[Nemesis]

Hmmmm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4917526.stm

 

[tom.harrigan]

I won't waste too much bandwidth on alarmism in the BBC, vested interests, and so on. The reports by the IAEA and the WHO are there for all to read. It is clear to those who take the time that the actual number of deaths so far, and the number of predicted deaths is a very small percentage of what was initially feared.

The greatest single health effect was the 4000 cases of thyroid cancer in people who were children or adolescents at the time. Fortunately the survival rate is very high, and the half life of Iodine-131 is short.

Am I the only one who likes good news?

T

 

[Nemesis]

Maybe you are the only one who is happy to swallow the line that all is OK. Really good news then for those with thyroid cancer eh?

I tend to view Greenpeace reports with interest.

Wonder what vested interest the BBC News has in this then?

 

[biffvernon]

No, Tom, but you seem very ready to believe what the IAEA says, and then report it as fact. I regard reality to be more complicated.

 

[Nemesis]

Let's remind ourselves who the IAEA is shall we?

Several interesting links on that alarmist BBC site, one of which is:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_04_06_chernobyl.pdf


But hey it's great news that not all those who contracted thyroid cancer died of it.

 

[NT]

Another case of when I get time... I could compare iaea and greenpeace's claims - not that they are comparable


NT

 

[Nemesis]

As could we all.

 

[tom.harrigan]

Why don't we remind ourselves what the World Health Organization is? If you prefer Greenpeace figures over WHO statistics then so be it. The Greenpeace figures obviously suit your prejudice and there's really no point arguing about it. Nevertheless, even though Greenpeace's figures are an order of magnitude larger than those provided by the WHO, they are still an order of magnitude less than was initially feared.

T

 

[Nemesis]

I don't have any prejudice, I am merely pointing out that there are more sides to the situation than you seem to wish to portray.

The BBC has been known to quote the WHO - so maybe I should treat anything it states with distrust?

 

[NT]

The trouble with greenpeace is that whenever they speak some people think its evidence.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

They don't make it all up you know.

 

[NT]

The problems with greenpeace are:
1. they lack even basic subject understanding
2. they are more interested in convincing people that getting real

Which unfortunately makes their claims as valuable as sand, and makes the evidence value of them minimal.

Its a shame for the anti-nuke people that theyre represented by these clowns.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

There are the Good Guys and there are the Bad Guys. The Good Guys try to keep the human species alive and happy on a pleasant planet. The Bad Guys sometimes claim to do the same and may even believe their own nonsense but actually are just out for the me, me, me life.

Wise people can tell the difference between the Good and the Bad Guys.

Sometimes you can tell by the sort of houses they live in.

http://www.lowimpact.org/

 

[Nemesis]

Sweeping generalisations about Greenpeace lacking even basic understanding etc etc and being clowns I'm afraid are not exactly statements to which many thinking people would lend any credence.

You are entitled to your opinion and are entitled to express it, but I'm not entirely convinced by the power of your argument.


http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/


Some interesting stuff on that site. Even some of it about clowns.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/climate-camp-update-send-in-the-clowns-20070819


Maybe I'm just at heart an old eco-warrior. I've been suggesting for ages to some people lashing ourselves naked to historic buildings to stop bulldozers but I see Greenpeace has beaten me to my Spencer Tunick moment:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/warning-this-story-contains-nudity-20070820


Ouch but good on them.

 

[ljn]

nuclear = renewable?
No way. It uses up a finite resource. It produces waste.

Nuclear is a stupid quick fix. Let's not forget that in the article I posted the point is that other countries are meeting the renewable targets and britain isn't. This is wrong. And covering up the fact by manipulating the stats isn't the right solution.

Nuclear is not economically viable if the decomissioning of plants, cleaning up of contaminated land and the disposal of nuclear waste are taken into account.
No one has yet managed to demolish a nuclear powaer plant and make the land safe and usable.

If you complain about the metal & concrete used for wind turbines and that they are ugly - have you ever seen a nuclear power plant?
An imense mass of contaminated concrete and steel.

The idea that they could be run by private companies makes it even worse. Govenment sets up a PFI puts a load of money in and hands it over to a private Company which makes loads of money, then in 10 years the company goes bankrupt and hands the obsolete radioactive mass of steel and concrete back to the government and tax payers pick up the bill.

The reality is that nucleaar power plants are built with no plan beyond their brief productive lifespan.
the structures will remain forever and become more and more of a liability. In 100 or 500 years, will our ancesters be in a position to deal with the crumbling concrete leaking radioactive material? the company that ran it won't be around. Nor rill the government thaat approved them. or the people who used the electricity for 15- 20 years. No as nice heratage to leave. Egyptians left the pyramids, the Romans the Pantheon and viaducts, Capitalism left nucklear power radioactive power plants -oh, and the nuclear bombs as a by product.

Nuclear will haunt our children, our grand children and maybe haunt us when we're older. wind turbines, green roofs, solar pannels, tide mills etc. + a bit of restraint is a much better option.


Sorry for the rant but Nuclear as a agood idea is just stupid.

 

[Nemesis]

Ye I have seen a nuclear plant. I also believe that we should take great care where we site wind 'farms' - or we are in danger of destroying that which we would love to save.

Whre I live, in lovely rural Northumberland, where we rely on tourism to boost the economy, there are a now a number of applications in to build windfarms, with, if these get passed, more in the pipeline.

I think there are other places to put them.

I don't want nuclear either. I agree with what you say about that!