Award Winning Documentary - Nuclear Eternity

airscotty

I would highly recommend watching this documentary about nuclear waste.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/nuclear-eternity/4od#3184793

"In the few decades since the first nuclear reactors were built, more than 250,000 tonnes of radioactive refuse have been produced, which will remain hazardous to human life for at least 100,000 years.
Deep underground in Finland, Onkalo, a gigantic and impenetrable repository is being built to store Finnish nuclear material in the coming millennia. Building began in the 20th century and will be completed in the 22nd........."

djpbarry

airscotty wrote: »

I would highly recommend watching this documentary about nuclear waste.

Could you offer an opinion on the film and/or summarise its content?

easychair

airscotty wrote: »

I would highly recommend watching this documentary about nuclear waste.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/nuclear-eternity/4od#3184793

"In the few decades since the first nuclear reactors were built, more than 250,000 tonnes of radioactive refuse have been produced, which will remain hazardous to human life for at least 100,000 years.
Deep underground in Finland, Onkalo, a gigantic and impenetrable repository is being built to store Finnish nuclear material in the coming millennia. Building began in the 20th century and will be completed in the 22nd........."

"Radioactive refuse" sounds so emotive. So what if 250 000 tons have been "produced"? What harm is it doing underground? Have you considered how beneficial many of those radioactive isotopes, which are included in your 250 000 tons, in curing and attempting to cure human beings of cancer through both chemotherapy and radio therapy? Have you considered how many tons (probably billions) of CO2 have been saved by producing electricity by nuclear power?

In face, have you any arguments at all?

user1842

easychair wrote: »

"Radioactive refuse" sounds so emotive. So what if 250 000 tons have been "produced"? What harm is it doing underground? Have you considered how beneficial many of those radioactive isotopes, which are included in your 250 000 tons, in curing and attempting to cure human beings of cancer through both chemotherapy and radio therapy? Have you considered how many tons (probably billions) of CO2 have been saved by producing electricity by nuclear power?

In face, have you any arguments at all?

What about the costs involved in decommissioning Nuclear plants?

What about the costs involved in storing the waste for a 100 years?

What about the C02 cost off all the concrete for the plants and the waste sites?

The problem is that Nuclear is a great short term solution but a rubbish long term solution.

Its classic short term human thinking.

easychair

dmclean1842 wrote: »

What about the costs involved in decommissioning Nuclear plants?

They are quite high, I am led to believe. Have you a view?

dmclean1842 wrote: »

What about the costs involved in storing the waste for a 100 years?

I have no idea how much it costs to store nuclear waste for 100 years. Have you?

dmclean1842 wrote: »

What about the C02 cost off all the concrete for the plants and the waste sites?

.

I expect it is similar to the concrete used in fossil fuel stations. I’m not sure what your point is here, but if you are trying to say that the CO2 cost of the concrete used in a nuclear power station is more than the CO2 saved over the life of that station as compared to the concrete CO2 cost of a fossil fuel plant plus the CO2 emitted over the life of a fossil fuel plant, then I can’t see anyone agreeing to that claim.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

The problem is that Nuclear is a great short term solution but a rubbish long term solution.

.

Is oil not a rubbish long term solution? Or is coal a rubbish long term solution? Is gas? And so on

The OP was implying that the storage of Nuclear waste is a problem, and that is manifestly not true. It’s not leaked, or killed anyone and, to the contrary, has saved many, many lives due to it being reprocessed and turned into radioactive isotopes used for the treatment of cancer in humans.

user1842

easychair wrote: »

They are quite high, I am led to believe. Have you a view?



I have no idea how much it costs to store nuclear waste for 100 years. Have you?



I expect it is similar to the concrete used in fossil fuel stations. I’m not sure what your point is here, but if you are trying to say that the CO2 cost of the concrete used in a nuclear power station is more than the CO2 saved over the life of that station as compared to the concrete CO2 cost of a fossil fuel plant plus the CO2 emitted over the life of a fossil fuel plant, then I can’t see anyone agreeing to that claim.



Is oil not a rubbish long term solution? Or is coal a rubbish long term solution? Is gas? And so on

The OP was implying that the storage of Nuclear waste is a problem, and that is manifestly not true. It’s not leaked, or killed anyone and, to the contrary, has saved many, many lives due to it being reprocessed and turned into radioactive isotopes used for the treatment of cancer in humans.

I not anti nuclear put its impossible to find accurate costs of how much it will actually cost to store the fuel for 100 years.

Nuclear plants require a lot more concrete than coal/gas plants (shielding).

Nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity.

I classify nuclear as non-renewable, all non-renewable are short term solutions.

Also can you guarantee waste confinement for 100 years? Governments change,wars happen, people forget.

Tiny scale research reactors can supply all the medical isotopes needed.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

I have no idea how much it costs to store nuclear waste for 100 years.

You don't think that's a problem?

easychair wrote: »

I expect it is similar to the concrete used in fossil fuel stations.

I doubt it, given the high levels of shielding that reactors require.

easychair wrote: »

The OP was implying that the storage of Nuclear waste is a problem, and that is manifestly not true.

I would say that storing a hazardous substance indefinitely represents a problem (or at least a headache), wouldn't you?

easychair wrote: »

It’s not leaked, or killed anyone and, to the contrary, has saved many, many lives due to it being reprocessed and turned into radioactive isotopes used for the treatment of cancer in humans.

How many lives have been saved in such a manner?

easychair

dmclean1842 wrote: »

I not anti nuclear put its impossible to find accurate costs of how much it will actually cost to store the fuel for 100 years.

Nuclear plants require a lot more concrete than coal/gas plants (shielding).

.

The costs of most forms of power are unlikely to be accurately quantified, especially if we try to predict into the future. I’m not anti any form of power, and even if nuclear power plants require more concrete, over the life of a power plant its pretty insignificant, especially when your point was the CO2 cost of the concrete, bearing in mind the amount of CO” produced by a nuclear plant vs an oil, coal or gas plant, is a fraction of one percent.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity.

I classify nuclear as non-renewable, all non-renewable are short term solutions.

.

Cost isn’t the only consideration (although it is important) and reliability is arguable more important than cost. I’d agree that Nuclear is non renewal, although wouldn’t like to be dependant on renewables for a continuity of supply.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Also can you guarantee waste confinement for 100 years? Governments change,wars happen, people forget.

Tiny scale research reactors can supply all the medical isotopes needed.

No one can guarantee anything for 100 years, and I can’t even guarantee that the rotors on windmills somewhere won’t shear off and slice through a childrens school ground within the next hundred years. Burying nuclear waste underground is a risk. Blades on a wind turbine shearing off is a risk. But they seem like a very small risks.

It may well be that tiny scale reactors can supply all the medical isotopes needed. But, in fact, historically and currently the medical isotopes come from normal sized neclear power plants reprocessed in places like Sellafield.

djpbarry wrote: »

How many lives have been saved in such a manner?

I’ve no idea how many lives have been saved by chemotherapy and radio therapy around the world. Or how many lives have had their quality of life improved by chemotherapy or radiotherapy. I’m guessing most people reading this will have direct experience of someone they know, and probably quite a few people they know or have known, who have had cancer, and who have been treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

user1842

easychair wrote: »

No one can guarantee anything for 100 years, and I can’t even guarantee that the rotors on windmills somewhere won’t shear off and slice through a childrens school ground within the next hundred years. Burying nuclear waste underground is a risk. Blades on a wind turbine shearing off is a risk. But they seem like a very small risks.

Ok I can agree that most of your points are valid but the above comparison is just ridiculous.

Its not a valid comparison to compare an old wind turbine to the storage of nuclear fuel.

Anyway I really hope they figure out Nuclear Fusion, that will solve all our problems.

robtri

easychair wrote: »

I’ve no idea how many lives have been saved by chemotherapy and radio therapy around the world. Or how many lives have had their quality of life improved by chemotherapy or radiotherapy. I’m guessing most people reading this will have direct experience of someone they know, and probably quite a few people they know or have known, who have had cancer, and who have been treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

does even the radio active material for these life saving operations even come from a nuclear power plant??? I dont think so... so your point is mute...

as to how many deaths have nuclear power stations costs.... not sure of the number but quite high I would say, I can think of two big nuclear power station killers .....

and waht about the increased cancer deaths around nuclear waster reprocessing plants??

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

... even if nuclear power plants require more concrete, over the life of a power plant its pretty insignificant, especially when your point was the CO2 cost of the concrete, bearing in mind the amount of CO” produced by a nuclear plant vs an oil, coal or gas plant, is a fraction of one percent.

I doubt that very much. Building, fuelling and decommissioning a nuclear power plant is far more energy intensive than you are implying.

easychair wrote: »

No one can guarantee anything for 100 years, and I can’t even guarantee that the rotors on windmills somewhere won’t shear off and slice through a childrens school ground within the next hundred years. Burying nuclear waste underground is a risk. Blades on a wind turbine shearing off is a risk. But they seem like a very small risks.

I think you’re missing the point. Safety isn’t so much of a concern - everything in life obviously has an associated risk. The point here is that nuclear waste needs to be stored indefinitely and, as such, this represents an unquantifiable cost.

easychair wrote: »

It may well be that tiny scale reactors can supply all the medical isotopes needed. But, in fact, historically and currently the medical isotopes come from normal sized neclear power plants reprocessed in places like Sellafield.

Really? Could you provide some evidence to support this claim?

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

as to how many deaths have nuclear power stations costs.... not sure of the number but quite high I would say...

Actually, it’s quite low. Far more people have been killed in fossil-fuel related accidents.

airscotty

easychair wrote: »

The OP was implying that the storage of Nuclear waste is a problem, and that is manifestly not true.

Have you watched the documentary? Of course the storage of nuclear waste is a problem!!!

airscotty

easychair wrote: »

No one can guarantee anything for 100 years, and I can’t even guarantee that the rotors on windmills somewhere won’t shear off and slice through a childrens school ground within the next hundred years. Burying nuclear waste underground is a risk. Blades on a wind turbine shearing off is a risk. But they seem like a very small risks.

Haha! Id rather take my chances that a blade might fly off and kill one person than buried nuclear waste getting out due to a war/drilling/earthquake/natural disater/terrorist attack or even some future generation stumbling upon it in 1000's of years time!

easychair

airscotty wrote: »

Have you watched the documentary? Of course the storage of nuclear waste is a problem!!!

Its not an insurmountable problem, and is a problem which has been largely and successfully solved as evidenced by the fact that spent nuclear waste is successfully stored underground.

airscotty wrote: »

Haha! Id rather take my chances that a blade might fly off and kill one person than buried nuclear waste getting out due to a war/drilling/earthquake/natural disater/terrorist attack or even some future generation stumbling upon it in 1000's of years time!

As usually, its not a matter of either/or. Indeed, as spent nuclear waste has been buried underground for many decades, and as windmills have been around for decades, you don’t appear to have the option of deciding. It’s unlikely some future generation might stumble upon buried nuclear waste as the sited are highly regulated, controlled and identified, and are secure sites.

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

I doubt that very much. Building, fuelling and decommissioning a nuclear power plant is far more energy intensive than you are implying.

I didn't mean to imply anything about the costs of building, fuelling or decommissioning a nuclear plant.

djpbarry wrote: »

I think you’re missing the point. Safety isn’t so much of a concern - everything in life obviously has an associated risk. The point here is that nuclear waste needs to be stored indefinitely and, as such, this represents an unquantifiable cost.

I agree, and have no idea how much it costs either.

djpbarry wrote: »

Really? Could you provide some evidence to support this claim?

No, I can't. I had always understood it to be the case that the radioactive isotopes used in hospital around the world came from nuclear reprocessing facilities, but I have no evidence. Have I been labouring under a misapprehension?

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Actually, it’s quite low. Far more people have been killed in fossil-fuel related accidents.

can you back that up??

as far as i am aware nuclear power plants have caused more deaths than fossill fuel ....

Arciphel

robtri wrote: »

can you back that up??

as far as i am aware nuclear power plants have caused more deaths than fossill fuel ....

Nope. More people get cancer from inhaling the byproducts of coal and oil fuelled plants than living near or next to nuclear power plants. I'm typing this on iPhone so can't copy the relevant info, but is it out there.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

I didn't mean to imply anything about the costs of building, fuelling or decommissioning a nuclear plant.

Ok, but the fact is that when all of the above are factored in, the carbon footprint of a nuclear plant can approach that of a gas-fired plant, depending on the quality of available uranium ore.

easychair wrote: »

No, I can't. I had always understood it to be the case that the radioactive isotopes used in hospital around the world came from nuclear reprocessing facilities, but I have no evidence. Have I been labouring under a misapprehension?

I would say that it is highly unlikely, but I’m open to correction.

robtri wrote: »

can you back that up??

Well, as far as I am aware, about 60 people have been killed in nuclear power plant accidents - 3 at Idaho Falls, 53 at Chernobyl and 4 (I think) at Mihama - whereas 123 people were killed on the Keilland oil rig alone. Here is a list of some major oil industry accidents.

PeakOutput

The latest reactor designs actually use past reactors waste as fuel and do not produce any waste themselves, unfortunately due to the scaremongering the designers are finding it extremely difficult to find somewhere to build the first one. If the design proved itself the us would have enough nuclear waste to power itself completely for 300years

PeakOutput

robtri wrote: »

can you back that up??

as far as i am aware nuclear power plants have caused more deaths than fossill fuel ....

he is completely correct coal alone kills more people every year then nuclear ever has not to mention the fact that the smoke from coal burning plants irradiates more people every year then nuclear power ever has

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, but the fact is that when all of the above are factored in, the carbon footprint of a nuclear plant can approach that of a gas-fired plant, depending on the quality of available uranium ore.
I would say that it is highly unlikely, but I’m open to correction.
Well, as far as I am aware, about 60 people have been killed in nuclear power plant accidents - 3 at Idaho Falls, 53 at Chernobyl and 4 (I think) at Mihama - whereas 123 people were killed on the Keilland oil rig alone. Here is a list of some major oil industry accidents.

how come you dont include chernobly fall out ?? or other nuclear power plant related deaths??

user1842

Nuclear waste storage is a massive issue. Only a very small amount of it is being stored correctly underground.

Look at the Fukushima accident. The reason it was so bad was they were long term storing high level waste inside the reactor facility. This waste should have been removed but it was not. Couple that with building a nuclear plant in a earthquake zone beside the sea. In the words of Homer Simpson "Do'h".

Sellafield also has similar waste storage issues. The problem is governments are short term and will never spend the massive amounts needed to build underground storage facilities as they will gain no election benefit from them.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

how come you dont include chernobly fall out ??

I thought I was. Despite the mass hysteria surrounding the event, the number of deaths directly attributable to the Chernobyl disaster has been fairly low. That said, there will undoubtedly be future deaths that are directly attributable. One could also argue that some victims of the disaster may have survived, but the quality of their lives has been severely diminished. However, even taking all this into account, the negative impact of nuclear is still dwarfed by that of fossil fuels – accidents associated with coal mining, oil drilling and .gas pipelines are so alarmingly commonplace, we only hear about the worst cases.

robtri wrote: »

or other nuclear power plant related deaths??

Which ones?

djpbarry

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Couple that with building a nuclear plant in a earthquake zone beside the sea. In the words of Homer Simpson "Do'h".

Would it be safer to build, say, a gas pipeline in an area of high seismic activity?

user1842

djpbarry wrote: »

Would it be safer to build, say, a gas pipeline in an area of high seismic activity?

I dont understand the comparison your making. Please explain.

djpbarry

dmclean1842 wrote: »

I dont understand the comparison your making. Please explain.

You stated (or implied) that building a nuclear power station in an area of high seismic activity was a stupid idea. But Japan requires some form of power station, so if the nuclear plant is deemed unsafe (personally, I don’t see how it could be, given that the 40-year-old plant has stood up to one of the largest earthquakes in history, followed by a massive tsunami, thus far causing zero fatalities), then what is the safer alternative?

user1842

djpbarry wrote: »

You stated (or implied) that building a nuclear power station in an area of high seismic activity was a stupid idea. But Japan requires some form of power station, so if the nuclear plant is deemed unsafe (personally, I don’t see how it could be, given that the 40-year-old plant has stood up to one of the largest earthquakes in history, followed by a massive tsunami, thus far causing zero fatalities), then what is the safer alternative?

Correct I did imply that but you can build a Nuclear plant basically anywhere so why pick a stupid location. Well the question is rhetorical, cost is the answer.

I didnt understand your comparison with a gas pipeline as you dont have a option where the gas is. Also if a gas line breaks it will not cause a long term health issue.

Also as you stated, thus far they are no fatalities from Fukushima. Thus far being the correct term as with a gas explosion you know the damage pretty much straight away. We will be waiting a long time to see the actual damage Fukushima caused.

djpbarry

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Correct I did imply that but you can build a Nuclear plant basically anywhere so why pick a stupid location.

Because the location in question needs electricity?

dmclean1842 wrote: »

I didnt understand your comparison with a gas pipeline as you dont have a option where the gas is.

A gas-fired power plant could have been built in place of a nuclear plant - would that have been safer?

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Also if a gas line breaks it will not cause a long term health issue.

No, but it will likely result in fatalities.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Also as you stated, thus far they are no fatalities from Fukushima. Thus far being the correct term as with a gas explosion you know the damage pretty much straight away.

Why is that better? For example, as I’ve stated above, the number of people killed as a result of the Chernobyl disaster is highly unlikely to even come close to the number of people that are almost routinely killed in the production of energy from fossil fuels.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

I thought I was. Despite the mass hysteria surrounding the event, the number of deaths directly attributable to the Chernobyl disaster has been fairly low. That said, there will undoubtedly be future deaths that are directly attributable. One could also argue that some victims of the disaster may have survived, but the quality of their lives has been severely diminished. However, even taking all this into account, the negative impact of nuclear is still dwarfed by that of fossil fuels – accidents associated with coal mining, oil drilling and .gas pipelines are so alarmingly commonplace, we only hear about the worst cases.
Which ones?

Chernobyl instant death was 47, but it is the long term deaths that are an issue.. with WHO predicting 4000 deaths from it and then this number was uprated to excess 9000...

from wiki..

In September 2005, a comprehensive report was published by the Chernobyl Forum, comprising a number of agencies including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations bodies and the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This report titled: "Chernobyl's legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts", authored by about 100 recognized experts from many countries, put the total predicted number of deaths due to the disaster around 4,000 (of which 2,200 deaths are expected to be in the ranks of 200,000 liquidators). This predicted death toll includes the 47 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation from the disaster, nine children who died from thyroid cancer and an estimated 4000 people who could die from cancer as a result of exposure to radiation. This number was subsequently updated to 9000 excess cancer deaths

from green peace

The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000

others Kyshtym, Soviet Union
200 deaths attributed to it

more here http://news.discovery.com/tech/top-five-nuclear-disasters.html


also uranium mining is just as frought with danger as coal mining, oil exploration

user1842

djpbarry wrote: »

Because the location in question needs electricity?

You can transport electricity via high tension cables, the only issue is cost

djpbarry wrote: »

A gas-fired power plant could have been built in place of a nuclear plant - would that have been safer?

Yes in the instance of Fukushima a gas fired plant would have been much safer. The plant would have been destroyed but you would not need to send people back in for containment and not need to evacuate a 20km zone around the plant. Also the plant could be easily rebuilt.

djpbarry wrote: »

No, but it will likely result in fatalities.

A gas line leak can be controlled and shut off easier than a coolant failure at a nuclear plant.

djpbarry wrote: »

Why is that better? For example, as I’ve stated above, the number of people killed as a result of the Chernobyl disaster is highly unlikely to even come close to the number of people that are almost routinely killed in the production of energy from fossil fuels.

You need to mine and enrich uranium, a fact the pro nuclear lobby always seem to forget. Also with regards to Chernobyl no one will ever know the actual death toll. They were 600,000 to one million liquidators which no official studies or statistics have been carried out on. Some of these received massive amounts of radiation.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

Chernobyl instant death was 47, but it is the long term deaths that are an issue.. with WHO predicting 4000 deaths from it and then this number was uprated to excess 9000...

I’ve already stated that there will undoubtedly be future deaths directly attributable to the Chernobyl accident. However, I believe the figures you are quoting refer to the increased prevalence of Thyroid cancer in Belarus (no other significant public health effects have been noted)? It is extremely unlikely that all 4 – 9 thousand cases will result in death.

robtri wrote: »

also uranium mining is just as frought with danger as coal mining, oil exploration

Not if adequate ventilation is installed to disperse radon. The dangers of coal mining can also be mitigated with adequate safety precautions, but as we saw recently in the Mexican Gulf, oil exploration is a risky business. It should also be remembered that large numbers of people have been killed in gas explosions.

djpbarry

dmclean1842 wrote: »

You can transport electricity via high tension cables, the only issue is cost

Which, in this case, would be significant.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Yes in the instance of Fukushima a gas fired plant would have been much safer. The plant would have been destroyed...

...resulting in how many deaths?

dmclean1842 wrote: »

A gas line leak can be controlled and shut off...

...but it will likely result in fatalities.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

You need to mine and enrich uranium...

I know – what’s your point?

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Also with regards to Chernobyl no one will ever know the actual death toll. They were 600,000 to one million liquidators which no official studies or statistics have been carried out on.

There have been extensive studies carried out into the long-term health of the general populace in the area. As stated above, aside from the increased prevalence of thyroid cancer (which is generally treatable) no ill-effects have been detected.

user1842

djpbarry wrote: »

Which, in this case, would be significant.

Still a lot cheaper than the clean up of Fukushima will cost, both in capital and economic terms.

djpbarry wrote: »

...resulting in how many deaths?

The same amount if the nuclear plant was destroyed probably less because you could fully evacuate a gas plant, you need to keep certain key people in a nuclear plant.

djpbarry wrote: »

...but it will likely result in fatalities.

Same as above

djpbarry wrote: »

I know – what’s your point?

That there are fatalities associated with all mining including uranium, also uranium needs to be enriched which is a hazardous process.

djpbarry wrote: »

There have been extensive studies carried out into the long-term health of the general populace in the area. As stated above, aside from the increased prevalence of thyroid cancer (which is generally treatable) no ill-effects have been detected.

I know but I was talking about the clean up squads who received a lot more than a low dose of radiation. How convenient that nobody studied these people. Sure maybe they cant find them, there is only around 600,000 of them.


Im actually not anti nuclear but the blatant glossy over/ignoring the truth that anyone can research is a joke in regards to Chernobyl.

Upto 600,000 soldiers received varying doses of radiation, a lot received massive doses. Nobody has studied these people therefore the Nuclear industry ignores the issue and state the only X amount of people died. What a load of total rubbish. Its like if I cannot see or hear them they do not exist. I personally think it is a disgrace to their heroic work in that plant.

djpbarry

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Still a lot cheaper than the clean up of Fukushima will cost, both in capital and economic terms.

Let’s see some figures to back that up. I find it hard to believe that a nuclear power plant was built at Fukushima in the absence of any cost-benefit analysis.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

The same amount if the nuclear plant was destroyed probably less because you could fully evacuate a gas plant, you need to keep certain key people in a nuclear plant.

Probably less? That’s not a terribly convincing argument.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

That there are fatalities associated with all mining...

Of course, but how many people have died in uranium mines?

dmclean1842 wrote: »

I know but I was talking about the clean up squads who received a lot more than a low dose of radiation.

It is my understanding that, in the first year after the accident, “liquidators” were exposed to an (estimated) average radiation dose of 165 millisieverts, which is not terribly high – the dose limit applied to workers during the Fukushima emergency is 250 millisieverts.

user1842

djpbarry wrote: »

It is my understanding that, in the first year after the accident, “liquidators” were exposed to an (estimated) average radiation dose of 165 millisieverts, which is not terribly high – the dose limit applied to workers during the Fukushima emergency is 250 millisieverts.

I would love to know your source on this because in my research I cant find any independent studies on the “liquidators”. There is no reference on that stat on the wiki page.

An average radiation does of 165 millisieverts means nothing in a sample size of 211,000 people. What is only meaningful is how many received high doses in that sample. Even if only 100 of these "workers" received 3-6 sieverts it nonsenses the official death toll.

If you want to say that 47 directly died fair enough but even the IAEA have admitted real death toll is 9000.

I think it makes people just not trust the pro nuclear lobby when they use the 47 people died figure for Chernobyl.

djpbarry

dmclean1842 wrote: »

I would love to know your source on this because in my research I cant find any independent studies on the “liquidators”.

Well you’re not looking very hard:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9146711
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9128893
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9008215
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9486071

dmclean1842 wrote: »

If you want to say that 47 directly died fair enough but even the IAEA have admitted real death toll is 9000.

Source?

dmclean1842 wrote: »

I think it makes people just not trust the pro nuclear lobby when they use the 47 people died figure for Chernobyl.

First of all, labelling people “pro-Nuclear” does nothing for your argument. Secondly, I’ve already stated twice that I expect that figure to increase in the future. However, there is simply no way that it will increase to such a degree that deaths from nuclear accidents will exceed deaths from fossil-fuel related accidents, even if we exclude those accidents that resulted from poor safety standards (that would include Chernobyl, by the way).

user1842

djpbarry wrote: »

Well you’re not looking very hard:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9146711
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9128893
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9008215
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9486071

Max 5000 thousand workers tested in the above papers, all from one region. Thats nowhere near a correct sample to give a accurate result. Also as the studies were carried out in 1995 nearly 10 years after the event, the workers with high exposure would have been long dead. But to be fair I have only ever read one of the above papers before.

djpbarry wrote: »

Source?

World Health Organisation "World Health Organization report explains the health impacts of the world's worst-ever civil nuclear accident", WHO, April 26, 2006, accessed April 4, 2011.

djpbarry wrote: »

First of all, labelling people “pro-Nuclear” does nothing for your argument. Secondly, I’ve already stated twice that I expect that figure to increase in the future. However, there is simply no way that it will increase to such a degree that deaths from nuclear accidents will exceed deaths from fossil-fuel related accidents, even if we exclude those accidents that resulted from poor safety standards (that would include Chernobyl, by the way).

I never labelled you pro nuclear at all. I said the pro-nuclear lobby. I don't know if you are pro nuclear or not.

Im actually pro nuclear myself and believe that Thorium based reactors are the way to go. No risk of melt down and less waste. Also there needs to be a world approach to waste disposal with the disposal site built before commissioning of the reactor. The site should be maintained by a independent organisation funded by a levy on all nuclear producing nations.

My problem is the fanatics on either side. Both instil fear. There does not seem to be a non-biased point of view on this topic (general comment, not directed at your posts)

djpbarry

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Max 5000 thousand workers tested in the above papers, all from one region. Thats nowhere near a correct sample to give a accurate result. Also as the studies were carried out in 1995 nearly 10 years after the event, the workers with high exposure would have been long dead.

The health of all workers involved is still being closely monitored:

Among 530,000 registered recovery operation workers who worked between 1986 and 1990, the average dose was 120 mSv (ranging from 20 to 500 mSv). That cohort is still potentially at risk of cancer and other diseases and their health continues to be closely followed.

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FAQs_Chernobyl.pdf

dmclean1842 wrote: »

World Health Organisation "World Health Organization report explains the health impacts of the world's worst-ever civil nuclear accident", WHO, April 26, 2006, accessed April 4, 2011.

From here:

WHO also estimates there may be up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths due to Chernobyl...

That’s not what you said.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

My problem is the fanatics on either side. Both instil fear.

You’re guilty of precisely that yourself by spreading nonsense such as “9,000 people have died as a result of the Chernobyl accident”.

user1842

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re guilty of precisely that yourself by spreading nonsense such as “9,000 people have died as a result of the Chernobyl accident”.

No I never said that, the Chernobyl Forum report said that:

The link I posted points to the press release for the report not the report itself sorry please see below link:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

Below is the a summery:

In September 2005, a comprehensive report was published by the Chernobyl Forum, comprising a number of agencies including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations bodies and the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This report titled: "Chernobyl's legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts", authored by about 100 recognized experts from many countries, put the total predicted number of deaths due to the disaster around 4,000 (of which 2,200 deaths are expected to be in the ranks of 200,000 liquidators). This predicted death toll includes the 47 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation from the disaster, nine children who died from thyroid cancer and an estimated 4000 people who could die from cancer as a result of exposure to radiation. This number was subsequently updated to 9000 excess cancer deaths.


I would appreciate if you would not accuse me of spreading nonsense. You may attack my posts but you have no right to accuse me of being guilty of anything.

Any analysis of the deaths for the Chernobyl accident must included linked cancer deaths in my opinion but that's also the opinion of the IAEA as per the above reference.

djpbarry

dmclean1842 wrote: »

No I never said that, the Chernobyl Forum report said that.

No it didn’t.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Any analysis of the deaths for the Chernobyl accident must included linked cancer deaths in my opinion...

Sure, but to date, that number stands at 9, not 9,000.

Amateurish

There are many estimates concerning the number of victims that suffer from symptoms induced by radiation. Reliable data is still lacking. The World Health Organization (WHO) stated that approximately 800.000 people have worked on fire extinguishing, restoring the reactor and cleaning up pollution in the first year after the accident. These people only remained in the area for short periods of time to prevent health problems. Ukrainian government figures show that more than 8.000 Ukrainians have died as a result of exposure to radiation during the first cleanup operation. It is stated that the eventual death toll resulting from the nuclear explosion ranges from 30 to 300.000 and many unofficial sources put the toll over 400.000.

Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/environmental-disasters.htm#2._Chernobyl:_Russias_nuclear_power_plant_explosion#ixzz1MGQALejx

user1842

djpbarry wrote: »

No it didn’t.
Sure, but to date, that number stands at 9, not 9,000.

Its stands at 9 for the local population. This figure does not include the liquidators:

Again from WHO report:

"
The international experts have estimated that radiation could cause up to about 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, i.e., emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia deaths and a statistical prediction, based on estimates of the radiation doses received by these populations. As about quarter of people die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, the radiation-induced increase of only about 3% will be difficult to observe. However, in the most exposed cohorts of emergency and recovery operation workers some increase of particular cancer forms (e.g., leukemia) in particular time periods has already been observed. The predictions use six decades of scientific experience with the effects of such doses, explained Repacholi.
"

djpbarry

Amateurish wrote: »

Ukrainian government figures show that more than 8.000 Ukrainians have died as a result of exposure to radiation during the first cleanup operation.

How about a link to these Ukrainian government figures?

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Its stands at 9 for the local population. This figure does not include the liquidators:

Yes it does. As I have already stated, there have been numerous studies of the health of those involved in the clean-up. The idea that there is some massive cover-up here, orchestrated by the nuclear industry, is totally without basis.

user1842

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes it does. As I have already stated, there have been numerous studies of the health of those involved in the clean-up. The idea that there is some massive cover-up here, orchestrated by the nuclear industry, is totally without basis.

No it doesn't, read the report. The 9 were from from the local population.

I never said anything about a cover up. I have said the lack of information and the lack of proper studies on the clean-up crews.

djpbarry

dmclean1842 wrote: »

No it doesn't, read the report. The 9 were from from the local population.

Ok, so? I'm slightly confused at this point.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

I never said anything about a cover up. I have said the lack of information and the lack of proper studies on the clean-up crews.

Lack of independent studies? You appear to be suggesting that a whole load of deaths have taken place that have not been reported?

user1842

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, so? I'm slightly confused at this point.
Lack of independent studies? You appear to be suggesting that a whole load of deaths have taken place that have not been reported?

Im only quoting the report.

"
This predicted death toll includes the 47 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation from the disaster, nine children who died from thyroid cancer and an estimated 4000 people who could die from cancer as a result of exposure to radiation.
"

The below is a breakdown of the 4000 deaths:

"
Could cause up to about 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, i.e., emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia deaths and a statistical prediction, based on estimates of the radiation doses received by these populations.
"

The bold indicates they have noted that some of the 4000 have already died of cancer. The reason I suggest that they dont give the actual figure is that they does know and are using radiation dose statistics to give the overall figure.

They could have made this a lot clearer. Why didnt they? Its quiet confusing and actually contradicts itself.

dahak

Reading through the thread I think part of the confusion stems from your use of the word deaths.

You seem to be using the same terminology for deaths that have actually occurred and potential or probable deaths that will occur in the future.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Im only quoting the report.

This predicted death toll includes the 47 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation from the disaster, nine children who died from thyroid cancer and an estimated 4000 people who could die from cancer as a result of exposure to radiation.

...

That quote seems to be from the Wikipedia article(Chernobyl disaster effects) about the effects of the Chernobyl incident where it discusses the The Chernobyl Forum report[1], while your second quote:

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Could cause up to about 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, i.e., emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia deaths and a statistical prediction, based on estimates of the radiation doses received by these populations.

Seems to be from the WHO press release about the report[1].

The way the two quotes were presented and the criticism seemed to indicate that they were both taken directly from the report[1] rather than two separate sources.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

The bold indicates they have noted that some of the 4000 have already died of cancer. The reason I suggest that they dont give the actual figure is that they does know and are using radiation dose statistics to give the overall figure.

As I stated above that quote is taken from a WHO news release about the report and not from the report itself. At the time the report was written there were attributable deaths due to thyroid cancer, the report itself doesn't give any hard numbers about fatal leukaemia and solid cancers but does state the following:

Some radiation-induced increases in fatal leukaemia, solid cancers and circulatory system diseases have been reported in Russian emergency and recovery opera- tion workers. According to data from the Russian Registry, in 1991–1998, in the cohort of 61 000 Russian workers exposed to an average dose of 107 mSv about 5% of all fatalities that occurred may have been due to radiation exposure. These findings, however, should be considered as preliminary and need confirmation in better-designed studies with careful individual dose reconstruction.

[1,p16]

dmclean1842 wrote: »

They could have made this a lot clearer. Why didnt they? Its quiet confusing and actually contradicts itself.

As the two quotes are from two different sources I'm not sure I see how they are contradictory.


[1]Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts
and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The Chernobyl Forum: 2003–2005. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

user1842

dahak wrote: »

Reading through the thread I think part of the confusion stems from your use of the word deaths.

You seem to be using the same terminology for deaths that have actually occurred and potential or probable deaths that will occur in the future.



That quote seems to be from the Wikipedia article(Chernobyl disaster effects) about the effects of the Chernobyl incident where it discusses the The Chernobyl Forum report[1], while your second quote:

Seems to be from the WHO press release about the report[1].

The way the two quotes were presented and the criticism seemed to indicate that they were both taken directly from the report[1] rather than two separate sources.

As I stated above that quote is taken from a WHO news release about the report and not from the report itself. At the time the report was written there were attributable deaths due to thyroid cancer, the report itself doesn't give any hard numbers about fatal leukaemia and solid cancers but does state the following:

As the two quotes are from two different sources I'm not sure I see how they are contradictory.

Your correct but the reason I used the press release and wiki as a source are that they summarise four pages of the actual report better than I would have. Pages 14, 15, 16 and 17.

On these pages it says deaths have happened due to cancer but cannot be directly linked but its highly probable. Therefore one cannot used these deaths as actually resulting for the accident. Therefore its better to say that its possible 4000 deaths may happen. From my reading of the report a lot of these deaths have already happened but cannot be noted.

The two statements are from the same report but summarised.

When do we starting counting these 4000 deaths????????????????????

Probably never as it will be impossible to prove that a person died from cancer from Chernobyl or normal cancer.

Therefore in a 1000 years time the official death toll from the accident will be 42 plus a possible 4000 from cancer.

My whole issue with this forum is that 42 number. It should not be used and mis-represents the actual death toll at this current time.

dahak

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Your correct but the reason I used the press release and wiki as a source are that they summarise four pages of the actual report better than I would have. Pages 14, 15, 16 and 17.

That's fair enough, however the way they were presented implied they were directly from the report itself.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

On these pages it says deaths have happened due to cancer but cannot be directly linked but its highly probable. Therefore one cannot used these deaths as actually resulting for the accident. Therefore its better to say that its possible 4000 deaths may happen. From my reading of the report a lot of these deaths have already happened but cannot be noted.

The report states the following,

[1,p15-16]
The international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposures (liquidators working in 1986-1987), evacuees, and residents of the most ‘contaminated’ areas), the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent. This might eventually represent up to four thousand fatal cancers in addition to the approximately 100 000 fatal cancers to be expected due to all other causes in this population. Among the 5 million persons residing in other ‘contaminated’ areas, the doses are much lower and any projected increases are more speculative, but are expected to make a difference of less than one per cent in cancer mortality. [1]

dmclean1842 wrote: »

The two statements are from the same report but summarised.

Sorry to repeat myself, but again the two quotes were not from the report[1], but from a press release about the report and a Wikipedia article that references it. You may not see this as a significant difference but it is.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

When do we starting counting these 4000 deaths????????????????????

I apologise if I come across picky here but I have take issue with the continued use of that you use '4000 deaths' as if the number is set in stone and is a target to be hit.

From the report:

[1,p15]
Moreover small differences in the assumptions about the risks from exposure to low level radiation doses can lead to large differences in the predictions of the increased cancer burden, and predictions should therefore be treated with great caution, especially when the additional doses above natural background radiation are small.

The second issue about this, like it or not, is economics. Mortality rates take into account the level of treatment available, this is intrinsically linked to the economic status of the country i.e. how much money they have to provide treatment (on a population rather than an individual basis). Russia has done well the last few years with high energy prices so this may trickle down to improved health care. I have no evidence that this is happening but it is something to keep in mind.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

...
Probably never as it will be impossible to prove that a person died from cancer from Chernobyl or normal cancer.

True on an individual basis it's not possible to tell what the source of a cancer was, on a larger scale population basis you can do a little better. It almost definitely will not possible to give an exact number, but in 50 years time I would hope that population statistics and more studies would have firmed up the numbers a bit more.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

Therefore in a 1000 years time the official death toll from the accident will be 42 plus a possible 4000 from cancer.

I'm not sure about your 42 number. The report[1] says that Acute Radiation Syndrome was diagnosed in 134 workers, 28 of which it died due to it. Add to that 2 more deaths from non radiation injuries and thyroid cancer in nine children.

[1,p14]
The number of deaths duie to acute radiation syndrome (ARS) during the first year following the accident is well documented. According to UNSCEAR (2000), ARS was diagnosed in 134 emergency workers. In many cases the ARS was complicated by extensive beta radiation skin burns and sepsis. Among these workers, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Two more persons had died at Unit 4 from injuries unrelated to radiation, and one additional death was thought to have been due to a coronary thrombosis. Nineteen more have died in 1987–2004 of various causes; however their deaths are not necessarily — and in some cases are certainly not — directly attributable to radiation exposure. Among the general population exposed to the Chernobyl radio- active fallout, however, the radiation doses were relatively low, and ARS and associated fatalities did not occur.

dmclean1842 wrote: »

My whole issue with this forum is that 42 number. It should not be used and mis-represents the actual death toll at this current time.

To be honest I don't see what the problem with using X (direct linked deaths) + a figure (preferably with some kind of confidence interval) representing probable deaths.

With environmental pollution, especially at low concentrations, it's very difficult to put a number on the effects. There's just too many factors in play.

[1]Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts
and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The Chernobyl Forum: 2003–2005. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Boo.../chernobyl.pdf

user1842

dahak wrote: »

That's fair enough, however the way they were presented implied they were directly from the report itself

Sorry to repeat myself, but again the two quotes were not from the report[1], but from a press release about the report and a Wikipedia article that references it. You may not see this as a significant difference but it is.

I apologise if I come across picky here but I have take issue with the continued use of that you use '4000 deaths' as if the number is set in stone and is a target to be hit.

From the report:

I'm not sure about your 42 number. The report[1] says that Acute Radiation Syndrome was diagnosed in 134 workers, 28 of which it died due to it. Add to that 2 more deaths from non radiation injuries and thyroid cancer in nine children.

To be honest I don't see what the problem with using X (direct linked deaths) + a figure (preferably with some kind of confidence interval) representing probable deaths.

Apologies the death toll should be 30 from the report. I was taking the 42 number from another source. Sorry my mistake.

I dont have a problem taking "X (direct linked deaths) + a figure (preferably with some kind of confidence interval) representing probable deaths".

My problem is that some people just state the X figure for Chernobyl and state that very few people died and it wasn't really that big of an accident.

I believe that every year the number of cancer deaths should be reported and all those above the statistical average for that area be put down as Chernobyl induced.

This figure should then be added to the official death toll like:

30 people died directly, 100 people have died from cancer as a result (2011) and 3900 are expected to die. A total of 130 people have died (just an example)

Why cant they do that?

Also that really shows the difference between an nuclear accident and other accidents. From nuclear people keep dying a long time after the event.