From the point of view of reactor design the Chernobyl accident is not relevant. The reason is clear the RMBK design with positive void coefficient is not going to be employed ever again. The reactors in the West have containment structures, negative void coefficient and numerous safety features that are best described by a qualified nuclear engineer. Frankly, I trust members of the engineering professions.

Existing RMBK reactors, we understand have been suitably modified and are no longer a threat.

From the point of view of the authorities faced with managing major accidents, (nuclear and non nuclear, industrial or natural), Chernobyl has much to teach. One problem which comes out of Chernobyl and to my knowledge has not been publicly addressed. Is how to counter the misleading, often badly informed comments from environmental and Green groups? Indeed one must suspect the Greens of deliberately exploiting any incident by spreading alarm and anxiety. No doubt they are motivated by promoting their agenda

Anti-Green if the Chernobyl accident is not relevant, then can you explain why you feel it is relevant, when you wrote comments on Chernobyl?

Also please tell what evidence do you have to prove that misleading, often badly informed comments came from from environmental and Green groups, especially regarding The Chernobyl accident and not The Nuclear Industry?

So from this people could suspect anti-green you are motivated by promoting your agenda by spreading alarm and anxiety that is not based on facts, but misleading, information and no research?

Clearly the design, function and operation of the RMBK reactors have no relevance to the operation of reactors in the West. The Chernobyl accident was unique to the operation of a particular RMBK reactor performing an experiment that clearly was disastrous. We can be certain that the situation in 1986 will never be repeated.

Of course there are public health and disaster management lessons to be learned from the incident. The management of papillary cell thyroid cancer is a medical problem. Even given that it is a tumour of low lethality (I believe only about nine deaths have been reported). It is not a trivial disease and must cause anxiety and distress to the individuals and their families.

Lastly, I am critical of the projected or theoretical deaths based on the concept of “collective dose.”

Christo

I've had a quick perusal of the thread you recommended where the authors claim that petroleum exploration is still in its infancy and that supplies are ad-infinitum. So what, may I ask?

I have yet to find a poster who touches on the disastrous health aspects of burning fossil fuel though the argument, I agree is relevant to the health of the planet, the continuation of incinerating fossil fuels has a catastrophic health effect on all living species.

Surely, someone has researched the effects of burning hydrocarbons and the subsequent emissions such as benzene (Cat.1 carcinogen), the formation of dioxins and furans, VOCs, NOx etc. My extensive research has convinced me that fossil fuels are responsible for more deaths than perhaps any other causes and I for one do not advocate a continuing reliance on fossil fuels as a major energy source.

Governments and industry are well aware that subsequent diseases from exposure to fossil fuel emissions is an insidious process, difficult to prove and therefore frees them up from accepting responsibility.

I am perplexed by Anti-green's claim that environmentalists and Greens are "No doubt motivated by spreading their agenda". Please define what that "agenda" is, Anti-green and how they may be profiteering from that agenda.

Clearly anti-green when you are facing reality about Nuclear you come up with some excuse not to talk about it "have no relevance to the operation of reactors in the West" which strange considering you are still talking about Chernobyl, in other words Chernobyl must have relevance since you keep going on about it.

And how much research have you done if any, if you think but not proven that you believe only about nine deaths have been reported and once again misleading, often badly informed comments came from from environmental and Green groups, especially regarding The Chernobyl accident and not The Nuclear Industry?

So the lessons you need to learn anti-green is before replying again, check facts, do research and don't say something is not relevance say Chernobyl, when you are the one going about Chernobyl.

PS About a week ago The Australia printed a chart of how many deaths from Nuclear Accidents and they only reported on Chernobyl around 33 (not 9 anti-green).

So I am just wondering who does their research if any research was done maybe anti-green?

As reseach would have shown there have been other accidents beside Chernobyl like 3 Mile Island and that deaths they shown from coal, might have related to deaths in mines, which they didn't show the breakdown in deaths, so is The Australian scare of providing the truth as well?

Let me try and respond to Dickie and Kwv.

1. The Green Agenda: I am not going to summarise the aims of several diverse groups. Please consider as an example; the construction of an Australian Nuclear Industry must be stopped.
1.1 Following the principle, the ends justify the means, members of Greenpeace put on fancy, dressed as dustbins invaded Lucas Heights-A harmless undergraduate type prank. No doubt the authorities were warned in advance, so that the invaders would be treated appropriately.
OR
1.2 The recent Greenpeace video. Family on beach, nuclear power station nearby, plane crashes into the station.

2. I have explained what, in my view, is and what is not relevant regarding Chernobyl.
3. Regarding deaths from Chernobyl, my previous posting referred to deaths from papillary carcinoma of thyroid only. Re-reading the Chernobyl Forum on page16 they quote that 15 deaths from this cause have been documented up to the year 2002.
4. There were 134 cases of documented acute radiation syndrome (ARS). 28 deaths were reported in 1986 due to ARS. About 19 further deaths in this group occurred between 1987-2004. These 19 deaths were from various causes. According to the forum; “However their deaths are not necessarily –and in some cases certainly not-directly attributed to radiation exposure.”
5. Three other non radiation deaths are recorded including one case of myocardial infarction.
For further information I suggest you go to UNSCEAR-2000, The Chernobyl Forum 2003-2005 and if you can find it in a library
Cardis E et al. Cancer consequences of the Chernobyl Accident 20 years on. J Radiol Prot 2006; 26: 127-140.