The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Giving Green the red light > Comments

Giving Green the red light : Comments

By Ben Heard, published 12/4/2011

The United Nations is quite clear that deaths from Chernobyl were only in the tens.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
So what is UNSCEAR's figure for "cancer deaths among large populations exposed to very low level excess radiation over a long period" ?

If it is zero, how is that less erroneous, being subject to "unacceptable uncertainties", than the 30000-60000 figure?

On the other hand, if (as I imagine is much more likely), UNSCEAR simply hasn't given a figure for "cancer deaths among large populations exposed to very low level excess radiation over a long period" (whether because of the uncertainties involved or for any other reason) then the whole article is worthless.
Posted by jeremy, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 9:40:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Total collective radiation exposure from Chernobyl fallout is estimated by the IAEA at 600,000 Sieverts. Ben Heard would have you believe that the death toll from this collective dose was zero. For those of us who prefer mainstream science, we can simple apply a standard risk estimate for low-level radiation exposure from the International Commission on Radiological Protection to estimate the Chernobyl death toll at 30,000 to 60,000. Likewise, the IAEA/WHO use this approach to estimate the death toll in the most contaminated parts of the former Soviet Union at 9000. So Ben is implicitly accusing staunchly pro-nuclear bodies like the IAEA of being part of a dishonest anti-nuclear conspiracy. Ben's post is either hopelessly confused anti-science, or it is dishonest.
Posted by Jim Green, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 10:10:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Helen Caldicott has responded at:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation
Posted by PeterA, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 10:26:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Caldicott claims that the death toll is 980,000, and anything less than that is unscientific. Would be interested in Jim's and Ben's response to that.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 10:40:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim, I am, quite simply, stunned. You can try to hang this on me if you want, but my article is little more than a very straightforward and accurate discussion of UNSCEAR's findings on this issue. Accurately representing their findings is something you manifestly failed to do; in fact you worked very hard to twist them to your own ends.

As you know, or should know, the standard risk estimate for low level dose, over long periods, over large numbers of people, has no basis in observed evidence (as clearly explained by UNSCEAR) but is rather an extrapolation of what is known about high level dose, over short periods, over small numbers of people (which is indeed hazardous, and is based in observed evidence). In going from one to the other, it gets less and less representative of what actually happens in the real world, and more and more abstract. Lest anyone (hi jeremy, i have read you comment too) be put off by the 179 page UNSCEAR report, the main section is 24 pages. Just read it. See how much liberty Jim has taken with this report to get his estimate. And jeremy the short answer to your question was in my article: whatever level there is, it would be so small as to be undetectable against the noise of all the other health risks, radiological and otherwise, that make up normal life. Jim, your perspective and methodologies on the death toll are your business. But there is no excuse for bastardising the findings of this report so badly to suit your purposes. Just represent it accurately first, and then disagree with reasons given second, and people will be able to make up their minds in a fair way.
Posted by Ben Heard, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 11:34:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ben you are siding with fringe scientists in arguing that low-level radiation is harmless. The overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is against you. For example a US National Academy of Sciences panel, the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR), comprehensively reviewed the evidence and concluded in its 2006 report: "The Committee judges that the balance of evidence from epidemiologic, animal and mechanistic studies tend to favor a simple proportionate relationship at low doses between radiation dose and cancer risk. ... [T]he risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and ... the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans."

Ben
- what do you know that the BEIR Ccommittee doesn't?
- the IAEA/WHO estimate of 9000 Chernobyl deaths in the most contaminated are - are they part of an anti-nuclear conspiracy?
Posted by Jim Green, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 12:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It doesn't actually matter whether the "Low dose no threshold" theory is right or wrong because it has no bearing on whether nuclear power should be used in our efforts to avoid dangerous climate change.

Latest estimates are that the summer of 2003 and that of 2010 killed 70,000 in Europe and 55,000 in Russia respectively ... and even those numbers are tiny compared to the impacts on hunger and malnutrition which are emerging because of the impacts of a changing climate on the food supply. Renewables like solar thermal and wind are great gadgets, nice little toys, useful niche products, but they simply don't cut it as an answer to powering the planet. And we need to power the planet. Really. And I'm not talking about the developed world, but power to the 3 billion who still cook with wood and cattle dung. Climate change requires reforestation and deep cuts in the 1.4 billion cattle on the planet so we need serious power. If rich smart countries like Denmark and Germany can't make renewables work, what hope anywhere else?

The Chernobyl disaster has had a big impact on nuclear designs, just like the odd collapsing bridge or tunnel informed engineering in following decades, but the total nuclear safety record is far and away better than that of any other serious contender for a power supply system ... regardless of whether 48 or 48,000 died.

Part of the reason there is debate about possible carcinogenic effects of small doses of radiation is that any impacts are dwarfed by the real carcinogens that determine the bulk of the planets cancer load. Even Caldicotts million over a few decades is tiny compared to the ravages of tobacco, alcohol and red meat. Worrying about nuclear dangers when we face huge climate change certainties is like a smoker worrying about the risks of choking on an olive.
Posted by Geoff Russell, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 1:19:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In one report on the IAEA's reports they stated (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf)

"Childhood thyroid cancer caused by radioactive iodine fallout is one of the main health impacts of the accident. Doses to the thyroid received in the first few months after the accident were particularly high in those who were children at the time and drank milk with high levels of radioactive iodine. By 2002, more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases had been diagnosed in this group, and it is most likely that a large fraction of these thyroid cancers is attributable to radioiodine intake.

Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations."

The UNSCEAR report (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html) says "Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, and some indication of an increased leukaemia and cataract incidence among the workers, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the exposed populations. Neither is there any proof of other non-malignant disorders that are related to ionizing radiation. However, there were widespread psychological reactions to the accident, which were due to fear of the radiation, not to the actual radiation doses."

It seems like most of the actual harm to those living near Chernobyl was and is caused by the fear campaigns of anti-nuclear campaigners rather than radiation.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 1:58:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff I agree with you.

I see though that anti-whatever environmentalism is an occupation, and is not disturbed in the least by contrary evidence or logic.

If the nuclear "debate" were to end tomorrow, would these folks go and get normal everyday mundane jobs, no they would move on to the next "activist" role.

It's like asking, for example, what would the gun toting types in the Gaza strip do if Israel went to peace tomorrow and seceded to all the Palestinian demands, do you think they would stop being terrorists, no that's their occupation. They would just go terrorize someone else or go back to killing each other.

Like those people, caldicott and the other "demanders" (I picked that up somewhere recently, it was in reference to Tax Demanders, no longer protesters) who want this and that and everything else their way and no negotiation.

Like the idiots yesterday, who demanded Victoria's new power station be canceled because "they don't like it" - talk about an age of self obsessed entitlement.

We'll eventually get tired of these self important types who demand society do what they personally wish, to the point of stopping all progress, and they will then be the "ignored".
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 2:20:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim,

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. While the IAEA using similar studies predicted about 9000 deaths, the actual results from the highly contaminated areas including several million people was that the mortality from cancer in the population was lower than previously recorded, and the same as a control area in a non contaminated area.

Given the existing radiation back ground and the plethora of other cancer causing agents such as chemicals, viruses, etc, the LNT model has very few case studies with which to work, and whilst they show more radiation causes more cancer, the linearity is assumed rather than empirically demonstrated. (I read the report)

To quote: "The committee recognises that its risk estimates become more uncertain at very low doses."

Given that ratio between high and low range estimate at 0.1SV (relatively high dose) was 140%, the estimate of the relationship at low levels is extremely tenuous, and has a precautionary basis.

The only way of proving this theory is to observe the results from large population groups, and so far the evidence does not support the theory.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 2:28:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim,

That is a transparent attempt to distract and dodge. I am sorry, but I am not biting. My article was a critique of your article Risk and Radiation, specifically your (mis)use of the UNSCEAR report to justify your methodology and provide credibility to your findings. Since you seem determined to acknowledge nothing at all, I will have to spell it out with some questions of my own before attending to your comment.

1. You claim to better represent UNSCEAR than did Wade Allison. In point of fact, your conclusions relating to human health impacts could not be further from those of UNSCEAR. Did you a) not read the report or b) read the report, extract the paragraph that suited you, and deliberately ignore the actual findings?

2. It is not just your findings that UNSCEAR disagrees with. Your methdology of theorectical modelling for harm at low levels of radiation is a)blamed for ongoing misunderstanding of the health impacts of Chernobyl (page 56, paragraph 37) b)described as lacking any conclusive observational evidence to support it (page 64, paragraph 95) c) highlighted for its high levels of uncertainty (page 64 paragraph 97), with a conclusion that any such harm that may occur would be so small as to be "below the limit of detection" (pg 64, 97). Have you not read these points in the report? Or have you chosen to ignore them and persist with the notion that the UNSCEAR report somehow supports your methodology?

3. Beyond it's lack of rigour, the fear of future harm from Chernobyl that your methodology helps to foster is blamed, in part, for ongoing harm that is very definately present: depression and anxiety leading to risk taking behaviour. This is significant enough to receive separate discussion in the report (page 58-59, paragraphs 45 and 46). Do you make any response to this?
Posted by Ben Heard, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 2:40:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for you comment:
- Am I clear in understanding that UNSCEAR are now "fringe scientists"? For their report is the only reference I have drawn on, and my representation of their findings has been accurate and sourced to the paragraph.

-Regarding your quote that "the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in cancer risk to humans". This information would not be lost on UNSCEAR. But they sensibly chose to rely on actual studies rather than theoretical projections.

- If you wish to use BEIR IAEA/WHO as the basis of your findings, then please submit a new article. Until then, please answer your critic on this one.

- Is 9,000 fatalities the new figure you wish to stand behind? Perhaps a revised article is required.

- The modelling methodology has, so far in this discussion, provided estimates of 9,000, 30,000, 60,000 and possibly 900,000 deaths (courtesy of Caldicott). Meanwhile the peak body says 15, and anything extra would be too small to notice. I very much stand behind my article as representative of the best work that has been done on this topic.

- I neither stated nor inferred a conspiracy. I am critiquing a stand alone piece of work. You are the author of that piece. My criticism is simple, to the point, and referenced. Please respond.
Posted by Ben Heard, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 2:42:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham Y, can I recommend you follow the link to the George Monbiot column from my article for a rebuttal of Calidcott's claim? I certaintly cannot do better than that.
Posted by Ben Heard, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 2:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First to respond to Shadow Minister who says:
To quote: "The [BEIR] committee recognises that its risk estimates become more uncertain at very low doses."
Here's the full quote:
"The committee recognizes that its risk estimates become more uncertain when applied to very low doses. Departures from a linear model at low doses, however, could either increase or decrease the risk per unit dose."
And indeed BEIR report (p.6) says the evidence is compatible with lower risks per unit exposure up to a doubling of risk.
Hence the Chernobyl death toll could be lower than 30,000 or it could be up to 60,000 if we take the IAEA's dose estimate and the ICRP risk estimate.
Ben
- The credible estimates of the death toll range from the IAEA/WHO figure of 9,000 (in the most contaminted areas) to 93,000 (across Europe) - references at:
http://newmatilda.com/2011/04/07/do-we-know-chernobyl-death-toll
- Beyond the plant employees and emergency workers, doses were in the microsievert range, i.e. millions of people exposed to very small radiation doses. No chance of detecting the expected cancer increase via epidemiological studies ... hence the use of IAEA's collective exposure estimate and the ICRP risk estimate.
- Nowhere does UNSCEAR claim that the death toll from that widespread exposure to low-level radiation was zero and it is disingenuous for you to claim otherwise.
Posted by Jim Green, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 5:22:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its easy!.....Dont Build on or near Fault sights. If you want my opinion......stick UNCLEAR up your arse. There are better ways to make power.............Listen to the good Dr.

http://tinyurl.com/3frhb45

http://tinyurl.com/3k5e8ze

http://tinyurl.com/3tv73re

The out date leaders on this planet are leading us into a future of No-where.

High Tec, and No brains to use it....lol....Well....Clap, clap, clap for the handy caps:)

Oh dear:)

LEAP
Posted by Quantumleap, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 8:12:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Ben,

Like any good host I was trying to move the conversation along. Seems Helen is a few orders of magnitude larger than either of you in potential deaths. I think that's worth talking about.

I'm also wondering how much radiation I got when I had my X-Ray the other day, or my surf last weekend. What's the difference in background radiation between say the Granite Belt in Queensland and Sydney with its sandstone?
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 10:24:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Total collective radiation exposure from Chernobyl fallout is estimated by the IAEA at 600,000 Sieverts."

Wow, Jim. That equates to less than 3% of the total background dose received by all people on Earth in a year. What a ludicrously meaningless attempt to scare people with big numbers.
Posted by Mark Duffett, Tuesday, 12 April 2011 10:54:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I've reversed your calculation right you are saying that the background radiation is ~ 3mS
33.33 * 600,000/6,000,000,000 assuming a global population of 6 billion.

But the 600,000 S was not visited (equally) on the worlds population.

If 1,000,000 people received the bulk of that dose then they each received on average 0.6 S or 200 times background.

I'm sure my calculation is simplistic...
Posted by SP, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 3:28:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Jim. This can’t go on indefinitely. You have almost completely refused to engage with my criticisms, but through your comments your position has clarified in some important ways:

• You regard UNSCEAR as a fringe scientific body. Everyone else regards them as the peak scientific body for this nuclear accident

• You regard their findings as not credible, since your lower end estimate for credibility is 9,000 fatalities. The findings were presented to the United Nations general assembly, so I rather think their credibility is beyond reproach.

And finally, for the third time now, UNSCEAR comments clearly that any illness from the low levels of radiation will be so small as to be beyond detection, and in their general conclusions state that “To date, there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure” (Page 65, paragraph 95, final bullet point). And that’s after 20 years, a goodly proportion of the average human life.
I think this, along with some (unfailingly polite) correspondence I have had with a representative of ICAN over the last day, really confirms the point of my article. UNSCEAR and their findings are deeply troubling for anti-nuclear opponents who would prefer they don’t exist. That not being possible, they will either ignore the findings all together, or resort to publishing deeply skewed interpretations as you did in Radiation and Risk. I have nothing further to say on the matter
Posted by Ben Heard, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 11:42:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim,

You completely missed the point. As the level of uncertainty rises, the prediction is of less value.

Given that the rate was calculated based on a high dose, and already the ratio of uncertainty between levels of confidence was 140%, extrapolating to medium, low and very low doses becomes meaningless.

For example the ranges of confidence (given the very low doses for the majority) on your estimate of 30 000 to 60 000 deaths would actually mean that the range of deaths could be from 30 to 3 000 000.

These figures are meaningless and the test would be to compare the cancer rate in the affected area with previous rates and those of similar areas that are unaffected. This comparison was done, and showed conclusively that there was no measurable increase.

While as I mentioned previously, much of the deviation from the Hiroshima results is probably due to the preventative measures taken, and the early successful treatment of 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, the proof of the pudding is clearly that your projections of 30 000 deaths is hogwash.

If the theoretical calculations don't match reality, the chances are that reality is correct and the calculations are wrong.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 12:14:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Graham. My apologies, long day, and I am new to the forum way of life. My comments on Calidcotts conclusions will however be a praise of what Monbiot has uncovered. In short, to achieve a figure of 900,000+ deaths, the work Caldicott cites has attributed every excess death in the region post the accident to Chernobyl, irrespective of causation being radiation related or not. Given that there are a lot of ways to die, and only three years later a massive social upheaval occurred, this is patently ridiculous. Thankfully Jim Green seems to agree as he does not include this as a credible estimate in his earlier comment. Furthermore the report, released through the annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, has not been peer reviewed by them, and they do not stand behind the findings, so any inference that it is their report is incorrect.
And others will know better than me but yes, your questions about natural background radiation lead to some interesting places. My examples are more global than local. I understand the Colorado Plateau (a beautiful place) is highly radioactive by background standards because of the rock. Cornwall is more radioactive than London for similar reasons. Ramsar in Iran is right up there. A skiing trip exposes you to elevated levels because of the altitude. So a skiing trip in Colorado? :) As for the x-ray, that’s different altogether. One good scan will hit you will more than a year of background radiation. For certain types of cancer, you will receive managed doses in high concentration to kill the cancer. No one wants that, but it is survivable and profoundly prolongs life for those people. All of this is worth knowing when deciding how to respond. But none of it should ever be used glibly to infer people are silly for being worried about radiation. Some people fall into that trap.
Posted by Ben Heard, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 3:05:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@SP, exactly my point, which was to highlight that Green's use of '600,000 Sv' is an egregious non sequitur without any qualification as to population size or duration of exposure.
Posted by Mark Duffett, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 11:44:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Mark Duffet, to come to Green's defence (believe it or not), in this case he doesn't need to qualify it. This "standard risk assessment" rate for cancer permits him to do exactly what he did and strictly speaking he has applied it correctly. BUT, it's up to the rest of us to decide whether that is actually worth anything, and as you and SP are noting, reality is nowhere near so simple as this standard risk idea suggests. It all stems from the notion of linear non-threshold risk of harm from radiation, which makes radiation very different from other toxins, where curves and thresholds clearly apply. As UNSCEAR point out, the LNT model may have a place as a precautionary approach to setting guidelines, but NOT for determining actual impacts from an event, where there is no substitute for actual studies.
Posted by Ben Heard, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:22:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To respond to Ben's points:

1. No, I don't regard UNSCEAR as fringe though in this report it goes a long way down the path of adopting the fringe view that low-level radiation is harmless. Yet it doesn't go all the way - it doesn't assert that the death toll from widespread radiation was zero, as Ben seems to be claiming.

I accept the BEIR conclusion that "the balance of evidence from epidemiologic, animal and mechanistic studies tend to favor a simple proportionate relationship at low doses between radiation dose and cancer risk." The fringe view is that low level radiation is harmless - that view has very little currency beyond the nuclear industry and its most strident supporters.

2. Ben says that i regard UNSCEAR's findings as not credible, since my lower end estimate for credibility is 9,000 fatalities. But UNSCEAR simply didn't make any finding. It doesn't assert that the death toll from widespread radiation was zero, as Ben seems to be claiming.

3. Ben seems impressed with UNSCEAR's comments that any illness from the low levels of radiation will be so small as to be beyond detection. But that's my point precisely - no-one would expect to be able to demonstrate statistically-significant increases after very low exposures, and any study that did demonstrate statistical-significance would rightly be treated with suspicion.

Lastly, Ben imagines UNSCEAR and its findings "are deeply troubling for anti-nuclear opponents". UNSCEAR doesn't come to any conclusions that would trouble anyone - it sits on the fence. I would be concerned about indefensible claims that the Chernobyl death toll was 30-60 if i thought that claim was widely believed. But i think it is generally regarded as spin from an industry which has little public credibility.
Posted by Jim Green, Thursday, 14 April 2011 10:19:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" it doesn't assert that the death toll from widespread radiation was zero". No of course not. Becauase they are professional enough to acknowledge that we will never, ever know. It goes just ever so slightly away from that, which is that whatever is possibly there is undetectable, and everyone should stop worrying and get on with their lives, and above all, don't use theoretical modelling to come up with deaths. Your propensity to distort this report seems boundless.

"But that's my point precisely - no-one would expect to be able to demonstrate statistically-significant increases after very low exposures, and any study that did demonstrate statistical-significance would rightly be treated with suspicion."

Jim, did you actually write that? If I have this straight, you are asking us to condemn an industry based on supposed deaths that are so small in number as to be impossible to detect despite looking for 20 years? And if anyone did detect it, we couldn't trust them? WTF?

"UNSCEAR doesn't come to any conclusions that would trouble anyone - it sits on the fence". If anyone out there is still listening, for heavens sake stop reading what Jim and I have to say and just read the 24 pages of the main section of the report. Should you need a quick summary of what "sitting on the fence" looks like, here it is:
• 28 fatal doses of radiation
• Skin injuries and cataracts for the other ARS survivors
• Over 6,000 additional thyroid cancers in children and adolescents, by 2005 15 cases had proved fatal. That’s roughly consistent for thyroid cancer which is normally 1% fatal.
• “To date, there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure”
• Psychological issues leading to risk taking behaviour in diet, drinking, smoking and other risk taking activity.

Jim, shame.
Posted by Ben Heard, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:28:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I would be concerned about indefensible claims that the Chernobyl death toll was 30-60 if i thought that claim was widely believed. But i think it is generally regarded as spin from an industry which has little public credibility."

Well, if you are right about that last point Jim, we will know who to blame. UNSCEAR are quite obviously not spin doctors for the nuclear industry, yet have made just such a finding. Were you not working so tirelessly to discredit it and concoct your own inflated death toll, perhaps the work of UNSCEAR would have the opportunity to be a little better understood.
Posted by Ben Heard, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:37:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ben thanks for the points you make.

Recent debate on nuclear safety has changed my views. The blatency of the efforts by anti-nuclear campaigners to capatilise on Fukushima has caused me to have another look at the evidence. I'd been mildly against nuclear previously because of an over inflated concern about the dangers of radiation. I'd not taken the time to try and understand the weight of evidence. When the Fukushima spin started it was so blatent that I decided I needed to have a closer look.

What became obvious is that nuclear power has been in operation for around 60 years with 3 major incidents. 2 of those have not so far resulted in any confirmed deaths and the impression of the death toll I had from the 3rd was based on wishful thinking by anti-nuclear campaigners, not on actual numbers.

All three incidents involved very old designs of reactors and the one with confirmed fatalities was a design that had been rejected in most of the world due to the safety flaws.

I found claims that newer designs of reactors are able to use a lot of the nuclear waste from older reactors as fuel (I've not looked into that further yet).

I found estimates that around 1.6 million people (mostly children) die every year from respitary illnesses resulting from the use of bio-mass fuel in stoves. I doubt that more nuclear reactors would fix that in the short term but longer term better access to electric power may help to break some of the factors leading to poverty which lead to the need to use those stoves. I found those deaths didn't seem to phase the anti-nuclear crowd.

I've seen that Australia has one of the highest cancer rates in the world despite being one of the most isolated from nuclear power locations in the world (Sydney has one reactor and Brisbane currently has a visiting one).

TBC

Robert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 15 April 2011 8:00:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If nuclear power was a big enough danger to dismiss it's benefits we would see elevated cancer rates in areas closer to nuclear power sites and that does not appear to be the case.

I've gained the impression that some anti-nuclear campaigners want to use AGW, peak oil etc as tool's to attack western lifestyles. They don't want us to solve those problems and carry on.

Anything which might allow key aspects to actually become sustainable are a threat. The use of carbon pricing/taxing as a tool for wealth redistribution being one example how that plays out.

Others are genuine in their opposition to nuclear believing that the risks outweigh the benefits but I've come to believe that the evidence is not supportable for that.

1.6 million deaths a year from crappy (pun intended) stoves, let alone all of those who live out their lives with damaged lungs being just part of the picture.

There are still issues to address regarding management of the waste, particularly the waste from the early day's of nuclear power. In the US the Hanford site will be an expensive cleanup and the graveyard for old ship/sub power plants is something I'd not want nearby.

Waste in the former USSR may be worse. They are largely problems resulting from the way things were done then, not with the concept of nuclear power.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 15 April 2011 8:06:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim,

The single problem with the claim that 30 000 people died is the complete lack of bodies, or any significant change in the cancer rate.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 15 April 2011 9:22:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert,
Thank you for posting your comments. You may not know, but I have been quite a vocal anti-nuclear person in my past. I then spent about three years reconsidering my position, and on the balance of evidence, had to change. Sounds like you may be on a similar path of exploration. I have told that story in a presentation which can be found at my website www.thinkclimateconsulting.com.au . You may find that interesting.

A seminal source for learning about the new generation of reactors is a great book called “Prescription for the Planet” by Tom Blees. Otherwise though, the amazing blog run by my friend Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University is a wealth of information on the topic. Barry is also a big supporter of the sensible application of renewable energy technologies.

I hope those resources help you on the exploration
Posted by Ben Heard, Friday, 15 April 2011 12:18:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was recently challenged on the suggestion that nuclear gives a 99% improvement in outcomes compared to coal, and therefore not a "defeatist" option. My responses may be of interest to the readers of this post.

GHG from coal (Australian average): about 1,000 g CO2 per kWh for full fuel cycle (NGA Factors 2010)
GHG from nuclear operated in Australia (best estimate) for full lifecycle: 60g CO2e/kWh (University of Sydney, 2006) (so only a 94% improvement there, but would be better against lifecyle of coal).

Radiation pollution to the surrounding environment is about 100 times greater from a coal fired power plant than a nuclear plant (Scientific American 13 December 2007)

Other pollution from coal (figures are annual from Loy Yang in Victoria, taken from their 2009 report):
• 577,800m3 of fly ash for “disposal at the on-site overburden dump”
• 2,070 tons of fly ash emitted to the atmosphere
• 56,428 tons of SO2
• 29,398 tons of NOx
• 2,577 tons of CO
• (18,232,826 tCO2e)
Several of these make a major contribution to particulate air pollution which is responsible for the slow and painful deaths of around 700,000 people per year (estimate from WHO 1997, reported in UNEP 2002, The Aisan Brown Cloud: Climate and Other Environmental Impacts). Let’s be generous to coal and say it is only responsible for 1% of that. That’s 7,000 deaths, every year. A still low 5% gives 35,000 deaths every year. There is also acid rain with its damage to environments and economies.

Energy content of coal: 30 GJ/t (World Energy Council Conversion Factors)
Energy content of uranium (once through a light water reactor): 420,000- 675,000 GJ/t (World Energy Council Conversion Factors). Mining impacts per unit of energy provided are therefore orders of magnitude lower.

The major trade off for those benefits is high level nuclear waste, which is very hazardous but pretty uncomplicated to manage (acknowledging due lessons from Fukishima), very small in volume, and has a future as fuel in a 4th generation reactor.

Hope that's interesting.
Posted by Ben Heard, Friday, 15 April 2011 12:32:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here are some the studies Ben ignores:

Reports by the UN Chernobyl Forum and the World Health Organisation in 2005-06 estimated up to 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations and an additional 5,000 deaths among populations exposed to lower doses in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr20/en/index.html

A study by Cardis et al. reported in the International Journal of Cancer estimates 16,000 deaths.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2006/pr168.html

UK radiation scientists Dr Ian Fairlie and Dr David Sumner estimate 30,000 to 60,000 deaths.
http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=&navID=590&lID=2

A 2006 report, commissioned by Greenpeace and involving 52 scientists, estimates a death toll of about 93,000.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406

Ben, re this:
"Jim, did you actually write that? If I have this straight, you are asking us to condemn an industry based on supposed deaths that are so small in number as to be impossible to detect despite looking for 20 years? And if anyone did detect it, we couldn't trust them? WTF?"
- my point was about very low exposures, hence the use of the words "very low exposures".
- by far the greatest problem with nuclear power is the repeatedly-demonstrated connection with WMD proliferation
http://www.choosenuclearfree.net/power-weapons
and the failure of the industry and its supporters to truthfully acknowledge that profound problem or to do anything to fix it e.g. with a rigorous safeguards system and responsible policies regarding reprocessing, selection of uranium customer countries, etc.

over and out from me but happy to field questions or abuse or whatever at jim.green AT foe.org.au
Posted by Jim Green, Friday, 15 April 2011 3:29:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy