//I am getting a little tired of the personal attacks on me.//

We're getting tired of the unremitting stream of bollocks. I mean, there's only so much bollocks that a fella can take before he's had enough.

//I quote here from a 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.//

Well that's a sudden revision downwards... 1.5 million to 4K. Quite a drop.

Here's a video I think you'll like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0u9NzDCjIw

CMac,

The problem with the bogus science that you quote, it that it is completely unsubstantiated. The theory of the linear effects of radiation is not based on any empirical evidence and was proposed primarily as a "precautionary" principle.

This theory falls in a heap when compared against the statistics on cancers from the areas surrounding Chernobyl. Other than thyroid cancers from the Iodine which were rapidly detected and treated, the occurrence of cancers was statistically no different before and after the disaster.

This is a typical example of activist pseudo science bollocks.

ChristinaMac1 ,

Exactly; projected 4,000 deaths, not 1.5 million. But you did not admit you were wrong? See ‘10 signs of intellectual dishonesty’:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

The 4,000 deaths is projected by the LNP hypothesis. It is for 70 years or more from 1986. And from about 86,000 TWh of nuclear power generation since 1954 – i.e. about 0.47 deaths/TWh.

For a valid comparison, compare deaths per TWh for all technologies. Oh wait, I already posted that in a previous comment and you either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it.

You didn’t mention these two important points from the WHO report?

• “Relocation proved a “deeply traumatic experience” for some 350,000 people moved out of the affected areas.

• Persistent myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation have resulted in “paralyzing fatalism” among residents of affected areas.”
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

Both are a result of the fear of nuclear power as a consequence of 60 years of scaremongering by the anti-nuclear power protest movement.

Since you like videos, you might learn a lot from Wade Allison, Professor of Physics, Oxford:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ6aL3wv4v0

Do tell us about the Brazilian children that painted themselves and the family kitchen with glowing radioactive waste, and what were the long term health consequences of that?

Re bias: In one of your ad hominems, you did not read the authoritative paper I linked but instead just looked for who funded it and insinuated that highly authoritative body is biased. Yet you continually refer to rubbish junk science and videos. You should reflect on your own bias, and the bias of the groups who fund and produce the junk science you refer to, and believe.

Also read and consider the information in the links I gave in my previous comments

Christina, typical activist, runs off with tail between her legs, without acknowledging she was wrong and without participating in a rational discussion about the the evidence presented on the relative safety of nuclear power compared with other electricity generating technologies. And without acknowledging the enormous damage the anti-nuclear power protest movement has done to human well being over the past 60 years - see
'Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone'
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

Oh dear! The argument in this page has gone on into how "wrong" I have been, and my not admitting that. Well, all I've pointed out, really, is that there are different estimates of the number of deaths from Chernobyl radiation release, including the WHO one, which would be a conservative estimate. I'm amazed that WHO was brave enough to quote even 4000 deaths, in view of their 1959 agreement with IAEA, by which they are bound not to damage thde nuclear industry.

But anyway, all this is not the point. The original article is about the number of jobs that would be provided by the proposed South Australian nuclear waste dump.

As so often happens, in this forum, the pro nuclear voices completely ignore the subject of the original article.

Christina,

You do not know what you are talking about on the relative safety of nuclear power compared with other technologies. You have not read the references I gave you. You are now trying to divert from acknowledging you are wrong about the point you raised that nuclear power is more dangerous than other technologies (which is dead wrong!). This is one of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty, You are displaying several of the signs of intellectual dishonesty.

You assert, with no evidence, that WHO's estimate is conservative. True. It's a high estimate. The projected 4000 deaths is based on the LNT hypothesis. This is a high estimate of deaths from low level radiation, which is what was received by all except the clean up workers. Actual deaths attributed to radiation and radioactive contamination from Chernobyl are around 100 so far (after 30 years). No measurable increase in leukemia (peaks at about 10 years) and hard cancers peaks (at about 30 years).

The radiation and radioactive contamination from the Fukushima accident killed no one and is unlikely to ever. However, the evacuation caused over 1000 deaths and high level of psychological disorders (like Chernobyl). This is the real health effect of the accident. This is a consequence of the 60 years of anti-nuclear scare-mongering by ignorant activists like you.

As I said, you believe junk science and wont read the authoritative studies. Instead of reading the paper and discussing the content, you look for the funding source and try to infer they are biased, ignoring the bias of the junk you prefer. If the authoritative papers and reports don't support your alarmist beliefs, you prefer to accept the junk science.

You have not discussed the life cycle analysis deaths per TWh from the different electricity generation technologies. The authoritative studies have been showing similar rankings of the technologies for at least 40 years.

I now dismiss you as simply an activist, not interested in the facts, intellectually dishonest.