From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 10:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness

 

 

 

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> wait to see what happens to the cancer rates over the next fifty years.

 

>>I don't now about Fukushima but I do know that the predictions of huge
increases of cancer from Chernobyl have proved to be enormous exaggerations:

No you don't know that at all. You don't have some crystal ball and are just
quoting from studies that have been criticized as very much low balling the
ultimate number of cancer deaths attributable to Chernobyl. Other studies
have come up with much higher numbers - ranging into the millions. For
example the TORCH report commissioned by the German Green Party that
included areas not covered by the WHO report that produced the 4000 figure
you quote. It concluded that the death toll from cancer is more likely to be
around 30,000 to 60,000 extra incurred deaths. We could go on till the sun
comes up - you present a study and I can present another study. It is hard
to correlate cancer deaths that may happen decades even after the
originating event with some event and the statistical methodologies used are
all open to argument --- and the numbers can be moved about by changing
boundary conditions etc.

Besides the cancer deaths, what about the 2,600 kilometer square exclusion
zone - that is a very big area. What is the dollar value on that? 

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/world/europe/05iht-nuke.html?pagewanted=al
l
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/world/europe/05iht-nuke.html?pagewanted=a
ll&_r=0> &_r=0

 

And however many cancers Fukushima turns out to have been made it is
unlikely to be more than the cancers made by a average run of the mill coal
power electric plant that never had a industrial accident. 

So say you. You speak of Fukushima as if it was an event that happened in
the past - the disaster is still unfolding and Tepco cannot even say where
the nuclear material in the  cores of units #1, #2, and #3 is located. A run
of the mill industrial accident does not produce an essentially permanent
and very large exclusion zone - affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands
of uprooted atomic refugees -- as has Chernobyl and now once again
Fukushima. The cost to sequester the Fukushima disaster will run into the
many hundreds of billions of dollars - hardly a run of the mill price tag.  

There is nothing run of the mill about Fukushima - to suggest so is rather
obscene.

Chris

 

  John K Clark

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to