On 5/1/2015 2:18 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* John Clark <[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Friday, May 1, 2015 1:14 PM
*Subject:* Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Quoting directly from the 2005 WHO report on Chernobyl accident “/5
SEPTEMBER 2005
| GENEVA -/A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation
exposure
from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant
And yet that very same 2005 WHO report on the Chernobyl accident says:
>> "As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to
radiation from the disaster"
And yet the same report states that it *expects that 4000 people will die* as a result
of cancers that were triggered by radionuclides that they came into contact with,
ingested and/or absorbed through bio-uptake channels into their body tissue.
>>But it's now 2015 not 2005 and 10 years later there is STILL not the slightest sign that
the prediction of massive deaths from radiation is even close to being
correct. Zero, zilch nada, goose egg. In fact I can't think of a single prediction
about the harm caused by a large scale radiation release that was made in the last 70
years that didn't turn out to be ridiculously pessimistic.
Hundreds of thousands of people die of cancer every year in the areas that experienced
fallout from Chernobyl; of these millions and millions of cancer deaths that have
occurred in these regions over the many decades since the accident you "know" that NONE
of them were in any way related to or triggered by radionuclides released into the
environment as a result of that accident?
You "know" this how?
The question is how do we know any of them are? The problem with the projected number of
deaths from radiation is that they assume a zero threshold linear model, i.e. that every
level of radiation, no matter how small, produces some proportional cancer rate. However,
this is a testable theory. Cities at high altitude experience a higher level of
background radiation from cosmic rays and solar radiation. So if the zero threshold
theory were true we would expect higher cancer rates in cities at high altitude. But it
ain't so:
/Low levels of background radiation exist around us continuously. These levels increase
with increasing land elevation, allowing a comparison of low elevations to high elevations
in regard to an outcome such as cancer death rates. The present study compares archived
cancer mortality rates in six low versus six high elevation jurisdictions. The study also
compares mortality rates for all causes, heart disease, and diabetes in low versus high
elevation jurisdictions in an effort to see if other mortality outcomes are different in
low versus high elevations. Statistically significant decreases in mortality, with very
large effect sizes, were observed in high land elevation for three of the four outcomes,
including cancer. One possible explanation for the decreased mortality in high elevation
jurisdictions is radiation hormesis. Another possible explanation, at least in the case of
heart disease mortality, is the physiologic responses that accompany higher elevations
regarding decreased oxygen levels. Since this is an ecological study, no causal inferences
can be made, particularly when viewpoints on possible effects of low level radiation are
diametrically opposed. Further research is indicated./
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057635/
This and knowledge of cell biology suggests that there is a threshold below which external
radiation has no effect.
Brent
>>And besides, Chernobyl happened 29 years ago so we don't need half assed predictions
about what the long term results will be, we know.
Your cavalier denial that any of the cancers that have occurred in the affected regions
can possibly have anything to do with Chernobyl is baseless rhetoric. The experts in the
affected regions, who have access to the statistics, both before and after the accident,
speak of tens of thousands of cases of cancers resulting in the death of the victims.
Where is the statistical foundation to support your denial? Are you an expert on cancer
perchance? On how the disease is triggered; how it progresses; what factors make it more
or less severe?
Or are you just producing rhetorical streams of verbiage?
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
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
