On Fri, May 1, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> >>> 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* > To hell with what somebody "expected" to happen in 2005, in 2015 we can see clear as a bell that what they "expected" to happen did NOT happen, just like every other apocalyptic prediction made in the last 70 years about what the results would be from a large scale radiation release. They ALWAYS get it wrong and they ALWAYS error in the same pessimistic direction. >> 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; And hundreds of thousands would have died of cancer in that area every year if the Chernobyl plant had never been built. > > 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? No, obviously I don't know that, nor do I know of any energy source that has zero probability of killing anybody under any circumstances, but I do know 2 things: 1) The only statistically significant increase in cancer due to Chernobyl was 4000 cases of thyroid cancer that resulted in 10 deaths and would never have happened if people had just taken cheap iodine pills within 4 hours of the accident. 2) In the last half century nuclear has caused FAR fewer deaths per kilowatt hour than any other power source currently in use by the human race. > You "know" this how? > I read and I know how to count. > > 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. So now I guess the scientific method is baseless rhetoric. The fact is that other than the thyroid cancers mentioned above no statistically significant increase in cancers has been detected in the Chernobyl region. And after 29 years it's about time to stop worrying about what somebody a decade or more ago predicted would happen and to start looking at what actually did happen. 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]. 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.
