How harmful is nuclear radiation? It depends on the dose received.

  • Thread starter kowalskil
  • Start date
238
1
How many did die due to Fukushima radiation, according to you, Danuta?
Dr. Kowalski, Those of us who have had loved ones die from Cancer know that a lot of cancer in Europe that is killing people now is from the Chernobyl disaster. People justifiably fear that radiation release and at the same time understand that any further radiation releases will result in more deaths. They may speak as if it is in the present even though we know it is in the future. Danuta has obviously done so and done so justifiably. And Danuta is adding to that the possibility of people dying from stress associated with displacement. Stress is a killer as most know. Danuta is absolutely correct in saying that people who have been displaced because of radiation will die. We know it will happen, even if we do not have any way to accurately tabulate that.

By the way, I love Chopin's music.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
238
1
Radiation is not always accurately linked to people's deaths. I had a brother in law who used to sit with his father on a western facing hillside on their farmland in western Utah and watch the above ground nuclear detonations in the Fifties. they had no knowledge of what they were letting themselves in for. The father died of lung cancer four years later and my brother in law died of leukemia twenty years after that. Nobody in their family tree ever had cancer before the two of them died. I doubt that either were tabulated as having died from the above ground tests.
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,628
4,359
Dr. Kowalski, Those of us who have had loved ones die from Cancer know that a lot of cancer in Europe that is killing people now is from the Chernobyl disaster. People justifiably fear that radiation release and at the same time understand that any further radiation releases will result in more deaths. They may speak as if it is in the present even though we know it is in the future. Danuta has obviously done so and done so justifiably. And Danuta is adding to that the possibility of people dying from stress associated with displacement. Stress is a killer as most know. Danuta is absolutely correct in saying that people who have been displaced because of radiation will die. We know it will happen, even if we do not have any way to accurately tabulate that.

By the way, I love Chopin's music.
Umm, I doubt you KNOW that the cancer was caused by chernobyl.

Unfortunently the discussion of deaths from stress and other things related to an evacuations are NOT in accordance with the OP's original topic. I don't know why that is so hard to accept. If you want to talk about that, go make a thread! Don't argue pointlessly in a thread about death directly from radiation.
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,628
4,359
Radiation is not always accurately linked to people's deaths. I had a brother in law who used to sit with his father on a western facing hillside on their farmland in western Utah and watch the above ground nuclear detonations in the Fifties. they had no knowledge of what they were letting themselves in for. The father died of lung cancer four years later and my brother in law died of leukemia twenty years after that. Nobody in their family tree ever had cancer before the two of them died. I doubt that either were tabulated as having died from the above ground tests.
It is unfortunate that they both developed cancer, but there is no way to know for sure. People have died of cancer throughout history. It is entirely possible they would have developed cancer anyways had there been no tests. Please, don't take this as me saying that the nukes didn't cause their cancer. I have no idea if it did or not. I am merely saying that you can't always tell if it is related to radiation or not.
 
238
1
It is unfortunate that they both developed cancer, but there is no way to know for sure. People have died of cancer throughout history. It is entirely possible they would have developed cancer anyways had there been no tests. Please, don't take this as me saying that the nukes didn't cause their cancer. I have no idea if it did or not. I am merely saying that you can't always tell if it is related to radiation or not.
Very true statement, young man. There is no way to tabulate other than to have an estimated number of how many should have developed cancer per ratio of population if there were no nuclear detonations and how many cancer deaths actually occurred after the tests.

Ironically, there was one eastern Senator who actually was quoted as having said that THAT method was unreliable because the rate of cancer went up after 1950. He had no idea what caused the rate to go up. Hummmmm?

Brings to mind the California state legislator who refused to approve an appropriations bill for new earthquake proof schools and earthquake upgrades throughout the state because throughout California state history there was never an earthquake during school hours.

To think that people actually vote for people like that. And some even thing that they have to be smart if they are elected. Seems to me that we have elected a lot of idiots to office in the United States.
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,628
4,359
Ironically, there was one Senator who actually was quoted as having said that THAT method was unreliable because the rate of cancer went up after 1950. He had no idea what caused the rate to go up. Hummmmm?

Brings to mind the California state legislator who refused to approve an appropriations bill for new earthquake schools and earthquake upgrades throughout the state because throughout California state history there was never an earthquake during school hours.

To think that people actually vote for people like that. And some even thing that they have to be smart if they were elected.
Perhaps the rates of cancer went up because of the advancement of medical science allowed them to diagnose more cases properly? Perhaps it was the longer lifespan?

As for the legislator, that guy is a moron.
 
546
1
People die from accidents like this. They die in many ways. If the accident did not happen they would not be dead.
Okay. You're correct. But the title of this thread is "How harmful is radiation" and not "How harmful are the overall medical and psychological effects of a Fukushima class nuclear accident".
You may open a new thread... but as far as I can read, this thread is ONLY about radiation problems. Period.
 
2,662
20
You annoy the **** out of people with comments like that. If they die from stress related to radiation they are still dead. If there was no radiation release they would not be dead. Period!
Will you people please make a new thread of your own.

This thread is about direct radiation dosage and nothing to do with deaths linked to the event.

Mentors either cleanup this non-sense, move it elsewhere or lock the thread.
 
505
1
this thread is OP posting incorrect data: 16 times under estimate of dose rate outside the zone, almost 2 times off 'typical mammography dose' , etc. see my earlier post here. No point even arguing anything when the numbers are so off.
 
546
1
this thread is OP posting incorrect data: 16 times under estimate of dose rate outside the zone, almost 2 times off 'typical mammography dose' , etc. see my earlier post here. No point even arguing anything when the numbers are so off.
Then correct him but don't go overboard with offtopic stuff such as psychological health impact of evacuation measures. Is that so hard to understand...?

Just because the OP made a mistake doesn't allow you going offtopic.
 
22
0
this thread is OP posting incorrect data: 16 times under estimate of dose rate outside the zone, almost 2 times off 'typical mammography dose' , etc. see my earlier post here. No point even arguing anything when the numbers are so off.
Dear Dmytry,

1) I agree on the "not worth arguing." No one expects radiation to be uniformly 0.25 mr/hr. In some places it can be much higher and in other it can be much lower. It depends on the time, rain, wind, etc.

2) Do you agree that quoted numbers--for the expected biological effects--are not significantly different from what is "well know"? Do you agree that such numbers can be very useful?

Have a good day.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,541
1,683
I'm closing the thread pending moderation. :rolleyes:
 

Related Threads for: How harmful is nuclear radiation? It depends on the dose received.

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
29K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
743
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
39K
Top