nismaratwork
- 358
- 0
Errr... sorry Cyrus, I was fairly instrumental in the off-topic aside... I think it's resolved now.
Cyrus said:? I never said anything in regards to your last paragraph, I'm not sure if it was directed at me or not. I'm going to ignore the first two because I don't want to drag this thread off topic.
That's the lethal dose for direct radiation poisoning. Long term cancer deaths and birth defects attributable to radiation induced DNA changes are measured to a different threshold, if I recall.Vanadium 50 said:No almost about it.
The total radiation release was 600,000 Sv. It takes about 6 Sv to kill a person.
mheslep said:That's the lethal dose for direct radiation poisoning. Long term cancer deaths and birth defects attributable to radiation induced DNA changes are measured to a different threshold, if I recall.
'Those' refers to what? Cancer?nismaratwork said:Those effects are disputable and unpredictable, especially given all that we're exposed to now (coal fired plants for instance).
First, 'we' are not; I was pointing out the cancer consequences of radiation. Second, why? In what context is it 'best'? Based on what dependencies (is what?) 'best'?If we're going to talk about radiation poisoning, it's best to stick to known quantities:
mheslep said:'Those' refers to what? Cancer?
First, 'we' are not; I was pointing out the cancer consequences of radiation. Second, why? In what context is it 'best'? Based on what dependencies (is what?) 'best'?
Might be a comprehension issue on my part, but how does "Mostly no" answer the question "does 'those' refer to cancer?"nismaratwork said:Mostly no, coal-fired plants cause death in people with respiratory ailments, although for coal miners pneumosilicosis can lead to cancer as a means of death.
So, really all we can say is that the numbers derived from the causes that are well understood provide a lower bound on the deaths, and the error bar in the location of the upper bounds increases with how poorly the other causes are quantified.To your second, do you KNOW what the cancer "consequences" of a given level of radiation exposure are? How about exposure/time, or over a lifetime? I sure as hell don't, and AFAIK you're not going to find hard statistics. I mean that it's best to talk about the cause of action we can identify directly with radiation, much as you would want me to stick to known facts regarding coal.
Gokul43201 said:Might be a comprehension issue on my part, but how does "Mostly no" answer the question "does 'those' refer to cancer?"
So, really all we can say is that the numbers derived from the causes that are well understood provide a lower bound on the deaths, and the error bar in the location of the upper bounds increases with how poorly the other causes are quantified.
It's two different things to say we know the upper bound is very likely below X, and to say that we have no good understanding of the upper bound, so let's stick with the lower bound estimates.
Jack21222 said:Does the author of your source realize that a "full-scale catastrophe" like Chernobyl is impossible in modern nuclear plants?
JaredJames said:Looking at death rates, you can only include those which are proven to be attributed to the claimed cause (radiation exposure etc). Any others are purely speculative unless evidence can be provided to show it as the direct cause.