Death By Radiation Exposure

[Coleman Smith]

In the event of a nuclear war many people will die in the immediate area of the explosion.

They may be the lucky ones.

Many more may die from the effects of exposure to nuclear radiation.

Here's what you can expect if you are one of the casualties.

WARNING: GRAFIC MEDICAL CONDITIONS DEMONSTRATED.



The same effect can be expected from nuclear accidents.

 

[Jarhyn]

In the event of a nuclear war many people will die in the immediate area of the explosion.

They may be the lucky ones.

Many more may die from the effects of exposure to nuclear radiation.

Here's what you can expect if you are one of the casualties.

WARNING: GRAFIC MEDICAL CONDITIONS DEMONSTRATED.

<Propaganda SNIP!>

The same effect can be expected from nuclear accidents.

Reminds me of "a million ways to die in the west". Scaremongering over nuclear power is ignoring the elephant in the room that is literally every other kind of power generation except solar, whose activities are just as horrific, from getting mangled on a fan wing installation to getting utterly destroyed and used up by the coal/oil industry to getting horrific burns...

And that doesn't get into the fact that those exotic carbon chains and other chemical conditions in the ash pits of fossil fuel plants are as enduring and less capable of being mitigated by the environment or captured.

You will probably get some scaremongering but mostly we understand nuclear energy around these parts. You won't get any converts to your religious fears.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The same effect can be expected from nuclear accidents.

Made me laugh. Each year we get better and better at preventing nuclear power accidents. while designingE more lethal nuclear weapons.
Both in the effort of making these exposures less likely.

 

[Coleman Smith]

In the event of a nuclear war many people will die in the immediate area of the explosion.

They may be the lucky ones.

Many more may die from the effects of exposure to nuclear radiation.

Here's what you can expect if you are one of the casualties.

WARNING: GRAFIC MEDICAL CONDITIONS DEMONSTRATED.

<Propaganda SNIP!>

The same effect can be expected from nuclear accidents.

Reminds me of "a million ways to die in the west". Scaremongering over nuclear power is ignoring the elephant in the room that is literally every other kind of power generation except solar, whose activities are just as horrific, from getting mangled on a fan wing installation to getting utterly destroyed and used up by the coal/oil industry to getting horrific burns...

And that doesn't get into the fact that those exotic carbon chains and other chemical conditions in the ash pits of fossil fuel plants are as enduring and less capable of being mitigated by the environment or captured.

You will probably get some scaremongering but mostly we understand nuclear energy around these parts. You won't get any converts to your religious fears.

As a retired casualty claims adjuster, claims supervisor and claims manager I am familiar with all the ways to die that you are referring to.

I had to deal with 114 bodies and many injuries at one time and location when I handled the Hyatt Regency Hotel disaster.

I don't have any particular fear of nuclear energy.

As you have pointed out there are horrible ways to die from industrial accidents and exposure to waste products.

With regard to nuclear weapons I don't regard them as worse that some conventioal weapons except for scale.

The poison gases used in WW1 are an example.

Both chlorine gas and phosgene produce mass casualties and produce horrible deaths.

And then there is biological warfare.

War is choreographed death.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nuclear accidents? Chernobyl is about as bad as it could get--a criticality accident in the core. There is some debate about whether it actually went prompt critical, but there's no question it came close enough for practical purposes. That was due to utter mismanagement (in any system with a decent regulatory system someone would have been on the horn to the regulators long before the point of danger, or would simply have scrammed it on their own) of a reactor with a flaw that meant if you took it to the very brink before hitting the scram that it would push it over the edge.

Result--a death toll on a par with a reasonably large industrial accident. Contamination sufficient to warrant evacuation of a town. That's not the only town that's been lost to industrial accidents. That's a track record better than most every other source of power generation.

(As for Fukushima--they sacrificed hundreds on the altar of doing something, had they not evacuated the expected death toll would be zero. Basically, an industrial accident that contaminated it's site.)

Nuclear simply looks scary because the casualties are concentrated. We note rare incidents that kill a bunch of people, we ignore common incidents that kill people one by one. The very fact that they make worldwide news is actually evidence of safety--only very rare incidents will make worldwide news.

 

[bilby]

In the event of thermonuclear war, very few people would die due to radiation exposure, and almost all of that few would die from chronic exposure causes, such as thyroid cancers that could have been treated had all the hospitals not been nuked.

Acute radiation syndrome would be rare, because thermonuclear weapons are very powerful, and fairly clean; Anyone close enough to get a lethal radiation dose from such a weapon is almost certainly going to die from thermal or blast effects long before they could develop any symptoms of ARS.

To see large numbers of ARS cases, you would need to fight your war with low yield fission bombs; Nobody's seriously planned to do that since the 1950s.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nuclear's biggest problem in the US is NIMBYism, and there isn't much of a cure. Even those who support nuclear don't want a reactor near them. Nuclear suffers a great deal from misinformation, misunderstanding, and concern with such powerful stuff. But fertilizer killed more people in one explosion in Lebanon, than I think nuclear plants have in decades.

Nuclear is dangerous, but those dangers can and have been mitigated.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nuclear's biggest problem in the US is NIMBYism, and there isn't much of a cure. Even those who support nuclear don't want a reactor near them. Nuclear suffers a great deal from misinformation, misunderstanding, and concern with such powerful stuff. But fertilizer killed more people in one explosion in Lebanon, than I think nuclear plants have in decades.

Nuclear is dangerous, but those dangers can and have been mitigated.

I want a reactor near me. Yes, put the reactor in my back yard. I want cheap, affordable long term base load power. And an easy commute to a power plant job.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nuclear's biggest problem in the US is NIMBYism, and there isn't much of a cure. Even those who support nuclear don't want a reactor near them. Nuclear suffers a great deal from misinformation, misunderstanding, and concern with such powerful stuff. But fertilizer killed more people in one explosion in Lebanon, than I think nuclear plants have in decades.

Nuclear is dangerous, but those dangers can and have been mitigated.

I want a reactor near me. Yes, put the reactor in my back yard. I want cheap, affordable long term base load power. And an easy commute to a power plant job.

Maybe that is a solution to getting a bigger home. Encourage a nuclear plant near a swanky rich neighborhood. Property values will drop, and badda-bing! I'm living in 10,000 SF of luxury for a 1,500 SF price.

 

[ZiprHead]

Speaking of NIMBYs, I drove down to Lansing a few weeks ago. In one area of the two lane highway populated by farms and rural single family homes, almost every property had "REJECT WINDMILLS" signs. I don't understand the problems people have with windmills.

 

[RVonse]

Nuclear's biggest problem in the US is NIMBYism, and there isn't much of a cure. Even those who support nuclear don't want a reactor near them. Nuclear suffers a great deal from misinformation, misunderstanding, and concern with such powerful stuff. But fertilizer killed more people in one explosion in Lebanon, than I think nuclear plants have in decades.

Nuclear is dangerous, but those dangers can and have been mitigated.

I want a reactor near me. Yes, put the reactor in my back yard. I want cheap, affordable long term base load power. And an easy commute to a power plant job.

Maybe that is a solution to getting a bigger home. Encourage a nuclear plant near a swanky rich neighborhood. Property values will drop, and badda-bing! I'm living in 10,000 SF of luxury for a 1,500 SF price.

+1 agree it is a great idea.. San Francisco and Seattle need nuclear plants right next to city hall so the homeless problem will go away tomorrow. And clean reliable energy for the west coast.

 

[bilby]

Nuclear's biggest problem in the US is NIMBYism, and there isn't much of a cure. Even those who support nuclear don't want a reactor near them. Nuclear suffers a great deal from misinformation, misunderstanding, and concern with such powerful stuff. But fertilizer killed more people in one explosion in Lebanon, than I think nuclear plants have in decades.

Nuclear is dangerous, but those dangers can and have been mitigated.

People don't want to live near any kind of industrial facility. The difference with nuclear power plants is that they get asked, rather than told.

A nuclear power plant is the safest, cleanest, quietest and least obtrusive industrial facility you could imagine. But if you want to build one, you have to spend decades persuading the neighbours to let you, and then accept that they can stop construction half way through to reiterate their insane and unfounded fear of your facility, while you keep paying interest on the loans you took out to build the facility, but have to push back the date at which it starts to be productive.

If you want to build a fertiliser factory instead, you get permission quietly overnight by bribing a couple of couincilmen, and then you build it. If anyone objects, you wave your permit in their face and ask why they are a pinko commie refusenik who hates job creators.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Speaking of NIMBYs, I drove down to Lansing a few weeks ago. In one area of the two lane highway populated by farms and rural single family homes, almost every property had "REJECT WINDMILLS" signs. I don't understand the problems people have with windmills.

It is clean energy, therefore bad. They aren't making arguments like bilby regarding storage, ability to meet demand, long-term sustainability.

They simply are against windmills because they provide clean energy. They are idiots.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They simply are against windmills because they provide clean energy. They are idiots.

Or they are against windmills because Trump is against windmills. Idioter by proxy.

 

[ZiprHead]

They simply are against windmills because they provide clean energy. They are idiots.

Or they are against windmills because Trump is against windmills. Idioter by proxy.

That's my guess too.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Nuclear's biggest problem in the US is NIMBYism, and there isn't much of a cure. Even those who support nuclear don't want a reactor near them. Nuclear suffers a great deal from misinformation, misunderstanding, and concern with such powerful stuff. But fertilizer killed more people in one explosion in Lebanon, than I think nuclear plants have in decades.

Nuclear is dangerous, but those dangers can and have been mitigated.

Here is an example of what fuels NIMBY.

In 1971 I bought a "retirement Lot" in a subdivision of Boiling Springs Lakes, NO for $ 500.00.

A number of adverse things happened that effected the property value.

The developer failed to install the promised improvements including electric power, paving the street, and sewer lines.

Some of the trees were declared habit for a rare breed of wood peckers and you cut not cut them down or trim them on your property.

A flood associated with a hurricane caused dam on a new by lake to burst and it has not been repaired.

The navy installed an ammunition facility near by.

A nuclear power plant was built near by.

Last year I finally sold it for the same amount I purchased it for in 1971 after paying taxes on it all those years.

I think god hates me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Meh. I slept in a navy ammunition facility and on two ships, the nuclear reactor was closer to my rack than the galley.
Got a fleet unit commendation a few times, but never felt that any gods hated me.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Meh. I slept in a navy ammunition facility and on two ships, the nuclear reactor was closer to my rack than the galley.
Got a fleet unit commendation a few times, but never felt that any gods hated me.

It was an attempt at humor.

The property values did fall after the ammo facility and the nuclear reactor were installed.

However, I believe the ammo dump and the reactor are necessities and they will have to be in some bodies back yard.

We have a power plant within easy driving distance from us and I have been concerned about it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Meh. I slept in a navy ammunition facility and on two ships, the nuclear reactor was closer to my rack than the galley.
Got a fleet unit commendation a few times, but never felt that any gods hated me.

It was an attempt at humor.

Yeaaaaaaah.... Similarly, there's no such thing as a Fleet Unit Commendation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meh. I slept in a navy ammunition facility and on two ships, the nuclear reactor was closer to my rack than the galley.
Got a fleet unit commendation a few times, but never felt that any gods hated me.

Not radiation related, but the ammo reference reminded me of the small facility I worked on that was being built to repackage munitions for storage because the shipping boxes they came in were the wrong size.

Your tax dollars at work!