dystopian
Veteran Member
Don't lump me in with coal advocates. I have already posted sources indicating more than 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl. These did not come from Greenpeace.
Whether they came from Greenpeace or not is irrelevant; what's relevant is 1) that there is by no means a *consensus* that there's been or even will be that many cancer deaths from Chernobyl; 2) that there are quite credible independent reports that list figures that aren't even a tenth of your number; and 3) that 125,000 cancer deaths (even IF they were all in Russia, which they're not) would not have a significant impact on the overall Russian lifespan.
The article charted life expectancy of Russians and affected other republics and clearly showed a decrease in life expectancy of these peoples.
No, it didn't.
First of all, the article you linked to was talking about people in the *affected* areas, which as I already told you was only 0.33% of Russia's territory, and which represents only a small minority of Russia's population. While it may (or may not, since the article does not represent consensus opinion) have had a measurable effect on the life span of the people *in that particular region*... it did *not* have a measurable impact on the lifespan of Russians as a whole, as you were claiming. Incidentally, the article you posted doesn't state there have been 125,000 cancer deaths; it in fact acknowledges the 9000 total cancer deaths for Russia, Belarus and Ukraine combined (including deaths that have not yet happened) as estimated by the WHO. It also lists other cancer estimates over the years, both local and worldwide, which vary wildly, but none of these result in a figure of 125,000. Most of these estimates are well below 125,000; though a few are absurdly above it. Finally, the article does come up with an estimate of deaths itself by trying to include various factors, but the majority of these are not cancer deaths, and the final figure they arrive at is not 125,000 either. Not to mention it relies on completely arbitrary assumptions.
The 125,000 doesn't show up anywhere in the material you linked except for the claim that between 112,000 and 125,000 of the people involved in the Chernobyl cleanup died before 2005. Of course, the vast majority of these people did NOT die from cancer; and while it's certainly plausible that a good number of them died from complications that resulted from Chernobyl, it is extremely difficult to determine to what extent this is actually the case and projections based on assumed numbers are severely questionable even with the best methodologies.
Not only that...the cause...lung cancer...not speculation...actual statistics.
Since the only 125,000 in the linked material you provided doesn't even refer to cancer deaths, much less specific types of cancer, I'm going to have to call bullshit... again.
You are using a tobacco industry argument against something we have begun to understand...
Except I'm not. I'm not basing my arguments on studies funded by the nuclear power industry. Just basic facts.
that some things are just not compatible with human beings...and most other animals. Increased radiation levels just happens to be one of them, along with tar from ciggies and pm10 from coal plants and heavy metals in our food and water and air.
This is all well and good, but did you miss the part where nuclear power puts out less radiation than most of the alternatives? You're still just arguing from a nuclear-hysteria position, and not an objective one.
We will be changing how we use energy and also how much energy we use or we will die in large numbers and fall into civil chaos.
If we moved to purely nuclear energy tomorrow (which I'm not advocating, incidentally), climate change would be halted or at least slowed significantly. And since it's already been well demonstrated that the total number of deaths from nuclear power generation are much less than most of the other energy sources we have, we would die in FEWER numbers than we do today. Not to mention the fact that even with the numbers of deaths we're incurring from power generation today we're not falling into civil chaos, one can only presume fewer deaths would not result in civil chaos.
It is already happening. The typhoon in the Philippines wiped a whole town off the map.
Yeah, typhoons have been doing that for many thousands of years. And sure, their number is increasing because of global climate changing... but nuclear power would reduce climate change, not increase it... so I'm puzzled why you'd bring up typhoons in a discussion about nuclear power.
Fukushima has dumped tons of radioactive pollution into the pacific and it is being incorporated into the food chain. These are not small matters.
Nobody claimed they were. Still doesn't change the fact that kwh for kwh, nuclear power is cleaner and safer than almost anything else, apart from windpower.
You mind appears too small to comprehend the gravity of the situation. Sorry about that. Maybe when you get a little OLDER you will come to understand better.
Or maybe my brain (like that of many old people) will have calcified to the point of not being able to properly read/understand my own sources or the arguments of others, like yours appears to be?