24 Years Later - The Consequences of Chernobyl -985,000 dead so far

[ensho]

http://counterpunch.com/grossman04232010.html


Monday is the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It comes as the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear government officials in the U.S. and other nations try to “revive” nuclear power. It also follows the just-released publication of a book, the most comprehensive study ever made, on the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment has just been published by the New York Academy of Sciences. It is authored by three noted scientists: Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long-involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based—on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports—some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died of cancer caused by the Chernobyl accident. That’s between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004.

More deaths, it projects, will follow.

The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency—still on its website – that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.

Comments Alice Slater, representative in New York of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: “The tragic news uncovered by the comprehensive new research that almost one million people died in the toxic aftermath of Chernobyl should be a wake-up call to people all over the world to petition their governments to put a halt to the current industry-driven ‘nuclear renaissance.’ Aided by a corrupt IAEA, the world has been subjected to a massive cover-up and deception about the true damages caused by Chernobyl.”

-snip-

The book details the spread of radioactive poisons following the explosion of Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear plant on April 26, 1986. These major releases only ended when the fire at the reactor was brought under control in mid-May. Emitted were “hundreds of millions of curies, a quantity hundreds of times larger than the fallout from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” The most extensive fall-out occurred in regions closest to the plant—in the Ukraine (the reactor was 60 miles from Kiev in Ukraine), Belarus and Russia.

However, there was fallout all over the world as the winds kept changing direction “so the radioactive emissions…covered an enormous territory.”

The radioactive poisons sent billowing from the plant into the air included Cesium-137, Plutonium, Iodine-131 and Strontium-90.

There is a breakdown by country, highlighted by maps, of where the radionuclides fell out. Beyond Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, the countries included Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The radiological measurements show that some 10% of Chernobyl poisons “fell on Asia…Huge areas” of eastern Turkey and central China “were highly contaminated,” reports the book. Northwestern Japan was impacted, too.

Northern Africa was hit with “more than 5% of all Chernobyl releases.” The finding of Cesium-137 and both Plutonium-239 and Plutonium-240 “in accumulated Nile River sediment is evidence of significant Chernobyl contamination,” it says. “Areas of North America were contaminated from the first, most powerful explosion, which lifted a cloud of radionuclides to a height of more than 10 km. Some 1% of all Chernobyl nuclides,” says the book, “fell on North America.”

-long snip-

The Chernobyl accident is, as the new book documents, an ongoing global catastrophe.

And it is a clear call for no new nuclear power plants to be built and for the closing of the dangerous atomic machines now running—and a switch to safe energy technologies, now available, led by solar and wind energy, that will not leave nearly a million people dead from one disaster.
------------------------------


no more nuke plants, deconstruct the ones running now.

[CountAllVotes]

1. sadly, most people don't remember Chernobyl

however, I do. I agree with you, NO MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS (do you hear that OBAMA?) !!!!!!!!! :mad: :argh:

:dem: :kick: & recommend.

[anarch]

2. but...but...

it's "clean energy" and totally safe and all that....

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Yeah, I thought I heard

that nookyoolur power is the safest form of generation, that there has never been a single death attributed to it.

Besides, if we don't have those reactors, where are we going to get the depleted uranium we need for shell casings? The threat of being attacked by the American military is so much more effective when them furriners know we're going to leave them with a legacy of a couple thousand years of birth defects and cancer.

[CountAllVotes]

16. someone in Holland that I knew died

of a cancerous brain tumor. This was a few years ago. She was about 45 years old or so. Everyone in Holland is scared shitless about the aftermath of Chernobyl and they have not forgotten about it because people are dropping dead rather quickly from bizarre cancers at very young ages all around them. :(

Culprit: CHERNOBYL! The disaster that keeps on killing!

:kick:

[proudohioan]

26. Yeah, I thought I heard that one yesterday, too. nt

[Donnachaidh]

15. find a documentary called "Chernobyl Heart" - they occasionally cycle it on cable

It will show you what Chernobyl still continues to do to the children in the area.

Clean Energy my shiny metal ass. :grr:

[jdp349]

3. How about

no more half assed Russian nuclear power plants without containment domes and the numerous other intricate measures modern western plants use to ensure such a similar disaster could never happen.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. That's my favorite phrase in English--

"Could never happen."

[Zoeisright]

9. "Never"???

That's impossible. There is no "never" when trying to contain poisons.

It's muddled thinking like that that has gotten us into this environmental mess in the first place.

Grow up.

[ensho]

11. yes, one should never say 'never' - it will bite you every time

nt

[jdp349]

17. Never was too strong a word, I agree

Modern safety measures reduce the likelihood of a similar disaster such that the probability is so low that the measurable risk outside of the possibility of coordinated sabotage the hazard posed by nuclear power is consistent with the publics level of risk aversion.

grow up... that's rich, coming from someone who evidently thinks nuclear power is the boogeyman.

I'm not going to get into it with you, anti-nuclear energy folks are a waste of time. Luckily that's how the public is starting to perceive you as that as well and that's all that matters.

[Rebubula]

23. Always with the condescension...

...you enjoy your lofty status don't you?

You are aware that you can refute what someone says without being a dick, right?

That said....one accident in the last 30 years seems like an anomaly and not a rule. Other than a couple of republicans in the family, there has been no mutations in our family line and most of us lived near the nuclear plant in Waynesboro, GA.

Technology has advanced since Chernobyl - coupled with the fact it was shoddy construction and poor safety measures in place makes a good argument to look further at nuclear power.

[Dogmudgeon]

37. Wrong place!

My apologies to all.

Well ... to most, anyway.

:evilgrin:

--d!

[Donnachaidh]

21. 3 little words -- Three Mile Island.

Never happen here? :rofl:

change that to *barely averted here* you'd be far closer to the truth. And how about that Indian Point problem y'all have in NY?

http://www.ipsecinfo.org/

:rofl: :rofl:

[Pavulon]

43. Not one death, or any cancer caused by TMI

says conclusive study.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-11/uopm-nsr103102.php

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. The Chernobyl plant makes a bold statement about the consequences of failure.

It's also simultaneously irrelevant to modern designs --> antiquated and dangerous with under trained workers.
It's about as applicable to 21st century nuclear power as the Ford Model-T applies to the 2010 Ford SHO.

One thing it has taught us is that we must be vigilant in designing failsafe and robust reactors.
Equally as important, we must supply them with well trained people.

[SidDithers]

5. Good post...

Comparing Chernobyl to modern nuclear power reactors is like comparing bananas to cats.

Sid

[NeedleCast]

10. Both are delicious...

[SidDithers]

19. But one's harder to peel than the other...

I'm going to burn wherever atheists go to burn for that :)

Sid

[NeedleCast]

24. Wait, you're supposed to peel them first?

I've been doing it wrong...

[Jackpine Radical]

32. Which,

bananas or cats?

[NeedleCast]

33. I've been eating both skin-on

I always heard that was the most nutritious part.

I might be confusing cats and bananas with potatoes...

[Jackpine Radical]

35. I always de-claw the bananas first.

Or maybe that's potatoes.

[hedgehog]

36. Only the potatoes from Chernobyl......

[Ikonoklast]

48. When people talk about potatoes having eyes

the potatoes from Chernobyl actually have them.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_F07iqvPbMZY/SVBXjRONExI/AAAAAAAABtQ/CJvx8Oy2V3w/s400/potato+eyes.jpg

[Jackpine Radical]

73. What has four wings, six legs & 3 heads?

Chicken Kiev.

[tammywammy]

12. +1 n/t

[CountAllVotes]

18. it is far from antiquated and irrelevant ...

as people are still dying from its toxic effects some 25 years later.

How many more must die? How many god damnit!?

:kick:

[NeedleCast]

25. 25 Years

Reactor technology has and safety has come a long way.

How long does that anti-nuke crowd plan to use this example as a broad brush against modern nuclear facilities?

[proudohioan]

28. "we must supply them with well trained people."

Agreed, however, we have become a nation of "corporate competitiveness" and bottom-line, short term profits.

That is what scares me.

[MadHound]

38. It makes an even bolder statement about the inability to engineer away human error

And the consequences of being unable to do so.

There is no design out there, old or new, which can prevent human error from happening. Sure, most human error that occurs in a nuclear facility results in little or no damage, however once in a while there is human error that results in a moderate amount of damage. Finally, once in a great while, like Chernobyl, you have human error that results in catastrophic damage. Until you can eliminate that possibility, we shouldn't be building any new reactors.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

40. Once in a great while?

Chernobyl was a TERRIBLE design and the operators didn't understand how the system responds to changes. The operators both caused and exasperated the runaway reactions. To top it off... they had NO containment system once it blew up in your face. That plant was just begging for a cotastrophe. Lack of safety and training (no regulation) are the DIRECT causes of the Chernobyl nuclear event. They were not some victim of nuclear happenstance or bad luck.

There are modern designs which are WAYYYY more fail safe in that they do not fail in a mode which reaches criticality.
Plus, modern computer control goes a long way to counteract human error.

[MadHound]

44. And yet at the time it was considered a state of the art design

Yet this human error of design, among other human errors, led to catastrophe.

We're putting our faith in other supposed state of the art designs, yet who knows what sort of human error inherent in these designs will lead to future catastrophe.

Putting all your faith into a computer is also a sure recipe for disaster as well.

Again, you cannot engineer out human error, and while this isn't a major problem with conventional plants or other complex man made systems, once in a great while it leads to disaster when it comes to dealing with nuclear power.

[Pavulon]

45. Considering the Navy has over 5000 reactor years on its systems

with no significant event proves design and operation is key. They had a flawed design an d no containment.

[MadHound]

46. Yet their design was considered state of the art,

Thus it was human error that led to Chernobyl. These so called state of the art new designs could very well do the same thing.

Oh, and don't be so confident in Naval systems. I worked with a number of Navy nuclear operators, and the sea depths can hide a lot of sins.

[Pavulon]

50. I worked in Idaho falls.

and am not saying there is never any problem. But problems are limited by the design and procedures in place.

[MadHound]

53. That's true, problems can be, and have been limited by design.

The trouble is, if there is a design flaw, it simply doesn't lead to a little "oopsie". It leads to something like Chernobyl, with a million dead and thousands of square miles of contaminated landscape. Even if we have one of these disasters every thirty years or so, that's simply too much.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are many nuclear proponents who are saying "trust us, we have great modern designs." That's nice and all, but that is the same sort of thinking that led to Chernobyl. The fact is, there is no way to eliminate human error, nor waste. Until we take care of those two problems we need to shelve nuclear power, especially since we have other cleaner, renewable sources to generate electricity.

[Pavulon]

54. The problem is the 137,000 Mw/hr used by the tristate. Coal or Nukes

are the only way to generate that. I have never seen a proposal from anyone that could cover a base load like that with any other source.

Nuclear designs are not new, they are improvement of existing designs that have been in service for decades. There has been no disaster like that in the US nor in France where reactors generate lots of power. Chernobyl is not comparable to the US system at all.

Nevada and a big fat hole are the solution to waste for now.

[MadHound]

59. You keep trotting out that number like it is a trump card, but in reality it isn't

You're thinking that we have to have a centralized power generation model, which for some industries and applications we do. But for the vast bulk of our electrical needs, we can get by with a decentralized power generation model and a smart grid, a model that uses multiple methods of power generation and is able to move electric to where it is needed.

As far as designs in France or the US, they haven't had a major disaster yet, though there have been a few close calls and several small incidents and releases. If you worked at Idaho Falls, then you damn well know what I'm talking about. Not only would you have the same access to literature and records that I had, but you were also on the scene of one of the first, and deadly US reactor incidents.

Furthermore, French reactors are having some huge problems, as are US reactors in the north, with low water supplies. What good is a reactor if it doesn't have the water needed to cool it.

Oh, and dumping nuclear waste into a hole in the ground that lies on top of three seismic faults and floods with regularity is just plain irresponsible, stupid and asking for trouble. Thankfully the Obama administration recognized this and decommissioned Yucca Mt.

[Pavulon]

62. Please list a loose bom, for example 37 ap1000

reactors that work with the existing grid (not a fictional multi billion one that does not exist) would cover that demand. 10% capacity was added as nuclear plants run at about 90% efficiency.

Idaho Falls does not generate power for civilian use, it is a military facility and the types of fuel used there are far different than what is used in a power plant. Criticality events are exceedingly rare even is places where heu or plutonium is present.

Their system is fine, if they run low on water they shut the plant down. It does not go up in a giant mushroom cloud.

[MadHound]

65. Hmmm, let's see,

Combine solar on every roof with wind, trash incineration, neighborhood methane generation from sewage, and geo thermal, all connected by a smart grid, and we're covered. No, that is not what we currently have, but it is what we should be working towards right now. If we had followed up Carter's wind and solar initiatives of the seventies, we would be generating over half our electrical needs via those methods, and that was using late seventies tech. The state of the art has advanced much further.

Critical events are rare, you are correct, but they truly are disasters when they happen, and the fuel composition used at Idaho Falls isn't as uncommon as you think. I know of a couple of reactors that continue to use that mix.

Yes, when they run low on water, they shut down, I never said a thing about this causing a "giant mushroom cloud, just that they shut down, for months, leaving the grid underpowered. Whoops.

Oh, and if we do start dotting the country with nuclear plants like you wish, where are we going to get the fuel? We certainly don't have a domestic supply of it, instead we would be forced to rely on foreign sources, like despotic governments in Africa, as opposed to the despotic governments we now rely on for oil in the Middle East. Some difference.

And again, what to do with all that waste. Again, if we do dot the countryside with nuclear plants like you propose, a facility like Yucca Mt. would fill up within a couple of years. Then what, we keep digging holes in the ground? Can we dig one in your back yard? Yeah.

Look, you and I've gone 'round and 'round on this one before, and never come to an agreement. Right now I've got more important things to do than chase this around all over again, so I'm going to move on. But I want to leave you with this suggestion, go out and do some research for yourself. Go to the DOE website and various others, see how much energy the average residence uses. Then go check out the state of the art green energy alternatives, thin film photovoltaics, windbelts, trash incineration, sewage digesters, see just how much energy they can and do produce. Then do the math and get back to me. Stop thinking inside the central power generation box, because if we continue to do that, frankly we're screwed, we're going to continue to pollute our environment, shit in our nest, and be beholden to big energy corporations and other countries for our energy needs. Is that what you want? Are you so wedded to your position that you refuse to consider the alternatives?

Have a good one:hi:

[Pavulon]

66. Yes, its already there at the plant up the road. Canada and Australia supply most U

waste is stored onsite now . FBR reactors work we have thousands tons of plutonium from weapons. You are wrong on many points.

During the time it takes to build the jesus grid can we at least replace old reactors with new ones?

[Heywood J]

75. Actually, the RBMK was designed in the 1950s. It wasn't "state of the art" when the plant

was built, whether you mean "state of the art" for Soviet reactor designs, or "state of the art" for all human nuclear knowledge. The prototype RBMK plant came online in 1954. Even the Soviets acknowledged they had others that were of a superior and later design (the VVERs).

[Lagomorph]

39. The problem I've noticed...

...is that as time passes, vigilance drops to a sustainable level and another accident becomes unavoidable.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. Accidents are always unavoidable.

That is one reason Chernobyl's lessons are so valuable. We now have comprehensive (and very powerful) computer control and monitoring as well as fail safe designs with robust containment vessels. These are two things not present in the chernobyl disater. If accidents are unavoidable, we will engineer the systems to fail much less catastrophically.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Yablokov is a politician and a crank -- like Cockburn

Also appearing on the Counterpunch page:



Anti-science, anti-Obama -- has Counterpunch turned into a Teabagger outfit?

--d!

[TheWraith]

13. If only that article contained any actual science...

See, more qualified groups of scientists (as opposed to biologists and former Soviet scientific advisors) have done research and determined that the number of deaths from Chernobyl number about 4,000 to 8,000. So unless these three guys are more qualified than the entire WHO and IAEA, then they're talking out their asses.

[spanone]

68. so, hell, 4 to 8 thousand?, never mind....hardly a blink in humanity...

[spoony]

69. The poster did not say that

Don't you think there's a teensy difference between 8,000 and a million?

[Newest Reality]

14. Without underplaying

the operational safety hazards implicit in nuclear power, there is the grim issue of waste disposal.

I am not very impressed with, nor do I feel confident in, the solutions to date. It is a multi-millennial, looming problem of horrifying proportions that cannot be taken lightly in any sense. Tens of thousands of years is no trifling matter and any species that does not weigh the serious potential impact on all generations to come on this planet, (yeah, I know that's reaching and optimistic) has reached a zenith of collective, pathological delusion.

We can't even devise a way to mark our catacombs of invisible death in a way that will endure for centuries and also be intelligible to whatever languages or means of communication that might prevail in a distant, incomprehensible future.

I have also heard "technology will save us" arguments that we will eventually figure out a way to process our Grim Reaper's sludge into something useful, someday. Oh! Yeah, then we can dump the toxic product of our short-sighted, selfish gluttony without concern, as long as speculation and hope assure us of a technological salvation to come.

[paulsby]

20. chernobyl says far more about the failure of totalitarian communist govt. than it does nuclear power

the USSR was a miserable failure. chernobyl just one more example of that.

there is a reason why chernobyl happened there, and not in western europe or the US.

[ShortnFiery]

22. Oh yippers! Nuclear energy is more than Rad. Especially when it's targeted for a terrorist attack.

Woo! Hoo! Everyone wants ONE in their neighborhood. :evilgrin:

http://antinuclear.net/

?

Harmonious relationships between people and nations cannot survive in a nuclear power society, with its atmosphere of secrecy, surveillance , suspicion, fear, and ever-present real danger.

[CountAllVotes]

30. don't laugh ...

there is one not too far from where I live. It is shut down now. However, there is an extremely high cancer rate in the immediate vicinity as to where it is located. No one wants to buy any property nor housing anywhere near this place. Smart they are; they don't want to die from some heinous form of cancer. Twenty four years makes no difference when dealing with nuclear energy. It is indeed the gift that keeps on giving ... forever!

:kick:

[Liberation Angel]

27. and probably more

thyroid disease, heart diusease, spontaneous abortions, miscarriages and infant deaths

Probably way more globally (it blew all the way here just like the volcano in Iceland...

K&R

[Rebubula]

29. Without...

...stats, facts, studies or figures - what you have said is just fear mongering.

Nothing else....

[Liberation Angel]

47. Oh bullshit...I've posted studies and links a zillion times, but pronukers always deny...

the truth of the science and solid research

Once again great studies can be found at www.nirs.org

and

www.radiation.org

also look up the European Committee on Radiation Risk study which said global deaths from nuclear werapons tests AND commercial reactor accidents, incidents and regular radiation releases is in the tens of millions with millions of spontaneous abortions and infant deaths attributable to global man made radiation pollution.

And, yeah, natural radiation kills too

when we ADD deadly radinuclides to the already dangerous stew of radioactive chemicals and effluents it kills MORE and more.

Chernobyl rained radiation on the US (at least in the Northeast where I live) and the radioiodine (I-131) got inot our food supply and absorbed into our thyroids would have caused damage and even deadly conditions (many of which may not manifest until we develop cancer or other thyroid diseases later in life).

[Pavulon]

51. Because it is Agenda sites posting their positions. Not MIT or a 25 year study

by University of Pittsburg. I know you believe this content. Some people believe the virgin mary can be seen in toast, but the facts are out there and presented by real scientists.

[Liberation Angel]

57. Are you saying Nuke Insutry funded/supported academic and government studies are NOT Agenda driven

The NRC is a corporate puppet

so are most universities

nonindustry studies get no funding

so your claim is utter nonsense

But folks can read the research and decide for themselves.

[Pavulon]

58. So MIT and University of Pittsburg and all the medical journals here and in europe

are all corrupt because they do not support this position you have?

[Liberation Angel]

60. Site which studies and I will respond accordingly. MIT is notorious for government/Industry

funded science and leanings (LOTS of military intel folks there)

UPITT I'd have to see the study. But probably a pronuke bias and I know another UPitt phsysicist who disagree with it (one is AT the www,radiation,org website)

Dr. Ernest Sternglass FOUNDED the school of Radiological Physics at UPitt School of Medicine and his research concludes otherwise

it can be found at www.radiation.org

But not ALL studies agree with your industry hacks at all.

The European studies and many others reach far more serious conclusions.

[Pavulon]

63. Your push agenda is not represented by writings in the Lancet

publications from Oxford, or any other source of science in the western world. PS dont get a CT scan, far more radiation than in a rainstorm.

[Liberation Angel]

77. No sources, eh? Plus a ct scan will NOT expose you internally to radio-iodine or strontium 90

Living downwind or downstream from a nuke plant wILL expose you to that deadly shit

I avoid medical/dental xrays, ct scand, even cell phones btw because of doctors I trust and whose work I have studied.

But still nuke pollution from operating commercial nuke plants gets into our food, our water, our milk and dairy products, and then into our bones, blood reproductive & other organs, thyroid and teeth where, as it decays, it causes genetic and dna damage and mutations.

a ct scan does NOT dose one with internal ingested radioactive radionuclides which are absorbed as if they were calcium or iodine or other elements into our metabolism and bodies. Nor do that get into the dna of developing foetuses when the mother eats or breathes in or drinks the effluents and emissions from her local nuclear power plant in her food, air and water.

A CT scan will cause radiation to pass through the body, but that is NOT the same as eating something which is radioactive.

But you know that already. Hence the snarkiness.

[spinbaby]

31. It's a tourist attraction now

Seriously, I had a friend who went to Kiev for business and went on a guided tour of Chernobyl. I only remember he said it was kind of an eerie and empty landscape.

[ensho]

34. but they have a time span that they can stay in the toxic area

nt

[Zywiec]

42. I went there two years ago

and I thought it was fascinating. Walking around Pripyat was like walking through a post-apocalyptic world. Of course I like things like that. In a couple of weeks I will be in Gierłoż Poland checking out the bunker where they tried to kill Hitler.

[Junkie Brewster]

72. I would love to visit there

My husband's family is from eastern Europe, Poland and the Ukraine, and we would both be very interested in visiting Pripyat.

[Liberation Angel]

49. I remember when the radioactive rains from Chernobyl hit Vermont and New Hampshire

and then Connecticut and New York.

I warned one friend to stay out of the rain those days.

He laughed at me.

He died shortly thereafter due to a weird bacterial infection (possibly mutated by that nuclear fallout rain and a compromised immune system)

He was a healthy guiy who didn't smoke and drank only moderately. But that lung thing f-cked him up bad leaving a young widow in its wake. H was a good friend. And when i told him the rain had Chernobyl radionuclides in it and was hazardous, he scoffed and went happily into it in a downpour.

Then he died.

(I worked in the industry at the time with a nuke hazards and health unit, but he still did not believe me. Just like the people who love nukes here or who do not know better.

Nukes are killers. Big time. All of them (even the ones down the street, upwind or upstream from us all

[Pavulon]

52. Belief is powerful, The Virgin Mary in a taco

is an example of this. I assume this person's death certificate did not list radiation exposure as COD. I assume he was not buried in a locked lead line casked under 15 feet of concrete.

Science and Fact serve to balance out peoples beliefs.

[Liberation Angel]

55. Fact is he went out in the radioactive Chernobyl rain and died of a lung infection shortly after

As far as I know no autopsy was done. And since radioiodine decays too quickly to be detected after a month or so his death after a short illness would not have been traceable to that deadly exposure.

But epidemiologically it is a sound conclusion to say one possible cause of death was radiation exposure.

If YOU died after radiation exposure from a weird mutated bacterial infection (which he did) would you know for SURE it wasn't the radiation that killed you?

I can't prove it. Its anecdotal evidence.

Believe it or don't.

I worked in the industry and this is a true story. i believe they were related based on science and evidence. I could be wrong, I suppose. It might have been the local nuke plant that mutated the bacteria that killed him too...

maybe both synergistically teamed up to kill him.

all I really know is he was exposed and he got really sick and died not long after from a wicked bacterial infection. And he was a clean living guy.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

64. Do you think he was exposed to more radiation than in say a CT scan

or high altitude flight? there are specific tests that can show exposure to nuclear material. Those tests were used by the WHO in bosnia to debunk the who DU is super poison position.

[Liberation Angel]

79. different kind of radiation. You do NOT get radioiodine from a CT scan

or Strontium 90.

This is a false argument.

and you think depleted uranium is safe?

Jesus help us!

Your nuts! (and WHO is compromised by corporate/government industry promoting hacks - look at how they f-cked up the H1N1 thing costing the planet billions while lining the pockets of drug companies like Rumsfeld's old company (Gilead) with googobs of taxpayer cash.

Yeah

[Rebubula]

71. So...

...one guy (that you allegedly knew) died from Chernobyl rain (wow...traveled the entire globe to get to VT and no one else noticed ...hmmm) and you see it as a pattern?


Did anyone else die? Can you link to this death or any other due to 'Chernobyl rains'?

I get that you are opposed to nuclear power, but don't just make shit up....

[Liberation Angel]

80. I'm not making anything up

The media REPORTED the radioactive rain in New England and elsewhere (see another post downthread where a DUer in high school was told to get out of the radioactive rain during a sports event due to Chernobyl)

The OP said the radiation killed hundreds of thousands. But I only knew this one guy who went out in the radioactive rain who died.

Plenty of other family and friends have died of what MAY be related exposure from Chernobyl or maybe just from local radioactive pollution (civilian and military where I grew up).

I worked in the industry.

I know how dangerous this is.

What is more dangerous, though, is the propaganda and lies from the industry and its promoters who value greed and lucre over humanity and who will allow many many to die (including babies and children and children in utero) so they can turn a monster profit.

Nukes=death. Nuclear Power kills. All the time.

[ddeclue]

61. This is blatantly false!

[spanone]

67. yep, let's crank up that nuklear power plant for some cheap lecticity...no nukes

[Junkie Brewster]

70. I was a freshman in high school when Chernobyl happened

I grew up in southwestern Oregon. My older brother was a track star, and he was at a meet a few days after Chernobyl, when we had been told to expect potentially polluted rain. It rained, of course, like it often does on the coast of Oregon, a cool, soft rain not much harder than mist. But everyone took shelter and the meet was put on delay until it stopped. This was about the only time I ever saw anyone back home seek shelter from a light rain.

[BlueCollar]

74. I have to disagree with the "no nuke plants" perspective

I do agree that we should be pouring billions into solar, wind and other forms of energy.

But nuclear power, properly regulated, is a viable interim technology...IMO

[Liberation Angel]

78. It is neither viable, nor safe

it is a dead and deadly technology. Its corpse in industry is killing people and especially hurting children.

But economically it is unsound as well

read the studies at www.nirs.org on the TRUE cost of nukes.

and imagine how much it will cost to guard/protect the toxic nuclear waste for 250,000 years and consider , given we only have a 5000 year recorded history as human beings - what the likleihood is that we even have the slightest chance of creating a safe solution which will last for 250,000 years (and what the financial and carbon footprint cost/pricetag will be for ALL future generations during that time.

The hell with the nukes plans.

It is insane and sickening.

[WinkyDink]

76. Man, do YOU have the wrong President!

[Liberation Angel]

81. why?

why do you say that?