Radiation Reaches California

[Adam West]

Think you should do a little reaserch. Everything I read stated cancer rates and birth defects shot throught the roof. Supposedly the town around Chernobly is still uninhabitable...

Unless of coarse you get info from Glen Beck. Then the whole nuclear thing is just hype..

Right from Wikipedia.org

"Health of plant workers and local people. In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.[64][65] Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, in the World Health Organization's 2006 report of the Chernobyl Forum expert group on the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified, in the general population affected by the disaster, as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years; thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken, the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population. Some 135,000 people were evacuated from the area, including 50,000 from Pripyat."

[Doc]

Right from Wikipedia.org

"Health of plant workers and local people. In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.[64][65] Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, in the World Health Organization's 2006 report of the Chernobyl Forum expert group on the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified, in the general population affected by the disaster, as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years; thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken, the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population. Some 135,000 people were evacuated from the area, including 50,000 from Pripyat."

Wikipedia HUH? Funny I seemed to read other wise from several other journals and science magazines. And a few science channel shows.... Oh and I was in addition to being a Vol Firefighter and memeber of the county Hazmat team. And we needed inservices on this type of disasters because of the proximity Of West Valley and a few other government reasearch labs in the area. But if Wikipedia says so.


Any who I'd also go ask Tothiros Brother the energy specialist guy. He sounds pretty up on the topic.

[Adam West]

I'm just stating one very specific source that anyone can easily find. If you want to point out sources feel free. I can find additional ones that come from scientific journals if that will satisfy you. As a side note, my father-in-law is a nuclear physicist; I talked to him at length about this and the various scenarios that could play out.

[Doc]

And I LOVED Glenn Becks M&M nuclear reactor demonstrations. Obviously its safe. They melt in your mouth not in your steel containment chambers.... And actually he changed his tune a week later. Now he is all about to sacrifice of these peoples lives and such. Funny how a week before it was all hype....

[Adam West]

I don't watch or listen to Glenn Beck so I didn't see or hear him talk about it.

[johnmiic]

My friend Nick has relatives in the Ukraine. They told him stories about how people thought it was just a regular old fire. People who had no knowledge of Radiation Poisoning answered the call and those who did suffered horrible, nightmarish deaths. Flesh falling off their skeletons. dissolving of their bodies from within, Ebola-like, while alive and conscious. The Wiki article seems to limit those affected to a couple of hundred and change but I don't think it is the way those people wanted to die. I don't think most people would want to die that way.

The Ukraine used to be the bread-basket of eastern europe. It was an extremely fertile land yielding unbelieveable crops year after year. My friend Nick told me no one buys or wants their crops now for fear of possible poisoning from fall-out. Maybe the food would be all right now but no one wants it.

Tho you quote Wikipedia, it's not a very good source of facts because it can be re-written by anyone who chooses to do so. Some information can be contradictory. In the summary at the beginning I took this quote:

"More than fifty deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers. Estimates of the total number of deaths attributable to the accident vary enormously, from possibly 4,000 to close to a million."

That quote is saying many more people may have died; more than what is officially accounted for. I would also question the info based on where it came from. Are those numbers from the Russian gov't? The Russians were slow to admit to Chernobyl even when it was occurring. They hoped no one would notice. It's always possible they minimized numbers to the west. The death list could be higher. I'm just saying, take it with a grain of salt. It may not be reliable.

Current news coverage that I have watched all seem to agree the Japanese disaster is not nearly as bad as Chernobyl-yet. Also I would think the Japanese have better facilities, better safety's in place. They are state of the art whereas Chernobyl was 20+ years ago- older and different technology. The Radiation coming over to the west coast is not that dangerous as it is dilute. The spreading out of it reduces it to not as harmful. Still it's not much comfort knowing it's in the air drifting over.

[Doc]

I don't watch or listen to Glenn Beck so I didn't see or hear him talk about it.

IT was very funny. Becks a riot. Off hand I remember several stories the past few years in National Geographic, Popular Science and News Week.And a documentary on Chernobyl

Your Dad work for them or just studies nuclear energy. If you work for them your story will be a little different. HAve you seen the reaction of the nuclear regulatory commission since this story broke? They are VERY worried about the future business in their field. Considering there is no way to make nuclear waste safe. Dad should have told you that. And long term storage is problematic. Dad should have told you that too. Its probably a good thing if this causes the US to re evaluate its nuclear program.

[Adam West]

I said my father-in-law not my dad and yes he worked for them. He is now semi-retired (he just reached his 70th birthday) and does subcontract work for them. He is highly respected there and has been working in the field for decades.

Here is the United Nations Scientific Community on the Effects of Radiation conclusion on the Chernobyl disaster

Conclusions
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was a tragic event for its victims, and those most affected suffered major hardship. Some of the people who dealt with the emergency lost their lives. Although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery workers are at increased risk of radiation-induced effects, the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences due to the radiation from the Chernobyl accident. For the most part, they were exposed to radiation levels comparable to or a few times higher than annual levels of natural background, and future exposures continue to slowly diminish as the radionuclides decay. Lives have been seriously disrupted by the Chernobyl accident, but from the radiological point of view, generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail.


I'm just stating that there has been no scientific evidence to support a significantly large risk to cancer due to the accident. It is always good to take precautions but I'm just stating facts and citing sources.....including my father-in-law.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------