"Epidemiological studies have been hampered in Ukraine, Russian Federation and Belarus by a lack of funds, an infrastructure with little experience in chronic disease epidemiology, poor communication facilities, public health issues and a political culture of secrecy and deception." (from wikipedia)
There were reports of the fallout particles from Chernobyl being detected in the UK at that time.
Having grown older, and more skeptical, those may have been politically motivated.
Or not, as icy winds from the steppes are mentioned in reports.
Having grown older, and more skeptical, those may have been politically motivated.
Or not, as icy winds from the steppes are mentioned in reports.
Sorry but you are completely wrong:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties
The Chernobal radiation killed or affected millions of women and children since it happened including my mother who died of thyroid cancer 12 years ago as we lived in the most affected part of the country. More than 100 000 cases of thyroid cancers were reported by only one regional hospital since 1986.
We were not told that a desaster happened.I was one of the tens of millions kids playing outside with no warning for weeks.Tens of thousands of people died of skin cancers since 1986 also.
Although I'm still in favor of nuclear energy I'm also in favor of very tight regulations within an international recognized formula.
France, unlike Germany and many other mainland european countries is surrounded by water so cooling is not a problem.
Now imagine there's a foreign company who got all the approvals to build mini-nuclear reactors in my country in the middle of a very populated region with no steady watter suply in 100 miles with its reactors cooled with molten salt or something like that...
The technology is overly expensive , hardly safe , not nearly efficient , has no safety history and the only countries who agreed to sign such a stupid contract with NuScale technology are Bulgaria, Romania(my country) and some other eastern european countries that generally have well known corrupt governments.Now I wonder how happy are France and Germany to have allowed the building of these new trials 1000 miles away from their borders because winds can send all the fallout within days to their skies.
Last edited:
There's tons of reported cases by hospital admissions in the areas and countries where the winds spread the fallout after Chernobal, that are SCIENTIFICALLY linked to Chernobal .
Weather and winds studies along with chemical and radiation measurements were reported and attached to the studies when they linked thyroid cancer to Chernobal.This is not politics, its called science my friend!
If you prefer to call it bias that is politics because I spent an entire year with my mother in 4 oncologycal hospitals before she died ! Maybe politics isn't fixed science, but to an edocrinologist death related to thyroid cancer is ! Most women in the part of the country i live in have problems with thyroid unlike the women in the other half of the country that is separated by a mountain chain where 300 times less thyroid cases were registered.
You better understand that cancer cases and related deaths are found in numerous statistics that were sent annualy to UNO for being chequed .
Last edited:
The fallout from Chernobyl.
The actual issue, has been authorities hiding the facts.
_Firstly the Soviets not telling the accident. Thanks to the Swedes who had measured an abnormal radioactivity at a nuclear plant of there own, it was found coming from USSR. The Swedes immediately took the right measures, people made aware, cows and sheep kept in, milk and vegetables discarded.
_Secondly, governments in Europe lying about the cloud and fallouts. We were told the cloud had stopped at the French borders.
The over mentioned facts are extremely serious, shame on liars, because the fallout issue is abnormal radioactivity over a SHORT time. The right measure is what was done in Sweden as soon as they got aware of the Tchernobyl accident.
Stay calm. Do not claim I am all wrong.
I am aware of the Greenpeace ideology.
Do not take what they tell as granted.
Informations from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster
Greenpeace projected up to a million excess, cancer-related deaths from the Chernobyl disaster.
The Chernobyl Forum, the WHO, and other international agencies do not accept this number.
I am aware of the Greenpeace ideology.
Do not take what they tell as granted.
Informations from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster
Greenpeace projected up to a million excess, cancer-related deaths from the Chernobyl disaster.
The Chernobyl Forum, the WHO, and other international agencies do not accept this number.
Last edited:
Not really sure how short that time is even with half dose time within 2 weeks.My aunt who has some cultivated land in the northern part of the country(the most exposed one) told me that in the next two years after that accident all the vegetation was greener than normal exhibiting a very unnatural intense green.Besides her thyroid is also working very poorly too...
I don't think we should treat this as a political subject, it should be under very , very tight regulation and watched intensely as Sweden did instead.We just need to get real about all the possibilities.
Instead of making more experiments with unproven technologies sometimes its just better to improve the technology you already have.
We talk about denuclearisation for 70 years yet we should put the efforts of purifying nuclear material at work for noble purposes.
Every country that made nuclear weapons made a considerably huge economical effort for that so that fissionable material should be used not wasted if a peaceful path is followed.
I'm not an expert in nuclear technology but safer bets are made if where no running water is available at all time there should be no nuclear plant.
Germany is right about its own safety as much as France is right about its nuclear plant prefferences as one has a lot of watter while the other isn't equally gifted.
Nuclear is the safest? BLAHAHAHAHA
I've never heard of a solar meltdown or needing to store old solar panels for thousands of years...
The Chernobyl exclusion zone speaks volumes about nuclear safety.
Granted, a CANDU reactor can't melt down like that, but it's still a giant waste of money and creates toxic waste that will be around for thousands of years.
There's a company making batteries from that waste now though so at least there's that.
https://bigthink.com/the-present/nano-diamond-battery/
Indeed, it is better not to be in the statistics.
There is no human activity 100% safe.
Traffic-related annual death rate:
World: 1,350,000
USA: 39,888 (2018)
Europe: 85,629 (2016)
Let's evaluate the death statistics from Global Warming.
How will we sustain our needs of electric energy while stopping green house effect gases from burning fossils.
Intermittent unpredictable energies, one cannot store, cannot do the job.
There is no human activity 100% safe.
Traffic-related annual death rate:
World: 1,350,000
USA: 39,888 (2018)
Europe: 85,629 (2016)
Let's evaluate the death statistics from Global Warming.
How will we sustain our needs of electric energy while stopping green house effect gases from burning fossils.
Intermittent unpredictable energies, one cannot store, cannot do the job.
Another aspect of nuclear energy is disposing the plant and reactors after they are deemed to be no longer usable.
Green house gases are also a concern.
But there is still a need for reliable base load energy, and apart fom nuclear, the other candidates are all fossil fuel based.
Green house gases are also a concern.
But there is still a need for reliable base load energy, and apart fom nuclear, the other candidates are all fossil fuel based.
The background radiation level in my lab doubled to 36 counts per minute immediately after the disaster.
Scottish sheep (which ate the grass that was contaminated by Caesium-137) had to be tested for radioactivity before slaughter. Restrictions on the sale of sheep in Scotland remained in force till 2010, almost 25 years after the disaster.
Which high energy load system isn't? 🤔
Larger as in geography, not population counts. Because there is more land available (US is a big country), things are spread apart more. When given choices, people don't prefer to be packed in. They want their own space.
As for the bicycle use, people do ride in the US but for exercise and fun. Some ride it for commuting but most roads in the US are not compensated for it thus it can be very dangerous. Also, not many cities have the weather that allows the bicycle commute to be practical year round.
Hydro-electric power provides 95% of the power in Québec. I'd call that a green energy source that doesn't burn fossil fuel or make nuclear waste.
Also a gravity battery can be used to store solar and wind energy, not just chemical batteries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery
Yes, base load hydro power...
But you are privileged, not available at such levels in the rest of the world.
If you throw a marble sized piece of sodium into a pond, it will explode.
Using it as a nuclear reactor coolant is insane in my opinion.
One leak, and kaboom.
But you are privileged, not available at such levels in the rest of the world.
If you throw a marble sized piece of sodium into a pond, it will explode.
Using it as a nuclear reactor coolant is insane in my opinion.
One leak, and kaboom.
So, it's the people that pose so much danger to people.
Should look to Finland.
Have you heard of the required material, manufacturing methods and life expectancy of solar panels?
No other country other than the Russians, AFAIK, built power reactors without containment buildings. The lack of containment at Chernobyl was why an industrial accident turned into a major regional radiological/environmental disaster. Russians do not build reactors without containments. Unfortunately, Assorting to the World Nuclear Association, the Russians are still operating 8 RMBK reactors.
The World Nuclear Association summarizes, with respect to Chernobyl:
- Two Chernobyl plant workers died due to the explosion on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation syndrome.
Have you heard of PV film?
https://www.technicalwindowfilms.co.uk/solar-power-film-turning-windows-into-solar-panels/
My point was this: if you want a short commute, live where your work is or work where you live (or just not too far away). This does not depend on where in the world you are.
The roads are for all of us, no matter how many wheels we use. "Compensation" for cyclists is nice to convince newbies to try a bike, but it's not a necessity to ride safely. What counts is to stick to the traffic rules, pay attention, and respect others. This should not be a problem at all in the US, where traffic tends to be super relaxed compared to most other places I've been in the world.
Again, in my opinion, the main reason why people in the US do not often use their bikes for everyday purposes like commuting to/from work is simply because they are not used to it. It's not "what you do".
If you don't like spending a lot on gas, just find a way to avoid buying gas. There are a few.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.