[Devil]

At the same time, the residents of Pripyat' were observing crimson-red shining fountain of nuclear fuel in plasma form (around 4000 C) blown out of the reactor into the atmosphere.

Sure, yeah, three bags full, sir! The inhabitants of a town a goodly distance away saw just that and recognised it as a 4000°C plasma which was a red fountain. This is just pure tabloid journalese, probably exaggerated out of all recognition by activists (as usually happens). Would you dare compare this bovine crap with a serious scientific report, consensual among 8 highly reputed international bodies and the three countries most closely involved?

PLEEEEZE!

[backstop]

Devil

not so far from my home on the border of Wales there are areas of high pasture land that were contaminated by Chernobyl fallout and condemned as unfit for sheep farming. As far as I know that exclusion still stands and will stand for decades yet.

I think you may know that the British establishment is seriously pro-nuclear and would not have been slow to raise public approval of nuclear power if they could have done so.

As a scientist you'll doubtless welcome normal peer review of this report, and I wonder if you could say when that may be available ?

regards,

Backstop

[Devil]

It has already been peer reviewed by groups of experts of the three countries concerned.

It is useless to say that such and such a place is excluded from sheep farming, What have the latest measurements given as data? That is what counts, not an arbitrary political decision about 20 years old.

Some forests in Ticino and Piedmont were excluded for bolet (cèpe) picking and it was said, at the time, that it would be for 100 years or more. In fact, the interdiction lasted only about six years because the contamination was rained into the substrate and the valued mushrooms became safe in that time.

[oiless]

http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c02.html

Gives some info on distribution. It's from a source that even a pro nuclear hardliner like Devil might believe.

Here's some of what happened in Wales:
Wales

[EnergySpin]

http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c02.html

Gives some info on distribution. It's from a source that even a pro nuclear hardliner like Devil might believe.

Here's some of what happened in Wales:
Wales

Oiless with all due respect, the pro nuclear page does not undermine Devil's or the international panel's data and conclusions. In fact it even advances them. If you look at Table 1, you will notice that the majority of the nuclides releases were short lived. After 4 or 5 half-lifes there is virtually no radiation left. Xe(33) which is a medical isotope would be completely gone after about 25 days.
Going further in the page you cited, you find the following text :

More than 16 years after the accident, only 2 to 3% of the deposited radioactivity still remains in the aerial part of the vegetation.
....Most of the decrease in the coming years will be at only the rate of the physical half-life of 137Cs

and Cs was released in relatively small amounts .
From a medical stand point, the cancers observed (mainly thyroid), led to a mortality rate of 0.7% in children who were exposed to radiation and 0.5% in the exposed who did not develop thyroid Ca, a difference which barely makes the statistical significance cutoffs. This is in accordance with the behaviour of thyroid cancer in general ... the vast majority of thyroid cancers are extremely well behaved. One dies with, not from thyroid cancer
The Chernobyl reactor was an extremely mismanaged power plant before the accident, and it was mismanaged after the accident. From a medical standpoint (I skimmed through the thyroid and leukemia data, the ones that are well tied to radiation exposure both from WWII and its widespread use in the 60s), Chernobyl did prove one thing: that even with a horribly mismanaged initial event close surveillance can make a big difference in the final outcome of a radiation accident. I seriously doubt that a 0.5% childhood rate over 16 years was the norm during the years that Soviet Union disolved. The fact that the people who were exposed were closely followed is the most likely explanation for this difference (another explanation is that the follow up was incomplete, but it did not seem to be). I do reserve more comments when I delve into WHO mortality data for the rest of the former Soviet Union and when I look into the multiple hundred page report which includes the actual numbers.

Designs and operational practises such as the one practised in Chernobyl are no longer relevant, or should no longer be relevant.

[Devil]

Here's some of what happened in Wales:
Wales

Bloody hell, man, that was written less than one year after the accident, by an activist NGO, in journalese. Even then, they were only questioning whether that year's lambs would be fit or not for the market.

I asked Backstop for scientific facts substantiating

not so far from my home on the border of Wales there are areas of high pasture land that were contaminated by Chernobyl fallout and condemned as unfit for sheep farming. As far as I know that exclusion still stands and will stand for decades yet.

and you respond with some journalistic claptrap 18 years old. I have little doubt that problems existed at the time but please tell me whether three-headed or seven-footed lambs are glowing in the dark NOW or whether the meat from normal lambs is NOW fit for human consumption. And I don't wish your answer to be an arbitrary political decision to exclude lambs from a given area because it has "always been that way since 1986". I want the result of measurements.

Now, do you want to know why I doubt whether there is any significant radioactivity left in the Welsh hills? What is caesium? it is the most reactive of the alkaline metals (Group 1A). It explodes in contact with water, forming its hydroxide which is the strongest known alkali It will therefore react with every CO2 molecule wihin reach forming caesium carbonate. One gram of water will dissolve more than 2½ g of the carbonate. Now, it has been known to rain in the Welsh hills (some say it rains once per year but doesn't stop before 364 days), so, do you really think there could be any left on the surface or in vegetable growth (or lambs)? In fact, I cannot think of any inorganic caesium compound that is not either soluble in or reactive with water. As for organic compounds, they would be mainly carboxylates which would be hydrophilic and therefore, even if not soluble, would be readily washed down with water.

[oiless]

Since you two asshats seem to be inclined to think you're being argued with when you're not, let me point something out:
I posted two links. The first one was a survey of chernobyl releases. It gives a breakdown of what the releases were, how they were dispersed, what their half lives are, and how they are being mitigated by natural processes, rainfall, groundwater migration, and so on. (The way I read it the cesium levels in food are not being mitigated, other than by decay.)

The second is a journal piece from shortly after chernobyl, and my feeling is that because of increased vigilance (looking for chernobyl radiation) a spill was found in wales that originated right there.

I made no comment one way or the other about either piece, other than to point out that the first one was sourced from a nuclear energy vested interest, which is the only information source that hardline nuke pushers will pay any attention to.

I have no particular desire to argue. I would as soon go into a church, sit down with the preacher, and try to convince him to become an atheist. There's no percentage in it.
I do admit to being tempted to try from time to time, but for the most part I resist.
The links were posted purely as information, and as for the first one, there is information there that cuts both ways.

[Devil]

I'm sorry, please let me explain why I'm an asshat (and obviously proud to be one by your definition)

One poster makes a statement that Chernobyl was and will be causing hardship to Welsh sheep farmers. I simply ask for the latest data on the matter

It is useless to say that such and such a place is excluded from sheep farming, What have the latest measurements given as data? That is what counts, not an arbitrary political decision about 20 years old.

In response, I see a link which is obviously in response, from the name, but which gives no data and is 18 years out of date and therefore totally irrelevant.

Of course, being an asshat, I respond accordingly, attempting to point out the error of your ways but, obviously, not everybody has the necessary equipment between his ears to digest my words. I go farther: I explained why I believed the caesium would have long disappeared from the Welsh hills, just as it did from the Ticino forests where the delicious boletus edulis grows in profusion (in my earlier post).


___________________________________

Asshat

[EnviroEngr]

Some people just can't resist rousing the Devil, who now is apparently an honorary Asshat.

Geezuz, what gives?

[EnergySpin]

Since you two asshats seem to be inclined to think you're being argued with when you're not, let me point something out:
I posted two links. The first one was a survey of chernobyl releases. It gives a breakdown of what the releases were, how they were dispersed, what their half lives are, and how they are being mitigated by natural processes, rainfall, groundwater migration, and so on. (The way I read it the cesium levels in food are not being mitigated, other than by decay.)

The second is a journal piece from shortly after chernobyl, and my feeling is that because of increased vigilance (looking for chernobyl radiation) a spill was found in wales that originated right there.

I made no comment one way or the other about either piece, other than to point out that the first one was sourced from a nuclear energy vested interest, which is the only information source that hardline nuke pushers will pay any attention to.

I have no particular desire to argue. I would as soon go into a church, sit down with the preacher, and try to convince him to become an atheist. There's no percentage in it.
I do admit to being tempted to try from time to time, but for the most part I resist.
The links were posted purely as information, and as for the first one, there is information there that cuts both ways.

I apologise for replying as an asshat
The first piece did make one point about the biological half life of Cs isotopes as opposed to their physical half life i.e. that Cs will persist in the first few centimeters of soil+plants slightly longer than it was expected. Since the biological half life asymptotically tends to the physical half life and given the fact that Cs was released on only small numbers I find this statement a possible explanation about the persistence of chromosome breakages in plants in the vicinity of the Chernobyl reactor.
Unless half the scientific community of the world conspired, the final outcome is clear:
Chernobyl was a much smaller disaster than anyone thought possible which is surprising given the fact that the USSR's response can only be summarized with a single world: clusterfuck
Chernobyl is no longer relevant for the Western world. Such reactors are not used, but there are still a few power plants (Koslodui in Bulgaria comes to mind) that are still (mis-)operational.
Regarding sheep and other animals in Wales: spongiform encephalopathies is HIGHLY more significant than radiation from 18 years ago

[oiless]

Alright. I shouldn't have called you guys asshats, although I did find your replies somewhat obtuse, as well as a touch condescending.
On reflection I should not have posted this:

Gives some info on distribution. It's from a source that even a pro nuclear hardliner like Devil might believe.

however I thought it fair to point out that the only information Devil and EnergySpin regard as being worthwhile comes from various organs of the very industry that they are fond of.
Accepting such information as veritable gospel strikes me as akin to hiring a kleptomaniac to do store security.

For instance; this would be unreliable claptrap, written by a couple of jokers with an axe to grind:
http://www.gfstrahlenschutz.de/docs/hormeng2.pdf

While this:
http://www.haciendapub.com/article50.html
is science of the purest sort.

Yes, humans evolved with radiation, we live in places that have high background radiation counts, but we did not evolve ingesting short half-life radionuclides, and it will take more than some numbers put forth by vested interests to convince me that it's harmless, or even better, good for us.

[Devil]

The Chernobyl Forum is made up of 8 UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the World Bank, as well as the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

OK, other than the IAEA and possibly the UNSCEAR, please tell me what vested interest any of the others could have.

Having worked with UNEP for many years, I know for an absolute fact that they would not put their seal of approval on a document of this nature if the scientific evidence was not convincing. I could recount, from very personal experience, because I was co-chair of a UNEP working group studying the effects of a substance which was widely used in industry. There was little doubt that it was causing environmental harm and the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. It was also probably neurotoxic (many anecdotic cases in the literature but no epidemiological studies) and it was also a reproductive toxin (reduced sperm count and motility). However, because the modelling of the fate of emissions of this substance in the atmosphere was incomplete, the international UNEP assembly refused to take action to cause this substance to be phased down or out. They went only as far as to recommend that use of it be circumspect, pending more scientific data (which never came because funding was not available). If UNEP refused to take action because scientific data was incomplete, do you really think they would countenance a report like this if there were any chance the science was dodgy?

[EnergySpin]

Alright. I shouldn't have called you guys asshats, although I did find your replies somewhat obtuse, as well as a touch condescending.

Yes, humans evolved with radiation, we live in places that have high background radiation counts, but we did not evolve ingesting short half-life radionuclides, and it will take more than some numbers put forth by vested interests to convince me that it's harmless, or even better, good for us.

WHO put their seal on this. I trust WHO . The epidemiologic evidence from Chernobyl were printed in the report. Anyone with a calculator can refute those and no one is being "obtuse" or condenscending about this.
No one is trying to convice that "radionuclides are good for you". In fact if they were good for you and me, why dont we ingest them?

But I will take it a step further: the coal industry kills many more people directly or indirectly every month, than the nuclear industry has "killed" in the last 50 years of its existence even after accounting for the difference in scale.

The question is wheter nuclear technology/engineering is safe. The record of industries/bodies which did deploy nuclear energy on a grand scale is impressive. In spite of the complexity of the technology, organisations like the French utilities, the US and the USSR Navies and the majority of the Western World have shown that we have done a pretty good job of controlling the technology.
The Chernobyl effects show that even in the case of an absolute fuck-up effects can be impressively benign. Since nuclear designs such as the one used in Chernobyl are a thing of the past no one will have the "pleasure" of repeating this particular natural -experiment, disaster.

As a final note: people's gut perception of risk/danger is not always correct. There are many more people afraid of flying, compared to people who are afraid of smoking OR driving drunk. It is the acute nature of the accident and the fact that people are not comfortable with the science/engineering of a particular endeavour that skews public's perception of risk.

[Devil]

Oiless

OK, this is published by a "vested interest" but read it. because it is proven fact, please:

# There has been no credible documentation of health effects associated with routine operation of commercial nuclear facilities anywhere in the world. Widely accepted studies demonstrate no correlation between cancer deaths and plant operation. Studies reporting a linkage have been shown to be incorrect. UNSCEAR reports that radioactive releases from coal power plants, due to radioactive impurities in coal result in higher radiation exposures to the public than those from nuclear power plants.

# Fossil fuel combustion produces noxious gases and a wide range of toxic pollutants that are the largest source of atmospheric pollution. The releases are responsible for a wide range of respiratory disorders and illnesses including cancer. The WHO estimates that annual deaths due to indoor and outdoor air pollution from energy use account for 6% of the total 50 million annual global deaths. Ingestion of heavy metal pollutants can cause a wide variety of substance specific health disorders.

# Extreme concerns about radiation are demonstrated by a widely held public conviction that plutonium can be significantly more harmful than toxic substances. Plutonium can be extremely hazardous only when finely dispersed in sufficient concentration and inhaled. However, a scenario to disperse sufficient quantities of plutonium, transported in strong structural containers, into the atmosphere to cause significant health effects in populations is extremely difficult. By contrast, many of today's energy related toxic pollutants, including easily inhaled particulates that are probably the main mortality factor due to fossil fuels, have high potential health effects.

Just in case your maths is not up to it, 3 MILLION humans die each year because we pollute the air with coal, oil and fossil natural gas, yes, 3,000,000, the whole population of a largish city. And this does not take into account the suffering of many who do not die or the cost to keep them alive. If we stopped using fossil fuels today, we could cut our healthcare bills in half, within a few years. I don't suppose you are as old as I am but, if you are, think back to your first three decades of life. I bet you thought that asthma was a very rare disease suffered only by those with an allergic disorder and you had never even heard of emphysema, it was so rare. Even lung cancer was rarer then than today, yet everybody, or nearly so, smoked.

[oiless]

Oiless
Just in case your maths is not up to it, 3 MILLION humans die each year because we pollute the air with coal, oil and fossil natural gas, yes, 3,000,000, the whole population of a largish city. And this does not take into account the suffering of many who do not die or the cost to keep them alive. If we stopped using fossil fuels today, we could cut our healthcare bills in half, within a few years. I don't suppose you are as old as I am but, if you are, think back to your first three decades of life. I bet you thought that asthma was a very rare disease suffered only by those with an allergic disorder and you had never even heard of emphysema, it was so rare. Even lung cancer was rarer then than today, yet everybody, or nearly so, smoked.

Ah yes, there's that condescending attitude that I enjoy so much, rearing it's head again. I disagree with you, so perhaps I am incapable of calculating that 6% of 50 million is 3 million. Nice.

Nowhere have I said that burning coal, or any other fossil fuel, is a healthy thing.
I believe that we are going to be burning more coal as time goes on. I think it's a bad idea, but it's going to happen irregardless of what I think.
I also believe that we are going to use more nuclear power, and I believe that there is a campaign underway to understate the potential problems with nuclear energy.

The UN is cited as an unbiased body; given that some of the most influential member countries are heavily involved in producing nuclear energy, and in selling components (and entire plants for that matter) to other countries, I find myself unable to trust their impartiality.

The WHO is cited as a trustworthy unbiased source. Nevertheless I look at the sources of their funding and I find myself unable to trust their impartiality about anything.

So, I am aware that there will be more nuclear plants in the future, in fact Canada will sell some of them, and they will have the same pressure tube problems that they always had, or perhaps they'll solve those problems, in which case new unforseen problems will crop up.
There will be various accidents, increasing in frequency as the number of plants in service rises.

Careful selection of research will disguise or minimise any ill effects caused by the industry, and dissenting research will be marginalized.

However, just because that's the way things are doesn't mean that I have to stop questioning and thinking.
The very first thought that enters my head when I begin to read something is: "Follow the money; who stands to gain.".

Oh, about asthma, I grew up in an area quite remote from "civilization", there was a little girl, a bit younger than I, that would have terrible asthma attacks when she went anywhere near a town. She was perfectly fine the rest of the time. I had no doubt what caused asthma: air pollution. That was over 30 years ago, so apparently, assuming that what you wrote applies to you Devil, I was ahead of you there too.

Just because I don't like air pollution doesn't mean I have to turn a blind eye to the potential downside of nuclear power. Nor does it mean that I will feel all warm and fuzzy and suspend my disbelief when sources that I regard as potentially suspect tell me that it's not as bad as all that.

[Specop_007]

Click

[UIUCstudent01]

"A different race of people"

And those monstrous legs...

[Chuckmak]

[Sketch]

Powerful photos.

I've spent a lot of time reading about Chernobyl, it has never been easy to find pictures of those genetically affected by the fallout, pictures you don't want to see but need to all the same.

I'm not normally prone to poetically whimsy but after reading some of the links that follow I had a stab at some verse while the emotion was running high. The links have excerpts from the book `Voices of Chernobyl'.

--
He's a damn NIMBY
She's anti-nukes
stuck in the stoneage
a couple of pukes

Nuclear's peachy
Fire up those new Plants
Deadly? Who cares?
Low odds, what's the chance?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5355810

Call me a NIMBY
who fears your energy punts
will go up so fast
it'll occur at least once.

http://www.theparisreview.com/viewmedia.php/prmMID/5447

--

When things go wrong they go horribly wrong, just search for info on Superfund sites to see how, under the guise of progress, mankind poisons his surroundings. It would be a fulltime task trying to find sustenance we can ingest that, with sufficient chemical concentration, won't kill us or those we sire.

The following link has some interesting information for those who feel like mumbling `damn, I wish I'd known that sooner'

http://thedoctorwithin.com/index_fr.php ... index.html

[rushdy]

And that is why a simpler life using less energy is the better option.