Comments on: Fukushima likely not as bad as Chernobyl, but what does that mean? http://www.theworld.org/2011/04/fukushima-not-as-bad-as-chernobyl/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fukushima-not-as-bad-as-chernobyl Global Perspectives for an American Audience Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:49:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: theanphibian http://www.theworld.org/2011/04/fukushima-not-as-bad-as-chernobyl/comment-page-1/#comment-19354 theanphibian Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:23:00 +0000 http://www.theworld.org/?p=69274#comment-19354 Long term cancers from Fukushima Daiichi radiation are likely to be around 300. This is still fewer deaths than a similar coal plant would cause in only a year of operation. I know of no other source that has estimated this number except for this link. http://neutroneconomy.blogspot.com/2011/04/fukushima-daiichi-to-ines-level-7-some.html Long term cancers from Fukushima Daiichi radiation are likely to be around 300. This is still fewer deaths than a similar coal plant would cause in only a year of operation. I know of no other source that has estimated this number except for this link.

http://neutroneconomy.blogspot.com/2011/04/fukushima-daiichi-to-ines-level-7-some.html

]]> By: tallaets t http://www.theworld.org/2011/04/fukushima-not-as-bad-as-chernobyl/comment-page-1/#comment-19347 tallaets t Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:51:00 +0000 http://www.theworld.org/?p=69274#comment-19347 Great paper, and very sound comments. I would like to add that, although the relatively high rates of cancers in the general population may conceal possible increases of the number of total cancers, when considering all types of cancers, one needs to focus on specific cancer types. For example, the Chernobyl accident released to the environment high levels of radioactive iodine. As a consequence, there was a sharp increase in the incidence of childhood papillary thyroid carcinomas in Belarus and elsewhere, in association with specific molecular alterations. The scientific evidence is very robust that these cancers were directly caused by the Chernobyl accident (see, for example,http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n2s/full/onc2009349a.html). Thus, the conclusion may be regarded as trivial: ionizing radiation is cancerogenic, from which if follows that nuclear accidents that release radiation can cause cancers, of types that depend on the type and activity of radiactive particles released. The same type of studies are used to associate lung cancer to smoking or melanoma to sunlight exposure. Great paper, and very sound comments. I would like to add that, although the relatively high rates of cancers in the general population may conceal possible increases of the number of total cancers, when considering all types of cancers, one needs to focus on specific cancer types. For example, the Chernobyl accident released to the environment high levels of radioactive iodine. As a consequence, there was a sharp increase in the incidence of childhood papillary thyroid carcinomas in Belarus and elsewhere, in association with specific molecular alterations. The scientific evidence is very robust that these cancers were directly caused by the Chernobyl accident (see, for example,http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n2s/full/onc2009349a.html). Thus, the conclusion may be regarded as trivial: ionizing radiation is cancerogenic, from which if follows that nuclear accidents that release radiation can cause cancers, of types that depend on the type and activity of radiactive particles released. The same type of studies are used to associate lung cancer to smoking or melanoma to sunlight exposure.

]]>