(03-16-2013, 11:21 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote: Then let's look at the aftermath of wildlife now Chernobyl accident, in particular, the accumulation factor of Cesium in the metabolism of the boar.
Quote:In her view, it is also important to consider whether the metabolism of boars may facilitate the accumulation of the radioactive isotope above the limits considered as safe.
Quote:The controversy ideally will spur better-designed studies, perhaps by critics. It’s about time for renewed interest in the impact of radiation on Chernobyl wildlife. More than a quarter century has passed since that disaster. Fukushima showed us there will be more in the future.
If we are to make smart energy choices, science needs to learn a lot more about the risks of chronic, low-level environmental radiation. We still don’t know how safe is really safe. Earth’s nuclear wastelands are natural laboratories for asking many of these questions.
There's still so much we don't know.
"There were no casualties caused by radiation exposure, approximately 25,000 died due to the earthquake and tsunami, with an analysis of the quantity of radiation released, and the number of people exposed, the range is 0 to a hundred cancer deaths in the coming decades.
In 2013, two years after the incident, the World Health Organization indicated that the residents of the area were exposed to so little radiation that it probably won't be detectable. They indicated that a Japanese baby's cancer lifetime risk would increase by about 1%.
The incidents are rated at level 7 rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale. The total amount of iodine-131 and caesium-137 released into the atmosphere has been estimated to exceed 10% of the emissions from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Frank N. von Hippel, a U.S. scientist, has estimated that the release of radioactivity is about one-tenth that from the Chernobyl disaster and the contaminated area is also about one-tenth that that of Chernobyl; he also estimates "on the order of 1,000" people will die from cancer as a result of their exposure to radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster.[unreliable source] According to a June 2012 Stanford University study, the radiation released could cause 130 deaths from cancer (the lower bound for the estimater being 15 and the upper bound 1100) and 180 cancer cases (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), mostly in Japan. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant was projected to result in 2 to 12 deaths.[unreliable source] At the time of the incident at Chernobyl, high numbers of deaths were forecast, some reaching as high as a million deaths, however, later studies have disproven these high estimates, and the damage from radiation was drastically less then predicted."
The actual Chernobyl deaths are estimated at around 4000. Original estimates for the Chernobyl went as high as a million. From a profession standpoint - anyone who estimated over 40,000 is incompetent and should be fired.
Actually that is a bit generous, there are only 64 deaths directly attributable to Chernobyl radiation.
It is pretty obvious to any except the biased, that with far less than 1/10 of the radiation on the land area of the country there are going to be a couple hands-full of deaths from Fukushima. The number might run as high as 1/3 of the evacuation deaths (which raises questions about the wisdom of the evacuation).
The reason for the huge over estimates is use of the linear-no-threshold model of radiation exposure that overestimates deaths by over 100 X (times). The linear-no-threshold model was developed by a dishonest antinuclear activist. The linear-no-threshold model performs as if it was developed by a dishonest antinuclear activist.