7 ms·

"those of us sitting on our couches in silicon valley may very get a nice early spring gift from jet stream." This brings up a question I've been wanting to as

"those of us sitting on our couches in silicon valley may very get a nice early spring gift from jet stream." This brings up a question I've been wanting to ask since the ordeal started. How much do we know about the severity of radioactivity being spread to Hawaii, California or countries outside of Japan? Assuming worst case scenarios, are the citizens of Hawaii in real danger of poisoning? Should neighboring countries be stocking up on potassium iodine?

dublinclontarf 16y ago
Well in a worse case scenario, which is not as bad as chernobyl then the answer is no, they dont really have anything to worry about. Chernobyl has actually killed very few people or cases of cancer. The death toll directly killed by the accident was around 50, with 4000 affected by radiation.
- timerickson 16y ago
  According to the WHO, yes. Other reports have claimed up to 15,000 deaths, and 50,000 people handicapped after the disaster. McIntyre, P (May-June 2006). Chernobyl 20 years on. Cancer World, 40-44.
  - dublinclontarf 16y ago
    We have endless reports from international agencies not just WHO, in these reports they find NO evidence of any increase of congenital malformations, those reports claiming 50,000 people handicapped after the disaster are plain wrong. The reports also state that as a direct result of the accident 4000 children got thyroid cancer, of which the recovery rate was almost 99%. Anti-nuclear groups have hyped up Chernobyl to such an extent that many people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy. http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/IAEA_Pub1239_web%5B1%5D.pdf http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/IAEA_Pub1239... http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/chernobyl_digest_report_EN.pdf http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/chernobyl_di... http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594179_eng.pdf http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594179_eng.pd... http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pd... http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2005/ebsp2005n008.html http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2005/ebsp2005n008....
- veidr 16y ago
  Those statistics are bullshit. I agree that people have irrational fears about nukes but quoting back bogus stats at them doesn't really help. We'll never have good data about Chernobyl because the autocratic Soviet government not only made it impossible to obtain at the time actively suppressed info to spin the global media and to keep the affected population calm and controllable. There is a large body of evidence that hundreds of thousands of people were 'affected' by the radiation. Given that tracking the effects of radiation exposure is challenging under the best of circumstances, will never know how many or to what extent. But we can definitely say that those WHO numbers are garbage, and it strains the imagination to think the real numbers aren't a lot worse.
  - dublinclontarf 16y ago
    Wow is that conspiracy theory talk, you have any facts to back that up? We have endless reports from international agencies. Cover-up? I doubt it. Ukraine and Belarus want aid and help, have no interest in covering up, and it’s difficult to believe in an international nuclear industry driven cover-up taking in all those UN agencies. What did these agencies say? Read for yourself, http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/IAEA_Pub1239_web%5B1%5D.pdf http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/IAEA_Pub1239... http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/chernobyl_digest_report_EN.pdf http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/chernobyl_di... http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594179_eng.pdf http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594179_eng.pd... http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pd... http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2005/ebsp2005n008.html http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2005/ebsp2005n008.... and so on, the list really is endless, you can click through for hours. What is this "large body of evidence" you speak of? It would be nice to have some reports by reputable scientists but all you've done is spew conspiracy hystaria.
    - Aetius 16y ago
      How are you going to have facts when they were destroyed?
timerickson 16y ago
Just found this article which claims "No radiation peril foreseen for California" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/14/MN2E1IB6C9.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/14/...

dublinclontarf 16y ago

Well in a worse case scenario, which is not as bad as chernobyl then the answer is no, they dont really have anything to worry about. Chernobyl has actually killed very few people or cases of cancer. The death toll directly killed by the accident was around 50, with 4000 affected by radiation.

timerickson 16y ago
According to the WHO, yes. Other reports have claimed up to 15,000 deaths, and 50,000 people handicapped after the disaster. McIntyre, P (May-June 2006). Chernobyl 20 years on. Cancer World, 40-44.
- dublinclontarf 16y ago
  We have endless reports from international agencies not just WHO, in these reports they find NO evidence of any increase of congenital malformations, those reports claiming 50,000 people handicapped after the disaster are plain wrong. The reports also state that as a direct result of the accident 4000 children got thyroid cancer, of which the recovery rate was almost 99%. Anti-nuclear groups have hyped up Chernobyl to such an extent that many people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy. http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/IAEA_Pub1239_web%5B1%5D.pdf http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/IAEA_Pub1239... http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/chernobyl_digest_report_EN.pdf http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/chernobyl_di... http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594179_eng.pdf http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594179_eng.pd... http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pd... http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2005/ebsp2005n008.html http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2005/ebsp2005n008....
veidr 16y ago
Those statistics are bullshit. I agree that people have irrational fears about nukes but quoting back bogus stats at them doesn't really help. We'll never have good data about Chernobyl because the autocratic Soviet government not only made it impossible to obtain at the time actively suppressed info to spin the global media and to keep the affected population calm and controllable. There is a large body of evidence that hundreds of thousands of people were 'affected' by the radiation. Given that tracking the effects of radiation exposure is challenging under the best of circumstances, will never know how many or to what extent. But we can definitely say that those WHO numbers are garbage, and it strains the imagination to think the real numbers aren't a lot worse.
- dublinclontarf 16y ago
  Wow is that conspiracy theory talk, you have any facts to back that up? We have endless reports from international agencies. Cover-up? I doubt it. Ukraine and Belarus want aid and help, have no interest in covering up, and it’s difficult to believe in an international nuclear industry driven cover-up taking in all those UN agencies. What did these agencies say? Read for yourself, http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/IAEA_Pub1239_web%5B1%5D.pdf http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/IAEA_Pub1239... http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/chernobyl_digest_report_EN.pdf http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/chernobyl_di... http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594179_eng.pdf http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594179_eng.pd... http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pd... http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2005/ebsp2005n008.html http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2005/ebsp2005n008.... and so on, the list really is endless, you can click through for hours. What is this "large body of evidence" you speak of? It would be nice to have some reports by reputable scientists but all you've done is spew conspiracy hystaria.
  - Aetius 16y ago
    How are you going to have facts when they were destroyed?

timerickson 16y ago

Just found this article which claims "No radiation peril foreseen for California" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/14/MN2E1IB6C9.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/14/...