Chernobyl deaths

[Blind groper]

My reason for posting this is watching a TV documentary, produced by BBC Knowledge, titled "Is nuclear power safe".

We all know about the melt down at Chernobyl on 26 April 1986. At the time, 31 people died from radiation. But how many died subsequent to that from long term effects of radiation? Especially cancers?

Well, Greenpeace dived into the fray in its usual ignorant way and predicted millions. In 2006, it changed its view and reduced the estimate to about 200,000.

The International Atomic Energy Agency came up with an estimate of 4,000 additional deaths, while the EEC put together a committee of experts that estimated 30,000 extra deaths.

In the meantime, nearly 30 years have passed. By now, we should have a much more accurate idea. We should know how many extra cancer cases, and how many extra deaths (pretty much all from cancer) occurred.

The BBC program interviewed an expert in Ukraine, who had all the figures of cancer cases and cancer deaths available. The results are surprising.

The cancer that increased was thyroid cancer, due to the uptake of radioactive iodine into the thryoid gland. In the various countries affected by Chernobyl, there have been 6,000 extra cases of thyroid cancer. However, thyroid cancer is perhaps the most easily treated of all cancers, and has the highest survival rate. Of those 6,000 cases, only 15 people died.

According to the Ukrainian expert, there was no measurable increase in any other cancer due to the Chernobyl accident.

So it looks as if even the modest IATA estimate was a massive over-estimate. However, there was nevertheless a major health problem following the accident. That major problem was psychological. In the area near ground zero, the rate of stress related illness, and psychological problems rose dramatically. The biggest health problem came from worry.

How much of this problem can we attribute to the trouble makers like Greenpeace, who have so little respect for good science? How much comes from other sources?

I am aware that the worst ever disaster from an electricity generating plant was at Banqiao in China in the 1970's. A hydroelectric dam burst, and killed nearly 200,000 people and made 11 million people homeless.

How is it that we are all paranoid about Chernobyl and nuclear power, while Banqiao is pretty much never mentioned?

[laklak]

People are stupid, and rabid Greenies are even stupider. That's pretty much about it, I think.

[piscator]

The stochastic fog is a great place to hide your dead.

[laklak]

Plus the Cherenkov radiation makes a lovely nightlight.

[cronus]

Gotta consider Chernobyl was the worst case scenario with nuclear power and the full China Syndrome too... Shows how old fossil fuels and stupid greenies have fear mongered a clean and safe energy source, far more productive than windmills, off the stage. Never did like greenies. Should all be rounded up by the Tories along with the chavs for hunting purposes.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Gotta consider Chernobyl was the worst case scenario with nuclear power and the full China Syndrome too... Shows how old fossil fuels and stupid greenies have fear mongered a clean and safe energy source, far more productive than windmills, off the stage. Never did like greenies. Should all be rounded up by the Tories along with the chavs for hunting purposes.

There is not and never was any such thing as "The China Syndrome".

[cronus]

Gotta consider Chernobyl was the worst case scenario with nuclear power and the full China Syndrome too... Shows how old fossil fuels and stupid greenies have fear mongered a clean and safe energy source, far more productive than windmills, off the stage. Never did like greenies. Should all be rounded up by the Tories along with the chavs for hunting purposes.

There is not and never was any such thing as "The China Syndrome".

There might be in Iran soon. First time for everything.

[JimC]

What I would like to see in Australia would be to find an outback site, next to one of our many Uranium mines, with a geologically stable profile, and construct an enrichment plant, several nuclear reactors, a waste processing facility and an underground storage vault. The whole site could be made very secure, no need to transport either enriched Uranium or nuclear waste long distances, and well away from population centres. Let the neutrons flow!

[Seth]

How is it that we are all paranoid about Chernobyl and nuclear power, while Banqiao is pretty much never mentioned?

Because they were Communist chinks and nobody, not even Mao, gives a fuck.

[Seth]

What I would like to see in Australia would be to find an outback site, next to one of our many Uranium mines, with a geologically stable profile, and construct an enrichment plant, several nuclear reactors, a waste processing facility and an underground storage vault. The whole site could be made very secure, no need to transport either enriched Uranium or nuclear waste long distances, and well away from population centres. Let the neutrons flow!

Yup. Nuclear reactor technology has come a long way since the last plant was built in the US.

[Seth]

Gotta consider Chernobyl was the worst case scenario with nuclear power and the full China Syndrome too... Shows how old fossil fuels and stupid greenies have fear mongered a clean and safe energy source, far more productive than windmills, off the stage. Never did like greenies. Should all be rounded up by the Tories along with the chavs for hunting purposes.

Yeah. No, wait, we should relocate them to the various nuclear waste storage sites that are scattered all over the US because those jackasses have managed to keep the WIPP from operating for decades, leaving thousands of tons of nuclear waste sitting around in rotting metal drums and used fuel rods lying around in leaking pools of water. If they had to live right next to all that waste perhaps they'd be less obstructive about getting it buried a mile underground.

[pErvinalia]

What I would like to see in Australia would be to find an outback site, next to one of our many Uranium mines, with a geologically stable profile, and construct an enrichment plant, several nuclear reactors, a waste processing facility and an underground storage vault. The whole site could be made very secure, no need to transport either enriched Uranium or nuclear waste long distances, and well away from population centres. Let the neutrons flow!

One of the problems with this would be getting the generated electricity from the outback to the cities where most of it is needed. Long distance power transmission isn't that efficient. It also wouldn't exist in that location either, so would have to be built from scratch. Huge expense!

[JimC]

What I would like to see in Australia would be to find an outback site, next to one of our many Uranium mines, with a geologically stable profile, and construct an enrichment plant, several nuclear reactors, a waste processing facility and an underground storage vault. The whole site could be made very secure, no need to transport either enriched Uranium or nuclear waste long distances, and well away from population centres. Let the neutrons flow!

One of the problems with this would be getting the generated electricity from the outback to the cities where most of it is needed. Long distance power transmission isn't that efficient. It also wouldn't exist in that location either, so would have to be built from scratch. Huge expense!

It is true that there are inefficiencies involved in long transmission, but all you do is generate 10-15% more electricity to compensate (without making any more CO2). After all, we already accept a certain amount of transmission losses - transmission lines spread all through Oz; it would not be that far for an outback nuclear power station to join a network, e.g. in western NSW...

Yes, expensive, but also a stimulus to the economy, and a long term way to get rid of coal burning power stations by providing a new base load source.

[pErvinalia]

What they should do to connect them to the existing power networks is build new DC transmission lines. From what I understand DC transmission is considerably more efficient than AC.

[JimC]

What they should do to connect them to the existing power networks is build new DC transmission lines. From what I understand DC transmission is considerably more efficient than AC.

I'm pretty certain that is not the case. Transmission is most efficient when the voltage is as high as possible, and the current is as low as possible. As power leaves a power station, it is put through a giant transformer, which turns high current/high voltage AC power into medium current/very high voltage power, with close to the same number of watts. Such transformers handle AC relatively easily; DC transformers are much more difficult to make and operate.