Is radiation as dangerous as we think?

2006-07-20 07:20:37

#1

.:XDR:.PureFodder: Member; +105|7071

About a week ago on Horizon (a bbc documentary in the UK) they featured a detailed report on the deaths that were directly attributed to the nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl. The predictions that were made at the time of the accident were based on a model that assumes all radiation doses increase the risk of cancer linearly with exposure. They estimated that somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 people would die. So far the death toll has been 56 people. There just hasn't been an epidemic of Leukemia and Solid cancers in the area. Far from being a wasteland, the area around the reactor looks more like a wildlife preserve.

The radiation levels around Chernobyl were around 100 millisieverts, less than the naturally occurring background in some parts of the world. Airline staff who are regularly exposed to higher radiation doses haven't been shown to have increased cancer risks.

High doses of radiation are definitely extremely dangerous (as seen after the atomic blasts in Japan). Low level doses haven't been extensively studied, but studies like these of groups of people that are regularly exposed to low level radiation seem to indicate no increase in cancers or possibly a decrease in cancer rates.

Do you think we are too afraid of low level radiation or should we do everything we can to avoid it? Discuss

2006-07-20 07:25:30

#2

Eboreus: Member of Foamy's Card Cult; +46|6889

I dont think that we are too afraid of low level radiation. 56 dead people because of radiation are still 56 too many in my opinion. And above that you must not forget the cause of this outbreak of low radiation - the chernobyl accident which killed many more people than just 56.

All in all I'd say that you cant be carefull enough about radiation (either high or low)

2006-07-20 08:52:24

#3

PuckMercury: 6 x 9 = 42; +298|6769|Portland, OR USA

it's less the dosage and more the type. Some radiation is used to treat cancer, others are a well documented carcinogen. Gamma is bad radiation generally speaking, very penetrating. Alpha and beta, not so much. X-Rays can be bad (notice the doctor steps out of the room, and you wear a lead girtle?).

Radiation is a tool. As with any tool, it must be used properly.

2006-07-20 10:34:49

#4

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6771|Global Command

I say it's more dangerous than we think because it can cause unknown genetic mutations.

2006-07-20 12:45:59

#5

Vampira_NB: Trying is the first step to failing; +76|6915|Canada Eh?

To him the 56 deaths is just a statistic, a low number that means nothing. I'm sure the 56 different families (Thats if there werent any relatives in the bunch) would gladly agree with him

2006-07-20 12:48:27

#6

PspRpg-7: -; +961|6940

Vampira_NB wrote:
To him the 56 deaths is just a statistic, a low number that means nothing. I'm sure the 56 different families (Thats if there werent any relatives in the bunch) would gladly agree with him

Not the point of the thread. Don't go all drama queen.

2006-07-20 12:50:34

#7

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7085|Reykjavík, Iceland.

It does make you turn into green jelly, right?

2006-07-20 12:52:00

#8

spray_and_pray: Member; +52|6733|Perth. Western Australia

Gamma is the type of radiation radiated by computers i beleive its also radiated by the sun

2006-07-20 12:52:20

#9

PspRpg-7: -; +961|6940

PBAsydney wrote:
It does make you turn into green jelly, right?

If you're retarded maybe.

2006-07-20 12:58:36

#10

Jussimies: Finnish commander whore; +76|6826|Finland

One statistic says that there was 500000 people victim of Chernobyl 200000 is dead now 200000 disabled and 100000 are normal and live to tell the tale. It is really dangerous if it gets lose, but I live about 25 km away from three reactors and in year 2030 they start to put nuclear waist to the rock face near the power plants. I am not afraid from that. I think radiation is as dangerous as we think but search something like Chernobyl, nuclear reactor, rmbk, nuclear safety from www.wikipedia.org and make your own conclusion.
EDIT: the number 56 is probably the people who died INSIDE the plant In the explosion(plant workers) and trying to desperetly cool molten fuel with only water(firefighters(26 if i got it right)).

Last edited by Jussimies (2006-07-20 13:06:58)

2006-07-20 14:05:30

#11

jonsimon: Member; +224|6737

Radiation is probably more dangerous than we think. Radiation is one of those poisons like perscription medicine that over extremely long periods of time (years) proves fatal or disabilitating. In general a specific case of cancer cannot be traced to its cause, my belief is that injury and long term low grade poisons such as medication and radiation can cause the genetic mutation necessary for the formation of a cancer which may not be detectable for decades after the cause.

2006-07-20 14:26:25

#12

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6916|Canberra, AUS

Oddly, more people in Australia die from radiation in COAL mines than uranium mines. And we have big, big, BIG reserves of both, so...

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-07-20 15:15:46

#13

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6803

spray_and_pray wrote:
Gamma is the type of radiation radiated by computers i beleive its also radiated by the sun

Uh, I doubt it does so on any real scale. Gamma's the bad one, it's the one that kills people when nuclear bombs are dropped. The other two we encounter in daily life, but are easily blocked before they hit internal organs.

spray_and_pray wrote:
Oddly, more people in Australia die from radiation in COAL mines than uranium mines. And we have big, big, BIG reserves of both, so...

We haven't tapped into the Uranium deposits much, though.

2006-07-26 04:25:07

#14

spray_and_pray: Member; +52|6733|Perth. Western Australia

of course not on a large scale but it radiates the smallest amount people have been known to get leuchemia (spelling) from too much PC or something minor like a blood nose

2006-07-26 04:43:03

#15

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6958

Burning of uranium is clean, using it to create energy is WAY cleaner than coal IMO, but the rods are the thing that is the most dangerous

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-07-26 05:17:15

#16

Pyrri: Member; +7|6865

I don't think we're beeing too afraid of LLR such as results from radioactive debris or from ROTA (releases other than attack, Tjernobyl...). Anything over the background radiation resulting in a dosis of 3-4 mSv/year is a risk. 100 mSv is the limit of dosis for a period of 5 years for people working in a radioactive enviroment. You say that the radiation levels around Tjernobyl is 100 mSv. Is that per year, month, week or?
Just to illustrate an example of what radiation does to your body when you don't keep a distance...

https://www.faktasamlingnbc.foi.se/filer/n_gfx/skada.jpg

This man worked in a factory, I believe, where they used small rods with a tip of some radioactive nuclid. He picked it up, not knowing what it was and thought he would give it to his foreman after his shift ended. Ended up with that burn. (It's not really relevant for Tjernobyl, but it shows what LLR can do to you.)

Last edited by Pyrri (2006-07-26 05:49:01)

2006-07-26 05:38:07

#17

AD_Kensan: Member; +7|7027

spray_and_pray wrote:
of course not on a large scale but it radiates the smallest amount people have been known to get leuchemia (spelling) from too much PC or something minor like a blood nose

How exactly is getting leukemia or a bleeding nose (!) from radiaton something minor?

Basically people seem to put things out of proportion: Tschernobyl was a man-made error (they wanted to see how far they could take the reactor - no wonder it blew up) as tragic as it was/is (and it was VERY tragic for everyone who lives in the area or even in europe). But nuclear power is very safe and the problem there is has to do with proper storage of nuclear waste.

The background radiation is about 3.6 mSv per year and even the human body produces radiation 0.39 (mSv per year). Check this page.

2006-07-26 05:46:26

#18

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6958

radiation on computers come from the back of the monitor, LCD monitors has barely any radiation, CRT monitors has more radiation than LCD's though

BF2S Forums Is radiation as dangerous as we think?

Vampira_NB wrote:

PBAsydney wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

Board footer