Why isn't radiation that dangerous? Serious question.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Why isn't radiation that dangerous? Serious question.
Soldato
Perhaps they mean non-ionising radiation, such as visible light?
Soldato
There is a growing consensus in the scientific community that the USA's initial findings after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incorrect. What they did was to plot a graph of how much damage was caused to a human if they were exposed to radiation, and then project that backwards to estimate deaths for lesser doses. The problem is that the human body seems to be resilient to lower doses, meaning that the fatality rate is much lower than they expected. In fact, in Chernobyl, only something like eight people died from exposure - except for the people who received massive doses from entering the building itself.
The predictions were much, much higher.
Mother Nature has thrived in the Chernobyl, showing far fewer adverse effects than expected.
Plus, the fact that blowing up a nuclear reactor isn't that dangerous. It will just spread fuel all over the place. Not nice, for sure, but there are far worse things.
I'm not sure those numbers are correct, with 6000 out of the 60,000 involved in the cleanup died. Reports of riased cancer, birth defects from people within the zone in the years after.
The deaths you've reported are only from the immediate days after.
Soldato
No, they weren't.
Weren't cancer rates across Europe significantly higher after Chernobyl? I find only 8 deaths hard to believe.
Caporegime
Spicy meatballs are on the way.
Let's check in on how that's going
Unilever doubles profits in Russia, but says it didn’t break earlier promises
Unilver doubled its profits in Russia over the past year, despite promises to scale down its operations there to selling only essential food and hygiene products, Follow the Money reports. The company also spent more on advertising in Russia, even though it said it would stop advertising in the...
nltimes.nl
Unilever named ‘international sponsor of war’ by Ukraine
Protest at London HQ highlights taxes company pays in Russia and new law requiring it to contribute to war effort
www.theguardian.com
Oh...
Tiny in comparison to the deleterious effects that huffing all this pollution has done.
Man of Honour
You're saying things that are obviously untrue, making obviously false accusations against people. Not just fabricating stuff but also going directly against what they actually said.
There are two possibilities:
i) You believe what you're saying, in which case you're delusional and hallucinating.
ii) You don't believe what you're saying, in which case you're lying.
It's one or the other.
What you're doing is demanding obedience to violent psychopathy (literally gaining pleasure from snuff videos, with the more suffering the more joy you get from watching it), with the force you're applying to compel obedience being false accusations. The only reason anyone doesn't have to obey you is that you don't have enough power or knowledge (e.g. you have no idea who I am, so you can't take much action against me) so your false accusations aren't harmful enough.
Last edited:
Soldato
Let's check in on how that's going
Unilever doubles profits in Russia, but says it didn’t break earlier promises
Unilver doubled its profits in Russia over the past year, despite promises to scale down its operations there to selling only essential food and hygiene products, Follow the Money reports. The company also spent more on advertising in Russia, even though it said it would stop advertising in the...
Unilever named ‘international sponsor of war’ by Ukraine
Protest at London HQ highlights taxes company pays in Russia and new law requiring it to contribute to war effort
Oh...
Yes, I was watching something the other day saying that many companies have dramatically increased sales in the countries bordering Russia, knowing full well that the goods are ending up in Russia.
I suppose it was too much to expect a black market not to form. They are literally traitors but in a sneaky way that means you can't shoot them!!
Soldato
At the risk of going off topic, how do you work out such a low death rate? Do you not include the ongoing damage radiation does to life?
Associate
I thought cluster bombs were banned/ a very bad look? They have high rates of sticking around long after the war and end up killing a load of civilians etc? I remember we routinely chastised gaddafi and assad for using them?
Seems unfair on future Ukrainians that will live in fear of this.
Man of Honour
The person you're replying to explicitly referred to 8 people who died from exposure and who didn't enter the reactor building. That's very different to all deaths in the whole of Europe.
The number of deaths undoubtably caused by Chernobyl is 30. The number of deaths maybe caused by Chernobyl is...some amount. The UN's estimate is about 4000. The problem is that you can't really tell for sure. If someone dies 30 years later from cancer, was that cancer caused by Chernobyl? If average death rates are higher in a region, is that due to Chernobyl or some other factor? There are many other factors affecting average death rates in an area.
So is blowing up nurseries, schools, & old peoples homes but that hasn't stopped the Russians.
Soldato
I'm just going off the reports I read about it, in which scientists who followed up on Chernobyl.
Of course, no radiation is good radiation, but they were saying that, very surprisingly, estimates were way off on how many people would die.
Only the clean-up crews, subjected to high doses, were in any real danger.
As I mentioned before, this largely came down to "estimates" drawn up by the USA after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These estimates, for low doses, seem to be way off. The chances of developing a fatal cancer from a low dose seems to be far less than expected.
If you blow a reactor up, you just scatter fuel rods around. It's not that dangerous. It's only if the reactor has a meltdown, then it becomes seriously dangerous. And the only reason so many people received high doses, is because they didn't have the right gear and didn't have enough crew rotations. The West would not have done it the same way.
Mind, I am not saying everything would be fine. It wouldn't. Just it wouldn't be as catastrophic as the media would claim.
Soldato
Shame is that we used to make some great cluster bombs. If you can call any weapon, "great".
Last edited:
Man of Honour
They're banned in 111 countries. But not all countries.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,681
Lots of countries prohibit their use/ storage/ sale.
Countries that don't include the US, Russia, China, India, Brazil and Pakistan.
Funnily enough, Jens stoltenberg (NATO head, formerly Nowegian Prime Miniater) proposed the legislation on cluster munitions that led to the "ban".
It is still very very dangerous in the local area if you scatter radioactive material around from an explosion - the bulk of such material from Chernobyl was deposited within 20 miles - it was the meltdown and runaway burn off which made Chernobyl so bad on a widespread scale - it is difficult to replicate those conditions with any reactor not of the same, unmodified, design as at Chernobyl. There is also the factors that some radiation sources are short lived and other isotopes, etc. can be very dangerous for a very long time.
Any concentrations carried outside of the local area i.e. by water sources would also be very very bad.
There is a lot of hysteria around it and ZNPP is very unlikely to be an event remotely like Chernobyl but it could still be very bad with potential for non-negligible contribution to cancer rates, etc. in more widespread areas and local areas a patchwork of low through to extremely deadly areas due to the distribution of material.
- Status