It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
(CBS News) As Japan continues to clean up after the deadly earthquake and tsunami that killed nearly 16,000 people on March 11, 2011, one thing is clear: something went really wrong at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, and the people who lived nearby will suffer for decades as a result.
...
While many have been critical of the government's handling of the Fukushima disaster, some are pointing out that at least they are finally being realistic about the scope of the crisis there.
Originally posted by dannikilla13
welcome to the 21 century chernobly cities.... were society stood still and barren wastelands took over the lanscape... quite sad really
yet the accident itself may have killed only a few thousand...
emphasis mine
A recent conference concluded that 9,000 persons worldwide survived with or died from cancer (3), while a compendium of more than 5,000 research papers put the excess death toll (from cancer and all other causes) at 985,000 (4).
3. International Atomic Energy Agency. The Chernobyl Legacy: Health, Environment
and Socio-Economic Impact and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus,
the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, 2nd Rev. Ed. Vienna, 2006. www.iaea.org/
publications/booklets/Chernnobyl/Chernobyl.pdf (accessed August 1, 2011).
4. Yablokov, A. V., Nesterenko, V. B., and Nesterenko, A. V. Chernobyl: Consequences
of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. New York Academy of Sciences,
New York, 2009.
Originally posted by QQXXw
Nuclear energy is a gift
Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by QQXXw
yet the accident itself may have killed only a few thousand...
According to some studies, the number is much higher:
emphasis mine
A recent conference concluded that 9,000 persons worldwide survived with or died from cancer (3), while a compendium of more than 5,000 research papers put the excess death toll (from cancer and all other causes) at 985,000 (4).
3. International Atomic Energy Agency. The Chernobyl Legacy: Health, Environment
and Socio-Economic Impact and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus,
the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, 2nd Rev. Ed. Vienna, 2006. www.iaea.org/
publications/booklets/Chernnobyl/Chernobyl.pdf (accessed August 1, 2011).
4. Yablokov, A. V., Nesterenko, V. B., and Nesterenko, A. V. Chernobyl: Consequences
of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. New York Academy of Sciences,
New York, 2009.
AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION? (455 KB .pdf)
Originally posted by QQXXw
I've read the research articles coming out from Ukrainian authors quite a while ago,
Originally posted by zorgon
How is it fear mongering? Its the simple plain truth.
And it will come back to bite us in the very near future.
At least Germany got smart... they are shutting down all their nuke plantsedit on 24-4-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)
while a compendium of more than 5,000 research papers put the excess death toll (from cancer and all other causes) at 985,000
Author Alexy V. Yablokov was also one of the general editors on the Greenpeace commissioned report also criticizing the Chernobyl Forum finds published one year prior to the Russian language version of this report. This report is not peer reviewed nor is it endorsed by the New York Academy of Sciences.[60] The New York Academy of Sciences also published a critical review by M. I. Balonov from the Institute of Radiation Hygiene (St. Petersburg, Russia).[61]
Originally posted by QQXXw
Originally posted by zorgon
How is it fear mongering? Its the simple plain truth.
And it will come back to bite us in the very near future.
At least Germany got smart... they are shutting down all their nuke plantsedit on 24-4-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)
Why are you so against nuclear energy? If we had used nuclear energy from the start our planet would be a lot greener (not a cue for you to make a joke) and a whole lot less polluted. Nuclear energy IS clean energy, or at least the closest we have to true clean energy. Using nuclear reactions to drive turbines is not the most thermodynamically efficient way to do it, but it is the most efficient way that we currently have which means we either use nuclear or develop alternative energies, going back to old traditional energy production or to the dead end ideas of solar and wind should not be an option
Germany too will come to its senses and re-think the decision
Originally posted by QQXXw
Originally posted by zorgon
How is it fear mongering? Its the simple plain truth.
And it will come back to bite us in the very near future.
At least Germany got smart... they are shutting down all their nuke plantsedit on 24-4-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)
Why are you so against nuclear energy? If we had used nuclear energy from the start our planet would be a lot greener (not a cue for you to make a joke) and a whole lot less polluted. Nuclear energy IS clean energy, or at least the closest we have to true clean energy. Using nuclear reactions to drive turbines is not the most thermodynamically efficient way to do it, but it is the most efficient way that we currently have which means we either use nuclear or develop alternative energies, going back to old traditional energy production or to the dead end ideas of solar and wind should not be an option
Germany too will come to its senses and re-think the decision