EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Chernobyl Radiation Killed Nearly One Million People: New Book
NEW YORK - Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences published today on the 24th anniversary of the meltdown at the Soviet facility.
The Chernobyl nuclear reactor was destroyed by an explosion and fire April 26, 1986. (Photo issued by Soviet authorities) The book, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for
People and the Environment," was compiled by authors Alexey Yablokov of
the Center for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, and Vassily
Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko of the Institute of Radiation Safety,
in Minsk, Belarus.
The authors examined more than 5,000 published articles and studies, most written in Slavic languages and never before available in English.
The authors said, "For the past 23 years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
"No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe," they said. "Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere."
Their findings are in contrast to estimates by the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency that initially said only 31 people had died among the "liquidators," those approximately 830,000 people who were in charge of extinguishing the fire at the Chernobyl reactor and deactivation and cleanup of the site.
The book finds that by 2005, between 112,000 and 125,000 liquidators had died.
"On this 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, we now realize that the consequences were far worse than many researchers had believed," says Janette Sherman, MD, the physician and toxicologist who edited the book.
Drawing upon extensive data, the authors estimate the number of deaths worldwide due to Chernobyl fallout from 1986 through 2004 was 985,000, a number that has since increased.
By contrast, WHO and the IAEA estimated 9,000 deaths and some 200,000 people sickened in 2005.
On April 26, 1986, two explosions occured at reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant which tore the top from the reactor and its building and exposed the reactor core. The resulting fire sent a plume of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over large parts of the western Soviet Union, Europe and across the Northern Hemisphere. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia had to be evacuated.
Yablokov and his co-authors find that radioactive emissions from the stricken reactor, once believed to be 50 million curies, may have been as great as 10 billion curies, or 200 times greater than the initial estimate, and hundreds of times larger than the fallout from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Nations outside the former Soviet Union received high doses of radioactive fallout, most notably Norway, Sweden, Finland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Austria, Romania, Greece, and parts of the United Kingdom and Germany.
About 550 million Europeans, and 150 to 230 million others in the Northern Hemisphere received notable contamination. Fallout reached the United States and Canada nine days after the disaster.
The proportion of children considered healthy born to irradiated parents in Belarus, the Ukraine, and European Russia considered healthy fell from about 80 percent to less than 20 percent since 1986.
Numerous reports reviewed for this book document elevated disease rates in the Chernobyl area. These include increased fetal and infant deaths, birth defects, and diseases of the respiratory, digestive, musculoskeletal, nervous, endocrine, reproductive, hematological, urological, cardiovascular, genetic, immune, and other systems, as well as cancers and non-cancerous tumors.
In addition to adverse effects in humans, numerous other species have been contaminated, based upon studies of livestock, voles, birds, fish, plants, trees, bacteria, viruses, and other species.
Foods produced in highly contaminated areas in the former Soviet Union were shipped, and consumed worldwide, affecting persons in many other nations. Some, but not all, contamination was detected and contaminated foods not shipped.
The authors warn that the soil, foliage, and water in highly contaminated areas still contain substantial levels of radioactive chemicals, and will continue to harm humans for decades to come.
The book explores effects of Chernobyl fallout that arrived above the United States nine days after the disaster. Fallout entered the U.S. environment and food chain through rainfall. Levels of iodine-131 in milk, for example, were seven to 28 times above normal in May and June 1986. The authors found that the highest U.S. radiation levels were recorded in the Pacific Northwest.
Americans also consumed contaminated food imported from nations affected by the disaster. Four years later, 25 percent of imported food was found to be still contaminated.
Little research on Chernobyl health effects in the United States has been conducted, the authors found, but one study by the Radiation and Public Health Project found that in the early 1990s, a few years after the meltdown, thyroid cancer in Connecticut children had nearly doubled.
This occurred at the same time that childhood thyroid cancer rates in the former Soviet Union were surging, as the thyroid gland is highly sensitive to radioactive iodine exposures.
The world now has 435 nuclear reactors and of these, 104 are in the United States.
The New York Academy of Sciences says not enough attention has been paid to Eastern European research studies on the effects of Chernobyl at a time when corporations in several nations, including the United States, are attempting to build more nuclear reactors and to extend the years of operation of aging reactors.
The academy said in a statement, "Official discussions from the International Atomic Energy Agency and associated United Nations' agencies (e.g. the Chernobyl Forum reports) have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings reported in the Eastern European scientific literature and consequently have erred by not including these assessments."
To obtain the book from the New York Academy of Sciences, click here.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



91 Comments so far
Show AllI realized that the effects of Chernobyl were greatly understated, but this is outrageous! The Soviet Union, or rather it's successor states, should be paying reparations to the rest of the world for its (their) sloppy and careless handling of atomic energy. More importantly, Chernobyl should have been the death knell for future nuclear reactors, not just in Iran and North Korea, but in Europe, Japan, Australia, China and the Untied States. That its has not is just one more example of vested interested running rough-shod over the rest of us. It turns out not only has the United States used nuclear weapons, but the Soviet Union (now Russia and the Ukraine) has (have) done an even worse thing: let nuclear contamination kill up to a million people and infect millions more. This is not even counting all the other species affected. Seems the cold war did have it's casualties. How long is the human race going to put up with this?
"How long is the human race going to put up with this?"
For as long as the top 1% says we have to. You don't believe that we actually have a say in this do you?
The nuclear industry, Obama and his energy secretary Steven Chu have done a stellar PR job convincing a majority of Americans that nuclear power is carbon free and safe (both lies), and that US taxpayers need to subsidize new nuclear power plant construction.
Indeed--right along with selling the notion of "clean coal."
I believe in armed revolution. That's the only 'say' that counts.
How long is the human race going to put up with this?
ans: unfortunately, longer than you'd think.
an excellent 'fictional' (based on some facts) book on the subject is: 'wolves eat dogs' by martin cruz smith........
This needs to be put in a bit of perspective.
The Chernobyl reactor was a large uncontained, graphite-moderated reactor with no safety-by-design features. Nothing like it is used anywhere else in the world. It is similar to a light water reactor in the same way a car's IC engine and fuel supply is similar to a 20-gallon molotov coktail, both are energy-producing devices that use gasoline, but the similarity ends there.
Also, I wonder if the post-Poviet economic disaster and resulting very high poverty was considered as a confounding factor in the excess deaths.
True that poorly nourished, poorly sheltered, stressed out people are always affected more by plagues of various kinds. But that is not an excuse for the figures. Those people count too.
Joe
Sioux Rose
PJD: It amazes me how you always side WITH authority and yet pose as a progressive in this forum. The US economy is in the toilet, so what makes you think this "rich" nation can afford the costly maintenance these aging plants require?
And by the way, nice little stealth move to correct the spelling errors in that post of yours a few days ago without mentioning having done so.
Just as you take the knee-jerk official version of 911. There's something fishy about you...
Now it's time for Billy to show up to tell us how safe nuclear power plants are today. As if anyone can vouch for the enduring safety of these plants, or what they will mean centuries from now when their radioactive detritus is still glowing strong.
Precisely, Sioux,
Corporate control of the US Government has reached the point that it doesn't matter what theoretical TECHNOLOGICAL improvements might make nuclear power safer. The nuclear industry is going to game the system (write the rules, avoid compliance and become too big to fail) the same way the banking, insurance, drug and other industries game the system.
Not to mention that attorneys are still getting rich fighting over where nuclear waste should end up.
You are an extremely close-minded individual.
These technical matters in which we disagree have NOTHING to do with "authority". They represent informed opinions of my own, based on my training, and informal research in the matters. That you would paint a different technical viewpoint as indicative of being some kind of evil enemy agent is RIGHT OUT of the events in Salem, mass. ca. 1690, or the house Un-american Activities ca. 1947 to 1954.
And you may notice that ther is an "edit" feature in this forum, which allows me to correct or revise anything I write here - until the specific comment is commented on.
Please take the vindictiveness you have for people who aren't just like you somewhere else!
Goddess Venus says: "Oh Rosie, authoritarianism isn't about nuclear plants."
Sewage Rosie sez: "F--k off goddess ! I'm doing Mars ! Ahunkahunkahunka !"
Goddess Venus says: "Right. Your favorite authoritarian figure Mars rules !"
Awwww, poor chubby poochy Rosie ! Thanks for the laughs astrozombie ! "Mars" has you right where he wants it ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
Sioux Rose,
pjd412 thinks public safety is highly over-rated. On the subject of highway safety (50,000 deaths/year in the U.S.), and the efficacy of electronic freeway signs such as
Oil Spill Ahead—Left Lanes Closed—Merge Right
Dense Fog Ahead
Share The Road—Look Twice For Motorcyclists
(photos available at Google images), pjd412 recently opined,
"I've seen such signs, but they are frills that are hardly necerssary (sic) to drive safely unless the driver is an idiot or sleeping. They usually say things like "caution - winter conditions ahead", when any driver can clearly see that it is snowing. ...Anyone who is driving defensively would not need such idiotic signs! ...Screw the automobile anyway. Living in a quaint rust-belt city. I use a car very little myself."
In other words, whether it's 50,000 deaths/year from car crashes or 1 million deaths from Chernobyl, pjd412 (otherwise known as Dr. Strangelove) finds them to be of little consequence.
I'm for more than highway safety, I'm for abolishing cars altogether.
Those electronic signs on are not at all an important safety feature, and if they were, in the context of our discussion on them, could be easily be bilingual as they are or would be in Canada.
Small-minded, insular, xenophobic, attitudes like yours are definitely incompatable with working class solidarity and being a "progressive".
I'm for "more than" nuclear power safety, I'm for abolishing it altogether.
As to the personal attacks, your demagoguery speaks for itself.
Sioux Rose
NATURALLY: Sorry, I returned to this thread late (I'm on deadline).
There are a number of people who post on CD, and they all use a variety of screen names (to suggest larger numbers) who work in tandem. Their general mode or theme includes:
1. Arguing FOR the status quo, implying that posters in the forum should trust the authorities. (This is evidenced especially in regard to the 911 "official story" and its advocates).
2. Suggesting that Obama is a skilled politician who must make compromises, and therefore excels in his bipartisanship efforts.
3. They argue for pragmatism.
They give me the impression that they want to get everyone calmed down and thus under control. They use words that are designed to diffuse passion and the collective sense of purpose necessary for fueling a real movement.
In my view their presence in this forum is pretty insidious because this little group posts the same inane arguments over and over again even after some of the best, most highly-educated minds present take the time to correct them with FACTS and analysis that goes way beyond the surface of things. They return like whack a mole, to engender the same redundant conversations ad nauseum.
I would prefer that posters use REAL names and that a mechanism be in place to insure that the same imbecile cannot post under 3 or 4 screen names as this makes some in this forum presume it's someone new who "needs" to be educated.
Rose, PJD might be a quart low on social skills (I wouldn't like to say, being a quart low myself), but I doubt he's a member of the group you're talking about. I can't say the same for the individual you're addressing, though. FWIW.
Sioux Rose
MAIREAD: I don't, by the way, see YOU in the group I specified. And I was apprised of some of this data about a year ago. In any case, I know of what I speak. That there have been shills for the nuclear industry, the democratic party, and GM crops is ANOTHER story. I enjoy your posts.
NATURALLY: I'm glad you notice what I notice, as do others. I receive personal emails from 10-15 people on CD and this is a HIGHLY intelligent, well-educated group of posters. WE know what's going on here. And we know that our homeland security authoritarian father figures are fiscally endowed with the resources to stay tuned to this site, as they do. Some state that they are employed in jobs that would demand they be ON The job in the very hours they post on this site. That is curious enough. And no doubt one of them flagged my post. What often happens is that when I speak of this subject, those who feel most guilty post attacks against me... as in "the criminal returns to the scene of the crime," and/or is haunted by his own guilt, thus magnetized BY the allegation in a form that exposes him for what he (or she) is.
In any case, thank you for your responses.
Certainly those who claim the deaths, cancers, birth defects, etc. caused by radiation exposure are "myths," or that radiation is "good for you," or that nuclear power is "safe"—even in response to evidence such as that presented here, in the New York Academy of Sciences book—fall most prominently into that category.
Mairead and GRLCowan may be the same person, or working in tandem, perhaps out of an industry boiler room somewhere. After I identified the "retired physics prof at Pittsburgh" as a well known industry shill, a suspicious post trying to smear the authors of this book appeared at the bottom of the thread.
Another interesting phenomenon is reported in a recent Columbia Journalism Review. TV weathermen—who are most assuredly not climatologists—are among the most vocal critics of climate change. Some of their ill-informed but self-assured commentary reminds me of the pro-nuclear posts we see here.
You didn't "identify" anything or anyone. You lied.
I identified your "retired physics prof at Pittsburgh" as Bernard L. Cohen. You had not identified him by name. It's right there in black and white.
Anyone who Googles the name Bernard L. Cohen quickly learns he is infamous for claiming the link between radiation exposure and cancer is a "myth." (He also doubts climate change, and the link between smoking and cancer.)
You really shouldn't try the Big Lie trick -you're not good enough.
search on "Bernard L. Cohen"
#
Bernard Cohen
Some of my publications that are most currently useful are accessible below. Items 1-6 and 9 are in PDF format that can be read with Adobe Acrobat. ...
www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/ - Cached - Similar
#
The Nuclear Energy Option
Professor Emeritus, Bernard L. Cohen, University of Pittsburgh. Published by Plenum Press, 1990. Web design by Daniel Sabsay. Chapter. Title ...
www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/ - Cached - Similar
#
Global Warming and Nuclear Energy: Bernard L. Cohen
Feb 8, 2008 ... Bernard L. Cohen's website, THE NUCLEAR ENERGY OPTION. Here you'll find the most authoritative treatment anywhere of all aspects of nuclear ...
globalnukes.blogspot.com/2008/02/bernard-l-cohen.html - Cached - Similar
#
Ignorance about Nuclear Power is Killing Us
Bernard L. Cohen is Professor-Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy and of Environmental and Occupational Health at University of Pittsburgh. ...
russp.us/nucpower.html - Cached
#
Helen Caldicott Vs. Nuclear Scientists
Note: Bernard L. Cohen is Professor-Emeritus of Physics and of Environmental and ... Bernard L. Cohen Physics Dept. University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, ...
www.ntanet.net/cohen.html - Cached
#
Bernard Cohen : The Nuclear Power Advantage
Bernard L. Cohen presents in this paper his point of view as an independant ..... Dr. Bernard L. Cohen is Professor-Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy and of ...
www.ecolo.org/...in.../nuclear_advantage_Cohen.en.htm - Cached - Similar
#
Bernard Cohen (physicist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bernard L. Cohen in Nuclear Engergy; Karl Otto Ott and Bernard I. Spinrad, eds. (New York: Plenum Press, 1985), pp. 355–365. ^ Peters, Josef M. (1967). ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Cohen_(physicist) - Cached - Similar
#
Dr. Bernard L. Cohen
Dr. Bernard L. Cohen (Print This) Professor Emeritus of Physics and Environmental and Occupational Health Primary Work Institution: University of Pittsburgh ...
www.nae.edu/.../2FBE5549B4DF966886257552006B3264?... - Cached - Similar
#
Nuclear Power Risk
RISKS OF NUCLEAR POWER. Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D. Professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Radiation. The principal risks associated with nuclear power ...
www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm - Cached - Similar
#
Lehigh University: Giving: Names of Leadership Plaza: Cohen
Berte and Bernard L. Cohen 1936. A college gathering in 1935 proved to be a fortuitous meeting for Berte and Bernie Cohen as they soon after began building ...
www3.lehigh.edu/giving/campaign/lpcohen.asp - Cached
#
Response to the Letter of Bernard L. Cohen
by DA Pierce - 1998 - Cited by 2 - Related articles
Response to the Letter of Bernard L. Cohen. Donald A. Pierce, Yukiko Shimizu, Dale L. Preston, Michael Vaeth and Kiyohiko Mabuchi ...
www.jstor.org/stable/3579797
#
The Radioactive Waste Disposal Problem - by Bernard L. Cohen
Written By: Bernard L. Cohen. Published In: Rational Readings Excerpt ... See more articles by Bernard L. Cohen. Post a comment: ...
www.heartland.org/.../The_Radioactive_Waste_Disposal_Problem.html - Cached
#
Amazon.com: Concepts of Nuclear Physics (9780070115569): Bernard L ...
Amazon.com: Concepts of Nuclear Physics (9780070115569): Bernard L. Cohen: Books. ... Concepts of Nuclear Physics (Hardcover). ~ Bernard L. Cohen (Author) ...
www.amazon.com › ... › Professional Science › Physics › Nuclear Physics - Cached
#
the nuclear energy option dr. bernard L Cohen about nuclear energy
Nov 2, 2009 ... The information on these pages is that of Dr. Bernard L. Cohen, from his 1990 Book "The Nuclear Energy Option" This link is directly to the ...
www.usnuclearenergy.org/nuclear_option_dr_cohen.htm - Cached - Similar
#
Bernard L Cohen: Veromi's People Search and Business Directory
Bernard L Cohen Index Page in the Veromi People Index. Veromi has the most comprehensive people and Business data base in the world.
www.veromi.com/Bernard-L-Cohen.aspx - Cached
#
Bernard L. Cohen - LinkedIn
View Bernard L. Cohen's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's largest business network, helping professionals like Bernard L. Cohen ...
www.linkedin.com/pub/bernard-l-cohen/10/605/281 - Cached
# [PDF]
Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source 8Q where Q is the ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by BL Cohen - 1983 - Cited by 14 - Related articles
Bernard L. Cohen. Department of Physics. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260. Since energy sources derived from the sun are called ...
www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf - Similar
#
Bernard L. Cohen | Find Articles at BNET
Find Articles results for Bernard L. Cohen. ... Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 09/22/08 by Bernard L. Cohen · More from publication ...
findarticles.com/p/search/?qa=Bernard%20L.%20Cohen - Cached
#
The Nuclear Energy Option: An Alternative for the 90's by Bernard ...
Book by Bernard L. Cohen; Plenum Press, 1990. Subjects: Nuclear Industry--Government Policy--United States, Nuclear Power Plants--Government Policy--United ...
www.questia.com/.../the-nuclear-energy-option-an-alternative-for-the-90s-by-bernard-l-cohen.jsp
#
Bernard L. Cohen - Science in Christian Perspective
by BL Cohen - Cited by 1 - Related articles
Bernard L. Cohen Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260. From: JASA 32 (June1980): 89-92. ...
www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1980/JASA6-80Cohen.html - Cached
#
Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Wastes Buried in the Ground ...
by BL Cohen - 2006 - Cited by 4 - Related articles
May 30, 2006 ... The differences between probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and safety analysis (SA) are discussed, and it is shown that PRA is more ...
www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119547676/abstract
#
Validity of the Linear No-Threshold Theory of Radiation ...
Paper to Uranium Institute 1998 Annual Symposium, by Bernard L. Cohen on Validity of the Linear No-Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis at Low ...
www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/cohen.htm - Cached - Similar
#
Before it's too late : a scientist's case for nuclear energy ...
Cohen, Bernard L. 1983 Before it's too late : a scientist's case for nuclear energy / Bernard L. Cohen Plenum Press, New York : ...
catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/777053 - Cached
#
Ignorance about Nuclear Power is Killing Us
Bernard L. Cohen. Plutonium is constantly referred to by the news media as "the most toxic substance known to man." Ralph Nader has said that a pound of ...
russp.org/BLC-3.html - Cached - Similar
#
Radon Gas Radon gas is present in the air wherever uranium is ...
Radon-related articles by Bernard L. Cohen: A series of articles, criticisms, and discussions of the articles and criticisms, regarding the radon research ...
www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/honr228q/.../radon.htm - Cached - Similar
Even when I add "nuclear" and "+shill", the only references I get are to empty, unsupported allegations from loudmouths like you. Possibly even from sockpuppets of yours.
1.
Obama's Nuclear Vision Suffers Setback as Vermont Plant Faces ...
Feb 24, 2010 ... a paper by well known respected nuclear power expert Bernard L. Cohen, ..... I'd say he's probably not a troll, but is a shill instead. ...
www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/24-0 - Cached
2.
Steven Chu: Energy Efficiency: Achieving the Potential, Realizing ...
Mar 16, 2010 ... The Energy Secretary is supposed to be a shill for Big Oil, ..... in a paper by well known respected nuclear power expert Bernard L. Cohen, ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../energy-efficiency-achievi_b_501263.html - Cached
3.
sethdayal on HuffingtonPost
Mar 2, 2010 ... As we convert to mass produced nuclear power at $1000 a kw, .... in a paper by well known respected nuclear power expert Bernard L. Cohen, ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/social/sethdayal?action=comments... - Cached
Show more results from www.huffingtonpost.com
4.
A Scientist Finds Independence, by Tom Bethell
... accumulated by Bernard L. Cohen, an emeritus professor of physics at the University of ..... Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a reliable shill for the ... about hormesis, which will be needed to get nuclear power back on track. ...
www.independentscientist.com/ - Cached - Similar
5.
The Nuclear Green Revolution: July 2009
Renewables energy Guru Joe Romm has become a virtual shill for the Natural Gas ...... solar calculator · THE NUCLEAR ENERGY OPTION by Bernard L. Cohen ...
nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html - Cached
6.
seth's | Grist
... a paper by well known respected nuclear power expert Bernard L. Cohen, ...... Now if that doesn't fit the definition of an Oil company shill what does. ...
www.grist.org/member/view-all/comments/270902 - Cached
7.
Synthstuff - music, photography and more...: August 2008 Archives
Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source by Bernard L. Cohen, American Journal of Physics .... make all the benefits of safe, clean nuclear power available for remote locations. ... Another politically-driven scientist shill for AGW. ...
www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/2008_08.html - Cached
8.
The Oil Drum: Europe | Will Wartime Mobilisation Address Peak Oil?
In “The Nuclear Energy Option”, Bernard L. Cohen calculates that ever-escalating safety ...... Only a zionist neocon shill would of typed such utter ...
www.theoildrum.com/node/4233 - Cached
9.
View topic - A Scientist Finds Independence :: Free Dominion ...
2 posts - 2 authors - Last post: Jan 6, 2001
The subject was "nuclear fallout," or the residual radiation after an ... accumulated by Bernard L. Cohen, an emeritus professor of physics ...
www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=38734... - Cached
Get more discussion results
10.
Re: from the pro U.S.G. Inc side at Conspiracy Theories Forum
The subject was "nuclear fallout," or the residual radiation after an ... accumulated by Bernard L. Cohen, an emeritus professor of physics ...
curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=923050
#
View topic - A Scientist Finds Independence :: Free Dominion ...
2 posts - 2 authors - Last post: Jan 6, 2001
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a reliable shill for the environmental ... No U.S. nuclear weapon has been tested for a decade, ...
freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5017&sid...
Get more discussion results
#
Independentscientist.com - Independent Scientist A Scientist Finds ...
Nov 18, 2008 ... Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a reliable shill for the environmental ... No U.S. nuclear weapon has been tested for a decade, ...
whois.domaintools.com/independentscientist.com
#
Palaces For The People
A pseudoscience think-tank funded in part by the nuclear industry, ...... Maryland, partner to Bernard L. Cohen Tobacco Conspirator. ...
p4p.blogspot.com/2004_07_20_archive.html - Cached
# [DOC]
Inherency
File Format: Microsoft Word
In 1983, Bernard L. Cohen [Cohen, 1983] showed quantitatively that uranium as nuclear fission fuel is, for all practical purposes, inexhaustible, ...
debatecoaches.org/wp-content/ev/08-09/nuclear-power-hester.doc
#
National Science Foundation: ar 1959
Bernard L. Cohen, Radlation Laboratory ; Nuclear Structure and Nuclear Reacttons : 1 year; ...... SHILL, WILSON T., Phoenix, Qeneral Biology. ...
www.scribd.com/doc/.../National-Science-Foundation-ar-1959 - Cached - Similar
Who do you think you're kidding with this crap? If you can't find the numerous claims he's made about the "myth" of radiation exposure causing cancer—much of it in nuclear industry publications—you must be an idiot. Or a shill.
The American Nuclear Society ("the premier professional society serving the nuclear industry") gave him a "Special Award" in 1996 for his report on the "Health Effects of Radiation" for God's sake.
The very idea that you posted a boiler-plate document from an anonymous "retired prof" without revealing his name or long-standing industry association says it all. That was an effort to deceive.
And now you post another long list of substance-free references, as if the sheer quantity of verbiage is persuasive. Not to mention your resorting to ad hominem attacks—always the last vestige of those on the losing side of arguments.
That's my last word, and the last second of my time I will waste on any of your posts.
You're a troll.
pjd:
The Chernobyl reactor was NOT an uncontained reactor, but had safety features similar to Western reactors. Your light water reactor analogy is also absurd.
From a retired physics prof at Pittsburgh:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html
----------------------------------------
U.S. REACTORS versus CHERNOBYL-TYPE REACTORS1
From the foregoing discussion, we see that two of the principal options for reactor design are:
1. Uranium fuel enriched to 3% in U-235 surrounded by water moderator; this is the option used in all U.S. power reactors.
2. Natural (or slightly enriched) uranium surrounded by graphite moderator; this is the option used in Chernobyl-type reactors.
Since the heat is generated in the uranium fuel, there is still the problem of transferring this heat out of the reactor to make the steam which drives the turbine to produce electricity. This is done efficiently by circulating water as in the case of cooling an automobile engine, but on a much grander scale. Option 1 thus becomes a configuration of fuel rods in a large water-filled vessel with water being rapidly pumped through. That is what is done in all U.S. reactors. Option 2, which is used in Chernobyl-type reactors, consists of a large block of graphite with holes in it containing tubes; these tubes have fuel rods inside of them, and water flows rapidly through the tubes to remove the heat. This water provides no benefit as a moderator since the graphite takes care of that function. On the other hand, the water does capture neutrons, reducing the number of neutrons available for striking uranium atoms. The net effect of the water on the chain reaction is, therefore, negative, tending to slow it down. Materials that act in this way are called "poisons," since they tend to destroy, or poison, the chain reaction. In a Chernobyl-type reactor, the water acts as a "poison." There are some important safety advantages to option 1 which is the U.S. approach. If, due to an accident, the water should be lost, the chain reaction automatically stops — there can be no chain reaction without the moderator. However, in option 2, the Chernobyl design, the graphite moderator is still there, and loss of water means loss of a "poison." Losing a poison speeds up the chain reaction. This generates additional heat at a time when the mechanism for removing the heat — the water — is gone. This can be a very dangerous situation.
Another safety advantage of the U.S. approach is that if, for any reason, the chain reaction speeds up, releasing more energy and thus causing the temperature to rise, the water acts as a buffer. The increased temperature will cause more boiling. This will reduce the amount of moderator, which will slow down the chain reaction and thereby reduce the temperature. The reactor is, therefore, stable against a temperature change; that is, an increase in temperature automatically causes things to happen which will reduce the temperature. No human action or equipment failure can interfere with this natural process.
In a Chernobyl-type reactor, on the other hand, an increase in the speed of the chain reaction causes the temperature to increase, which causes more water boiling. This reduces the amount of "poison," which causes the chain reaction to accelerate and increases the temperature even further. This process, therefore, tends to make the reactor unstable against a temperature change; an increase in temperature automatically causes things to happen which lead to further increases in the temperature. Something must be done by some person or equipment to prevent the situation from escalating to a disaster. Actually, under normal operating conditions, other factors would contribute to overcome this instability, but in low-power operation, where the infamous accident occurred, this instability represented an extremely dangerous safety problem.
With these two very clear safety advantages for the U.S.-type reactors, one might ask why anyone would build a Chernobyl-type reactor. The reason is that Chernobyl-type reactors are designed to produce plutonium for bombs while they generate electricity. This type of reactor has two big advantages for this application.1 One is that the quantity of plutonium produced varies inversely with the ratio of U-238 to U-235, which means that much more plutonium is produced in Chernobyl-type reactors than in U.S. reactors. The other is that in producing plutonium for bombs, it is important that the fuel be left in the reactor no more than 30 days, and a Chernobyl-type reactor is much better adapted for that purpose.
----------------------------------------
His vita is at http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/Vita-Pub.htm
"The reason is that Chernobyl-type reactors are designed to produce plutonium for bombs while they generate electricity."
Yup. :(
"1. Uranium fuel enriched to 3% in U-235 surrounded by water moderator; this is the option used in all U.S. power reactors."
Isn't that the option Iran is trying out while the US mistakes it as a "nuclear terrorist" nation?
The US only wants to play politics with Iran just to hide its own weakness. Watch what happens if gas prices were to hit $4/gallon. The US would be forced to leave Iran alone for one thing. And again, I'm no nuclear physicist but there are already too many red flags to confirm that going nuclear for energy is a worthless pursuit whether we're talking plutonium, uranium, thorium, etc...
Since nuke energy is useless, we have to suspect Iran of building a bomb, or just being plan stupid.
Especially since all those stop building nuke power plants sanctions are cripplying there economy.
Belive it or not most Iranians would prefer normal, non brinkmanship relations with the US.
Or and I know this from Irainian friends who literally say it's just there crazy government, not them, who hate Isreal and the US.
Mairead,
Thanks for the technical substantiation to my remarks. I wonder how many will read it. I guess you are "siding with authority while posing as a 'progressive'" too.
Bernard L. Cohen is a nuclear-industry apologist who claims that radiation exposure does not cause cancer. He is the equivalent of the (now discredited) Tobacco Institute "scientists," who claimed that smoking does not cause cancer.
Can you support that allegation?
Try Google. It's no secret.
Sorry, you can't do that. Either you have something you can point to, or your allegation is just dezinformatsiya, posted out of ignorance or malice. The only time you can get away with a handwave is when the material is so well-known that a cite is superfluous.
So: do you have anything to support your assertion?
The only way you could not know that simple fact is if you don't want to know. I don't have time to waste with shills and trolls.
Okay, so your allegation is both empty and malicious. I'd thought better of you.
The way we are going, the whole earth threatens to become a place for birth defects and childhood cancers. War and pollution are already affecting the current generation of babies, both human and animal. If we do not clean up our act, it will be horrible.
Here is change I can believe in: Peace. Wind Power. Solar Power. Public transportation. Bike lanes. Energy efficient homes and offices. Responsible consumption. Local agriculture. Family planning. Laws protecting air, soil, water from contamination. Stop patents on living things. Leash laws for high finance.
We would be so much better off offering to install solar and wind energy everywhere than continuing the invasions for oil and building nuclear power plants. Imagine if we were to offer to peacefully develop wind and solar energy along with Iran, Bolivia and other countries. What would that mean for our country's direction and for the earth?
Joe
February 16, 2010
Obama Moves To Back Nuclear Power
U.S. President announces $8.3 billion US in loan guarantees to build 2 plants in Georgia.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/16/obama-nuclear-loan.html#ixzz0mDXzDbOY
Uh, ...Kucinich 2012.
The article says that, "Little research on Chernobyl health effects in the United States has been conducted". However, readers should be aware of an excellent popular book that covers this topic: "Deadly Deceit: Low-level Radiation High-level Cover-up" by Jay Gould and Benjamin Goldman. Available (used) at amazon.com and highly recommended.
I'd have to read the book (which I probably won't do because of time constraints) but I'm quite suspicious of such claims.
Just as government bureaucrats and politicians never tell a politically unpleasant truth unless forced to, non-scientist anti-government/anti-technology polemicists rarely do either. They just 'exaggerate' in the opposite direction, presumably on the basis that they will thereby balance out the government lies!
I'm almost willing to bet, sight unseen, that the "nearly 1M" number is a product of statistical handwaving. The overblown "one reactor can pollute half the globe" feels like a tipoff.
The other nuclear news is that the US and Israel are planning to bomb Iran's nuclear reactors. Someone should put the two news stories together and come to the obvious conclusion that it is not a good idea to start bombing nuclear reactors. Iran's big one, at Bushehr, located right on the shores of the Persian Gulf, has 80 tons of enriched uranium in it. If we bomb Bushehr, then the radioactive contamination will make half of the world's known oil inaccessible. Who will Americans blame if they no longer can get gasoline for their cars? Iran, the victim of the attack? Or Israel, the perpetrator of the attack? I think Canada, Mexico, and Cuba should all have contingency plans should 10s of thousands of US Jewish citizen need to suddenly flee. As someone with a Jewish surname, I can see that the stacked dominoes will be falling my way.
"Someone should put the two news stories together and come to the obvious conclusion that it is not a good idea to start bombing nuclear reactors."
In effect, a "successfully" bombed nuclear reactor becomes the ultimate "dirty bomb", construction of which is often said to be a goal of "the terrorists".
I recently read that "war is terrorism with a larger budget".
After reading the article above, I don't know why you choose to focus on inaccessible oil deposits. The radioactive contamination resulting from bombing Iran's nuclear reactors would cause millions of deaths, and millions more birth defects, cancers and other serious illnesses—in countries around the world, including Israel and the U.S.
Cancer sneaks up on societies. Cigarettes cause an early end to 200,000 people a year, and yet they're still legal in the U.S. The saccharine industry fought the researchers pretty well, and people put "Warning: saccharine may cause cancer in your rat" bumper stickers on their cars to pooh-pooh the idea. The pesticide industry did everything they could to call Rachel Carlson a crank after she wrote "Silent Spring".
The net result is that a child born today will have a 50% chance of dealing with cancer in his/her lifetime. Worse, we know what the causes are and how to prevent the deaths. Networks of people without hearts are making a profit poisoning us and our kids to death.
At this point I have no reason not to trust the figures. I've seen no evidence that the people putting out the figures aren't conscientious, as opposed to the worthless writings of paid boiler room bloggers who naysay this sort of thing.
I'll add that another study found an estimated 50,000 American casualties from the Three Mile Island loss of coolant accident and meltdown. They're just pretty much spread out except for the cancer concentrations in Middletown, PA.
yes, trying to cure cancer in our current world is akin to trying to dry your clothes on the line in the rain...
Sioux Rose
CHAMELEON: I can't recall which thread (maybe someone else can?) posted on CD about a week ago cited that about 48% of women would know SOME FORM of cancer, and perhaps it was 38% of men. There are so many cancers today! It's probable that the statistic you came to was based on only one type. It would be impossible for a major writer to present statistics in the ballpark of 50% with yours being a fraction of that. We're speaking of the SPAN of a lifetime, not the statistics in any given year; and the high numbers once again refer to a plethora of cancers, not one type in particular.
So what is your point? Are you telling us to just ignore the risks associated with nuclear waste and just "accept" cancer even if one is lucky not to die because of cancer? You aren't making any sense here. No cancer should ever go untreated and furthermore, no new cancers need be brought up. Now I may not be a nuclear physicist but I know enough to confirm that we're only opening a whole new can of worms with nuclear technology which would never be the case with solar, wind, and good biofuel sources.
"Cancer, like shit, happens."
I can see where the rest of what you say comes from. Enough said !