Chernobyl: the nature she already takes her rights?

[Obamot]

Formal proof is especially you who did not produce it! What is Creachose?
This is the big bazaar this thread: please answer the question loyally, thank you!

All Izentrop's comments were initially based on the ICRP model, which had a physical basis, dating from BEFORE the discovery of DNA >>>. He can not now rely on DNA / RNA issues in his arguments since he failed to do so at the outset. [...] that did not take into account the latest breakthroughs in these areas (he who wants to use them in his arguments, it is already a damn good thing for someone who has stayed with scientific knowledge that has more of a century ...).

So two things one:

- or he talks about DNA / RNA and then he admits that his starting postulate was wrong, and therefore he clearly says that the findings of research into mortality due to low dose radiation (since he supports thatit would be normal for studies to be done to find out more")

- Or he does not admit it and he can no longer embroider around issues of DNA / RNA because it would not make any sense.

You do me too much honor to always try me intentionally

"It is better to smile than to give food for thought" The nulls

Insults, but you refuse to answer this essential question, since it is from there that you made the subject drift from this thread.

it is normal that studies are carried out to know more and not to stay on images of Epinal

To get out of the intangible and since you do not respond objectively to objections, if you want to study, here's what to potash:

Georgetown University, which clearly does not support a finding ofimprovement of things».

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyix4Bhnm2w

Source: http://www.aspmedia.org/2013/featured/f ... -wildlife/

Mutant animals in irradiated areas, are not legions in irradiated areas, teaches us the New Factory, it is for the good and simple reason that seriously affected they would not live long, eaten by predators and not at all "because nature would have taken back its rights"... >>>

The urban legend that "Fauna and flora would swarm in the irradiated areas": is FALSE >>> (Source Izentrop / IRSN)

Several studies show that flora and fauna are vigorously repopulating the most irradiated areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima. Anders Pape Møller, researcher at the Laboratory of Ecology, Systematics and Evolution of the CNRS, illustrates reality through an audio recording. A first sound makes us hear dozens of different bird cries in an area near the rugged Japanese power station. 200 meters further, another recording is limited to a dismal silence. What happens is that around a hilly site, the radioactivity is deposited in spots and "there is a lower survival of the fauna in the contaminated zone", assures the researcher.

According to a study conducted on chimney swallows, only 30% of individuals survive in contaminated areas, against 50% in areas with little or no contamination. Other studies show a prevalence of albinism in tits and cataracts in rodents in contaminated areas, two factors of early mortality. For Jean-Christophe Gariel, Director of the Environment at IRSN, the discordant results reflect the fact that "the study of the effects on fauna and flora by external stressors is extremely complex". This requires multidisciplinary approaches (ecology, biology, statistics and dosimetry) which are not always well mastered.

We are really very far "of a nature that would take back his rights ..."

Most of the probable causes of decline observed in animals at Chernobyl have been documented and include: limited longevity, high rates of developmental abnormalities (including tumors), decreased fertility, reduced cognitive abilities ( perhaps caused by the smaller brains seen in Chernobyl birds), and increased rates of cataracts (among other mechanisms). Many of these effects can be attributed to significantly elevated genetic mutation rates that have been reported for many Chernobyl populations.

Chernobyl Birds, Chernobyl Birds, Reduced Fertility, Reduced Fertility, Reduced Fertility, Reduced Fertility and increased rates of cataracts in the eyes, among other likely mechanisms. Many of these effects can be attributed to the significantly elevated rates that have been reported for many Chernobyl populations.

Dysmelia: congenital disorders caused by irradiation of animals and resulting in embryogenesis disturbances (in Ukraine, on affected areas, in the Chernobyl region, source wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysmelia):


And finally, a compendium of more than a hundred studies whose conclusions have been revised and which are now as follows:

Announcement of a new source of recommendations for radiation protection :

"Recommendations of the European Committee for the Risks of Radiation (CERR): the health effects of exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation, for radiation protection purposes. Edition 2003"

A group of European scientists will publish soon a new volume of advice for radiation protection. The European Committee on Radiation Risks (CERR), which also includes specialists from countries outside the European Union, has developed a methodology that addresses the well-known shortcomings of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP)

The ICRP model has a physical basis, dating from before the discovery of DNA. Like all of these models, it is mathematical, reductive and simplistic in nature, and as a result it has a powerful descriptive capacity. Its values ​​- "doses" - are the expression of an average energy related to the unit of mass, the masses used in the applications of the model being greater than 1 kg.

By analogy, such a model would not distinguish between the average energy transferred to a person who would be warming himself in front of a chimney fire, and a person who would swallow a piece of hot coal. In its applications to the problems in question - internal exposure, at low doses of isotopes or particles - it has been used in a purely deductive way.

The basis for the application of ICRP is the amount of cancer and leukemia, following exposure to external, acute, high dose gamma irradiation of a large number of people in Hiroshima. In addition to this, other arguments based on averages have been used to state that there is a simple linear relationship (in the low dose domain) between dose and amount of cancers. This "Linear Without Threshold" (LNT) base makes it possible to calculate, in a simple manner, the foreseeable increases in cancer, in relation to each given external irradiation.

In comparison, the ECCR approach is of the inductive type, of the "looking out the window" type of what is happening in the real world. There is ample data on abnormally high rates of cancer and leukemia in populations living near nuclear sites, especially when (around reprocessing plants) measurements in the environment show contamination with artificial radioisotopes. In addition, entire populations have been exposed to fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests, people living downwind, near nuclear sites as well as cohorts exposed as a result of accidents (for example the Chernobyl leukemic child cohort), or as a result of their work in the civilian or military nuclear industry.

In drafting its Recommendations, the Committee considered a series of epidemiological studies, showing an increase in cancer morbidity and mortality, associated with radioactive releases, such as the correlation between the global impact of nuclear testing and current breast cancer epidemic.

The Committee also took into account recent studies on phenomena such as genetic instability and proximity effects, which can induce non-cancerous somatic effects.

He does not follow the ICRP, when he thinks that the only stochastic consequence of radiation exposure is cancer. General health problems, which we suffer from throughout our lives, are probably more difficult to quantify, since these figures may also be due to progress in public health, to an improvement in social conditions, but this difficulty does not mean radiation does not have any effect on these parameters.

Among other things, the Committee took into account data on the increase in infant mortality rates as a result of the global impact of nuclear tests in the atmosphere, recent data on infant mortality and stillbirths in areas with contaminations. Mayak nuclear reprocessing and manufacturing plant, as well as data on a range of non-cancerous diseases, in Hiroshima and in areas contaminated by the Chernobyl accident. The Committee considers that these data are confirmed by experimental work.

As a result, the Committee determined risk factors for categories of measurable harm. Where precise data was lacking, he extrapolated from infant mortality and other indicators, to qualify the risk as "diminished quality of life for a person". He believes that this reduction in the quality of life is based on a wide range of morbidity that lead to premature death, in a system where other factors remain constant. Risk factors are given.

The Committee has developed weighting factors to take into account the various hazards associated with different types of exposure. The new weightings, known as "biophysical danger factor" (Wj) and "danger factor linked to the biochemistry of the isotope" (Wk), have a great advantage: although the newly perceived risks of low doses, following internal or external exposures, can be much higher than what the ICRP assumed, there is no need to change the current legislative frameworks, concerning the maximum permissible doses.

These are the doses themselves, which will be calculated differently. This is particularly relevant for the estimation of health damage due to chronic low-dose irradiation following ingestion or inhalation of radioelements released to the environment as part of legal authorizations or further to accidents.

This has important implications for the regulation of discharges, as well as for the deregulation of contaminated territories and materials from nuclear deconstruction.

The ECCR applied the new weighting factors Wj and Wk to the IUNSCEAR data for the collective dose due to radioactive fallout, including nuclear tests, up to 1989. The total impact on human health is calculated and compared with the data of the ICRP:

- Total deaths by cancer: 61 619 512, (CIPR: 1 173 606),
- Total cancers: 123 239 024, (CIPR: 2 350 000),
- Infant mortality: 1 600 000, (not taken into account by the ICPR),
- Fetal death: 1 880 000, (not taken into account by the ICPR),
- Loss of quality of life: 10%, (not taken into account by the ICRP).

The Committee recognizes the ethical problem of exposing populations to mutagenic substances without their knowledge and consent, and when many of the exposed people (many of whom are not yet have no benefit in counterbalancing the damage to their health. This is why the Committee is surrounded by moralists, lawyers, environmentalists and academics, specialists in social attitudes to risk and the construction of knowledge.

The Recommendations present a critique of the essentially utilitarian ethical approach of the ICRP, and an alternative derived from rights-based Rawls theories.

See http://www.euradcom.org for "Committee information", "Basis and Subject of Report"

Complete document in English here:
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf

So much for the studies, and to bring the subject back into the nails. Izentrop must admit his mistake and admit that his conclusions were false.

[izentrop]

the hypothesis of an external intervention is more credible on the scientific level.

It's your feeling, not mine, or what follows from all the scientific files evoking this subject.
Let's stay there.

[Remundo]

thank you for staying on the subject

Remundo for moderation

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
the hypothesis of an external intervention is more credible on the scientific level.

It's your feeling, not mine,

It's obvious!

nor what follows from it all the scientific files evoking this subject.

again, do not confuse "the" and "of", nor some with "all". It would be as if from "all" the scientists who are pro nuclear, it would follow that their opinion (favorable obviously) would be the good one and would be unanimous, even among the opponents. It's called pulling the blanket to yourself!
For the files presented the majority remains on a cautious reserve with these "would" rather than "are". With this reservation, it goes without saying that each scientist may have a different opinion from others, that is part of the game.

[moinsdewatt]

Chernobyl Arch: where is the containment project for the power station?

the 25-04-2016 Sciences and Future

To insulate the 4 reactor, ravaged during the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986, a huge arch is under construction since 7 years in Ukraine.



..................

http://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/nature-e ... trale.html

[izentrop]

Fewerwatt, I think it does not have too much connection with the subject, which 30 years after the disaster was rather to evaluate what was happening to the nearby wild life.
A recent testimony:

An atmosphere of the end of the world

Even today, many elderly people believe that the disaster that struck the nuclear reactor led to an increase in cancer. "Before, people rarely died of cancer. Now you hear about it everywhere," we hear in my own family.

In the irradiated zone, it is the kingdom of animals

In one of the feeding channels of the former cooling water basin swim thousands of trout. Top views, they are reminiscent of a bench of guppies in an aquarium.

In the middle of the bench, a catfish more than two meters long makes its round. Here, the fish can proliferate without being disturbed: it would come to nobody's idea to come fishing in the area. In the contaminated woods, countless packs of wolves have acclimatized. There are even bears in the area again.

The streets are covered with moss and the roots of the trees pierce the asphalt. Contaminated Nature takes over again, little by little, the city that the men had built here.

That day, even the noise of the birds has something oppressive: we hear them all the better because there is absolutely nothing else to hear. No more cries of children. No engine noise, no voice, no music.

We visit a football stadium that can only be identified thanks to its stands: the playground has long been transformed into a small forest, with birch trees with thin trunks rushing towards the sky.

http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2016/04/25 ... 71532.html

It seems that wild life is doing better than some people claim.

I am not saying that radiation is not dangerous, just taking stock of "we say" and reality.
If the man could not set foot there, it would be the best wilderness reserve in the world.

[Obamot]

It will not start again? Are you going to repeat how many times the same things ad nauseam?
We understood your opinion (which moreover was unfounded since we discovered serious gaps in your knowledge).
The opposite has been established / demonstrated / sourced: for example, the man has never been accustomed to radon >>> no one to lock?

Failing that, I think it's enough, it would be enough for no one to answer this endless logorrhea for it to take ... end ...

[izentrop]

[Moderate]
When will your profile be informed?

[Christophe]

Reminder of an interesting video interview of 2011 showing the links between IAEA and WHO: https://www.econologie.com/energie-nucle ... -aiea-oms/

[izentrop]

Jean-Marc Jancovici makes an objective analysis based on indisputable data.
He very aptly explains the nuclear and Chernobyl http://www.manicore.com/documentation/a ... eaire.html

Regarding the Chernobyl accident, most of the information circulating is third-hand, if not more: "someone" told me that they told him that etc .... Almost all of the things that one can read or hear in the media do not come from doctors or biologists live, but from anti-nuclear activists, who do not publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This mode of operation of the media allows all manipulations, for example by showing sick people on television, who are linked without further ado to this accident.

You should know that "the environment", that is to say essentially what is not man, is generally much less sensitive to ionizing radiation than our species: a lethal dose for us will hardly affect a plant, a micro-organism, an insect, a lizard, or even certain mammals: man being one of the most evolved of species (in the sense of one of the most complex), it is therefore the one of the most sensitive to ionizing radiation.

In addition, if an animal becomes ill because of an irradiation (which does not itself make it highly radioactive!) Or has a defect at birth of this fact, it will happen to him what happens to any weakened animal having predators: he will be eating. Where the consequence is considered unacceptable to us (2% of deaths among the population, for example), it goes unnoticed in the environment. 2% more deaths in a given year for non-threatened animals (rats, deer, worms, wild boars or whatever), this has no visible consequences after a few years.

It's also my point of view, you guessed it.