Chernobyl: the nature she already takes her rights?

[Janic]

This article seems full of common sense (if it is not searched too much), but it smacks of the position favorable to the so-called civil nuclear and therefore lack of neutrality necessary concerning this subject. Indeed, it is self-justification by comparison with other energy sources having their own disadvantages, it is obvious, and which these were not taken into account at the beginning of their use ( no one cared about greenhouse effects, even when they were known). Next it is a question of political choice.

[Christophe]

It can be full of common sense without having any credibility when you scratch a little ...
If we scratch it we find this kind of analysis: https://www.econologie.com/tchernobyl-un ... ts-20-ans/


Jancovici increasingly disappoints me: energies-fossil-nuclear / jean-marc-Jancovici-is-it-a-con-t14740.html
I think, it's my personal opinion, that he no longer has any credibility when he defends nuclear power ...

For example: I would like to have analyzes from him on the delays and the monstrous additional cost of the EPR as well as the cost (for the French taxpayer) of nuclear dismantling ...

[Obamot]

The troll has resumed his mobbing, I am disappointed (hope it is only a temporary relapse ...)

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 emanate from doctors or biologists directly [...] This mode of operation of the media allows all manipulation

Jancovici is clever, he misinforms by supposing that the information would be bad (and that only he would know the truth?).

Regarding to appeal to "specialists" (which he calls for) he would do better to refer to them himself and see if nuclear power is a "health walk" of carcinogenic particles in:

List of carcinogenic isotopes group 1 (IARC)
(certain carcinogens and among them, the "elected" and "eligible" in the register of radioactive particles)

Cadmium + compounds (106Cd, 108Cd and 114Cd are suspected to be radioactive, half-lives of the order of ≥ ten million times the age of the universe)
Magnetic fields, mainly extremely low frequencies
Iodine, short-lived radioactive isotopes, including iodine 131, atomic reactor accidents and nuclear weapon detonations
neutrons
Fission products, including strontium-90
Phosphorus 32 (and / its radioactive isotope)
Plutonium 239 and its disintegration products (may contain 240 plutonium and other isotopes), aerosol
Radioelements emitting α particles by internal contamination4
Radioelements emitting β particles by internal contamination4
Radium 224 and its disintegration products
Radium 226 and its disintegration products
Radium 228 and its disintegration products
Radon 222 and its disintegration products
X-rays and γ rays, gamma
Thorium 232 and its disintegration products, administered intravenously in the form of a colloidal dispersion of thorium dioxide 232
Uranium

Here is the list of pathologies by pollutants: http://www.cancer-environnement.fr/479-Classification-par-localisations-cancereuses.ce.aspx

To this must be added the latest WHO update on low-dose irradiation (finally!):

Ionizing radiation: Health effects and protective measures
[...] Main facts: low doses of ionizing radiation can increase the risk of long-term effects like cancer [...]

[...] If the dose is low and / or broadcast over a long period (low dose rate), the risk is considerably lower because the probability of repairing the lesions is greater. But there is always a risk of long-term effects like cancer, which can appear years or even decades later. [...]

[...] More recently, epidemiological studies in subjects exposed in the medical context during their childhood (pediatric computed tomography) seemed to indicate that the risk of cancer could increase even at lower doses (between 50 and 100 mSv.

Source: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs371/fr/

WHO will therefore have to revise its prognosis for victims on the long-term effects of victims of nuclear disasters.
She can no longer do otherwise or back off. It is a major step forward.

As for saying that they would not be harmful for plants. This Môssieur takes his desires for realities, when we see that the simple waves of portable can harm the development (in particular) of the watercress, he says anything. And twice anything, because the ingestion of contaminated plants can be fatal, so they are formidable transmission agents!

The effects of nuclear power, and more specifically of radioactivity observed on animals and plants, are similar to those observed in humans. Insofar as the entire animal and plant kingdom is made up, just like the human organism, of cells, these once exposed to radiation can be subject to mutations or die. To this is added the pernicious contamination of soil and groundwater!

[izentrop]

This article seems to make a lot of sense

Subtle disparagement, because its sources come from peer-reviewed scientific journals. Strong arguments are needed to refute.

[Obamot]

And if you listened more subtly to the many "reading committee"who read your posts, then you might understand why there is no"ingenious bashing"(which is, by interposed sophism, an attack ad hominem, because it would be necessary for that that you prove a will implicit to harm in Janic, which would be shameful and shows that in fact, it is you the skilful manipulator extremely wounding) short, nothing of what you suppose: it it's just that what's written there by your pen is pretty silly.

It has just been posted what the WHO says in the matter and you act as if nothing had happened (however damn if I could criticize it on other points) Anyway, it looks like being cordial with you is useless, you start your troll behavior again.

[Janic]

izentrop hello

Janic wrote:
This article seems to make a lot of sense

Subtle disparagement, because its sources come from peer-reviewed scientific journals Strong arguments are needed to refute ..

No bashing! He argues about the disadvantages that nobody can dispute, it sounds like an argument as used by politicians who, taken separately, seem to express the obvious, but compared to each other lose much of the credibility that each party wants grant them. So he is not all wrong, he simply compares very different things in general by their action. With great efforts, of course, the excess energy consumption can be reduced and therefore avoid this race to the limit and, theoretically, the earth would return to a livable situation without invisible risks. This is not the case with nuclear power, which lasts for thousands of years and of which we have no certainty (not even a supposed knowledge) of what will happen to all this waste buried in sophisticated landfills, but landfills all the same. (As a reminder, the first waste was stored in containers and swung into the sea to cool it for the millennia to come, counting on the dilution of radioactive emanations, by these specialists with reading committee)
So for these reading committees, it is only a mask that hides the true face of the problem. Indeed these committees were (and probably remain for many of them) emanations from nuclear “specialists” and therefore judges and parties at the same time on which the survival of their employment depends. Much more interesting are the opinions rejected by these committees (to the orders) even if they must be taken with caution. In agriculture, these committees have, for decades, argued that pesticides and their buddies were harmless and that it was impossible to do without them (argument used by this author too), but under the pressure “Not subject to reading committee” opinions change, even among these specialists in reading committees. Same thing for endocrine disruptors, daily carcinogens, microwaves and WiFI phones and computers, etc.

[raymon]

A proof that low doses “sucks” it is futura science which says it:
Radon:

If 76% of French people are exposed to radiation of less than 100 becquerels per cubic meter (one becquerel represents one disintegration per second), 15% suffer from 100 to 199 Bq and 9% more than 200 Bq. According to Olivier Catelinois, from the French Institute for Public Health Surveillance, 5% to 12% of deaths from lung cancer in France are caused by exposure to this colorless and odorless gas, but this rate would climb to 27% for the 9% of the most exposed people.

The increase in radioactivity on earth has therefore necessarily caused cancer.

[izentrop]

A proof that low doses “sucks” it is futura science which says it:
Radon:

If 76% of French people are exposed to radiation of less than 100 becquerels per cubic meter (one becquerel represents one disintegration per second), 15% suffer from 100 to 199 Bq and 9% more than 200 Bq. According to Olivier Catelinois, from the French Institute for Public Health Surveillance, 5% to 12% of deaths from lung cancer in France are caused by exposure to this colorless and odorless gas, but this rate would climb to 27% for the 9% of people most exposed.

The increase in radioactivity on earth has therefore necessarily caused cancer.

It is probably radon, natural radiation from underground, 42% of ionizing radiation emissions on earth.
We know how to protect ourselves from it, nothing to worry about.

According to a French doctor, André Aurengo: “If you are worried about radon, ventilate 5 minutes in the morning, 5 minutes at noon, and 5 minutes in the evening, and you will not have radon.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon#Flu ... abitations
For the record, radiation from the nuclear industry represents 0.3% (WHO)
Obviously a low dose spread over several years is more substantial than a high dose over a short period, everything is relative;)

[Obamot]

Are you done perpetually telling us hiccups?
Radon kills around 25 people a year in Europe (lung cancer statistics, approx. 000 deaths per 300 million inhabitants)

We have spoken to you many times about radon to tell you that NO for> 5 years:
- even if it is natural, man is not used to it (thousands of deaths per year)
- no we still do not know how to protect it, if it is not the only way which is to ventilate the basement and the floors!

And by extension, Chernobyl is necessarily worse: capisce? no capisce niente?

[izentrop]

Radon kills around 25 people a year in Europe (lung cancer statistics, approx. 000 deaths per 300 million inhabitants)

Math speculation?