Understanding nuclear: reactions, radioactivity, waste

[GuyGadebois]

It is not because there have not been enough precise "epidemiological studies" that the danger did not exist.

Peaceful:
COSCEN, the Monitoring Committee for the Consequences of Nuclear Tests, met on February 11 in Paris. On compensation for the victims, two new cancers linked to the bile ducts were recognized in the list of radio-induced diseases.
https://la1ere.francetvinfo.fr/polynesi ... 78979.html

Sahara Desert:
Historians, jurists and associations active for the preservation of memory always describe the decision of the colonial authorities to detonate an atomic bomb in the Algerian Sahara of "crime against humanity". 59 years later, victims struggle and demand compensation and justice. On February 13, 1960, France carried out its first nuclear tests in the Hamoudia area, at Reggane (150 km south of Adrar). The operation was codenamed "blue Gerboise" and the explosive charge had the equivalent of 70.000 tonnes of TNT, three times the atomic bomb dropped over Hiroshima. 17 nuclear tests will be carried out by France in the south of our country between 1960 and 1967, including 4 at Reggane. The number of radiation victims is estimated at 30.000.
https://www.sudhorizons.dz/fr/la-destin ... reparation

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
It is not because there have not been enough precise "epidemiological studies" that the danger did not exist.

not janic but remondo

[realistic ecology]

Redo the film in terms of spinoffs in France and communication at that time, very little interest ...

By prolonging your reflection, one would come to say that it is useless to remake the film of history in general, in short, that history is useless, let us remove it from the programs.

On the contrary, I think that the history of false information around the fallout from Chernobyl deserves to be analyzed, to understand it and if possible learn from it.
It is very interesting to understand why so many French people have believed, still believe, want to believe the Chernobyl cloud hoax, want to take it for cash, when it is contradicted by undisputed documents (telex to AFP, newspapers ...).
It is a belief, and as with any belief, the facts do not matter, they slide on the shell of the believers without reaching them.
We could answer "whatever, let them believe". But no, in other countries in Europe this story has cost tens of thousands of voluntary terminations of pregnancy, it is not a matter of "little interest" as you say.
It's dramatic.

It is dramatic and yet more and more people indulge in belief on many subjects. They sit on this famous critical spirit that school is supposed to teach us; understanding, knowing, has no interest for them, they just have to believe, closing their eyes to any contradiction.
This abandonment of reasonable criticism is more and more widespread today, particularly because of social networks, inexhaustible producers of confirmation bias (i think this, I read that others believe it too ... so it's something true. Do researchers say otherwise? I don't care, I believe, so I know I'm the one who holds the truth.)
We find this kind of reaction on a number of subjects.

[realistic ecology]

No epidemiological study could account for the impact of Chernobyl fallout. Cancers on the rise today ...

"No epidemiological study could account for the impact of the Chernobyl fallout."
It seems impossible to you, yet this is what researchers know how to do; for example by analyzing and comparing developments in different regions, subject to different consequences. I'm talking about researchers, not militant sites, who don't mind announcing anything, they know they are addressing believers who are already convinced, having no critical mind.

"Cancers are on the rise today"
- The number of raw, non-standardized cancers is increasing in France.
- But, from 1980 to 2012: cancer death rate, standardized, decreased. (More than 1% per year)
- But, from 2005 to 2012: the cancer incidence rate, standardized, decreasedsystem. (Cancers in France in 2015 - The main facts and figures - National Cancer Institute - 2016)

[Janic]

"Cancers are on the rise today"
- The number of raw, non-standardized cancers is increasing in France.
- But, from 1980 to 2012: cancer death rate, standardized, decreased. (More than 1% per year)
- But, from 2005 to 2012: the cancer incidence rate, standardized, decreasedsystem. (Cancers in France in 2015 - The main facts and figures - National Cancer Institute - 2016)

summary a little light! The purpose of this site, which is also very interesting, is to highlight the measures taken by the health authorities to reduce, if possible, the effects that cancer has on populations, and this is not insignificant in itself. But, because there is always a but, on the one hand there are good intentions and on the other hand the reality, well described on page 21: the essential causes of these cancers! And it is not the treatments, consecutive to these causes, that must be grasped with full hands, but these causes precisely. Or say, and do are two different things such as campaigning against tobacco (weak economic sector now) and the ridiculous incentives not to drink alcohol, for example, because it is a huge economic sector. (The minister made herself go up the straps by wanting to tackle it)
No more smokers or drinkers at all and that's at least 65.000 fewer deaths out of 157.000 each year, the same as the food incidence in these cancers estimated at 25% (according to this same study on page 21). In addition, the limit of 5 years for recurrences (thus reducing the incidence) is not serious, it is over the whole life that this must be measured with permanent monitoring. So they don't lie with exact numbers, but partial numbers, which is cheating as usual and is seen everywhere, not just there.

[GuyGadebois]

"Cancers are on the rise today"
- The number of raw, non-standardized cancers is increasing in France.
- But, from 1980 to 2012: the standardized cancer mortality rate decreased. (More than 1% per year)

Do not give a fuck about "standardized" cancers that are falling in France, an ultra privileged country thanks to its health system. The reality (ie on OUR planet) is that cancers are exploding. So you give me your eyeglass and widen your vision.

Globally, cancer is on the rise. It is the second leading cause of death and claimed 8,8 million lives in 2015 according to the World Health Organization. Almost one in six deaths worldwide is due to this disease. About 6% of these deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, WHO points out that at the current rate, the number of cases could increase by 70% in the next two decades, with developing countries as the main sources of new cases, if preventive measures are not taken to slow down its course.
https://www.infirmiers.com/actualites/a ... tager.html

The standardized unemployment rate has also dropped but the gross unemployment rate is rising sharply ...

[Ahmed]

It is the same with "standardized" poverty, it has fallen sharply since the minimums were revised downwards ...

[izentrop]

Nothing to do ... The reality (that is to say on OUR planet) is that cancers explode

this is called a sledgehammer argument.

[GuyGadebois]

Nothing to do ... The reality (that is to say on OUR planet) is that cancers explode

this is called a sledgehammer argument.

It's mostly factual ...

[Janic]

About a third of cancer deaths are due to the 5 main behavioral and dietary risk factors: “a high body mass index, low consumption of fruits and vegetables, lack of physical exercise, smoking and alcohol consumption ".

this has been known for a very, very long time in "parallel" circles and it is only recently that it is considered essential to reduce this pathology or rather this consequence more than a pathology, of where all the failures to find a pseudo-vaccine that would allow you to continue living without having to take these hygienic recommendations into account.