The Fury said:
He's always kidding, you know that.
On the Nuclear thing above, while I agree it is incredibly safe, do not play down the disaster that was Chernobyl. You say 54 deaths but those are the direct deaths from the meltdown, the 4000 you speak of are indirect deaths from the radiation over time, cancer caused by the radiation being the main one. That's asside untold radiation damage to wildlife and the landscapes in the Ukraine, Belarus and russian fall out zones. The world technology and safety in Nuclear energy has increased dramatically.
I'm not sure who I'd vote for next election. Like many I've lost faith in most MPs so the idea would be to instate new MPs who won't abuse the system and scrounge us for all we are worth. While I'm always on a sliding scale with all 3 major parties depending on their policies, I for one don't agree with many of them. If I am to vote, I'll vote Green or Monster Raving, even if that is only local.
|
No. 4,000 is the expected deaths total.
5,000 total deaths are supposed to be caused indirectly.
54 is how many total deaths there have been so far.
All an all it's a very tame disaster. It's going to kill around 9,000 people worst case scenario... and the VAST majority is going to be over 20 years later.
Also there hasn't been too much damage to the animals. If you look at the study i posted, the animals who lioved right near the zone have no genetic damage. Despite living their entire lives there.
Edit: Quotes from the article.
The Chernobyl disaster was initially predicted to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. Two decades later the death toll stands at 56. The United Nations Chernobyl Forum estimates that no more than 4,000 people will die as a direct result of fallout, while radiation may be a contributory factor in another 5,000 deaths.
Research by Professor Ron Chesser, of Texas Tech University, found that mammals exposed to 8 to 15 millisieverts of radiation a day — equivalent to 8,000 chest X-rays — showed none of the genetic damage that his team had expected. “The radioactivity, even though it was very high according to all of our measures, was not enough to result in any appreciable measure of DNA damage in animals that lived their entire life in this area,” Professor Chesser said. “This was something that that we really didn’t expect.” Other research into natural background radiation also suggests that low levels of exposure do not cause genetic damage or cancer.
