While it says in the tweet "in 1986" there are no more than 100 deaths expected from chernobyl. Around 50 were killed at the accident, and around a dozen more in the years after. As of 2005 fewer than 50 deaths were directly linked to the radiation exposure.from the accident itself.
Dr. Geraldine Thomas explained this pretty good in "The Rational Veiw"-Podcast, linked above.
If we hat the same cancer-incidence by radioactivity related exclusion zones but with particulate matter, half the cities of europe would have to be closed off in summer.
It is not wrong. As I have already posted, although the 2005 report of the Chernobyl Forum concluded with expected 4000 excess deaths after the event itself, the used model (LNT) is highly contested and with the dosages most people were exposed to not useful.
It is expected that all in all fewer than 100 people will die because of chernobyl (including the ~50 people killed by the explosion and the ASR right after it).
The Rational View podcast with Dr. Al Scott: Gerry Thomas and the UNSCEAR reports
Again, because my other comment is not visible to many of you:
The estimate of 50,000–60,000 Chernobyl cancer deaths is a widely cited, worst-case projection, but it is crucial to understand that this figure is not a factual count. It is a theoretical calculation derived from the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, a framework that is fundamentally flawed and inappropriate for assessing the health impact of low-dose radiation exposure.
29 relief workers died from Acute Radiation Sickness (ARS) shortly after the accident.
As of 2005, only fewer than 50 deaths were directly linked to the radiation exposure from the accident itself. This is the most solid figure based on actual evidence.
that the law only requires vehicles to stop for pedestrians already in the crosswalk
Where I live it's different. If someone wants to cross at a crosswalk, they have the right of way. If a child want's to cross anywhere, they have the right of way. Not on freeway (Autobahn) or highway (Schnellstraße) of course.
Also there is the Vertrauensgrundsatz (trust principle?). If yo cannot trust someone to know the laws or follow the law (children, visibly under influence, ...) treat them as such. Keep distance and keep slow, give right of way if necessary.
In two of three final reports there are bombs worn or placed by the attackers. In two of the reports the final assault was started by government personell (either directly, letting it look like the hostage takers started it, or by killing the guy on a dead man's switch). In one report it was classified as a suicide attack from the start.
The dead man's switch was confirmed by one of the surviving attackers. He also was the one speaking of a dispute between the attackers concerning the target building (school vs. police station).
No, i don't need sources on that.
I'd like to hear claims on what happened in and around the square... Why it's called a massacre? How many were killed? On which side were those killed? Were the 'sides' as clear cut as we are told? Why were there protests and why did it escalate?
What happened exactly at Tiananmen Square? You have some good sources?
E: Yeah, i get it. "Look it up! Everyone knows!" I did, and I'd like some sources on the claims everyone thinks that happened. Most media outlets call it massacre but forget to put numbers, reasons and sources in the articles.
What do YOU think what happened? What did YOU hear/read? What was the reason for the protest and what was the reason for the escalation?
At Fukushima Daichii died one worker of radiation poisoning and one in a crane incident. The evacuation killed 51 more.
Scientific consense is, that the loss of life and cumulative lifetime would have been lower if there was no evacuation.
I explicitly wrote "civil nuclear power". I know there were big incidents, especially in early military nuclear sites. Windscale and Kyshtym are two of those.
Yeah, read it. Also the article with the discussion on the death toll.
31 immediate deaths
60 attributable in the following two decades
The official WHO estimate with 4000 more cancer deaths until 2050 is based on the disputed LNT model. Even UNSCEAR itself says:
The Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels.
Dr. Thomas shares that contrary to popular belief there is a scientific consensus that the Chernobyl accident has resulted in the deaths of less than 55 people as a result of radiation.
The two airship accidents with the most casualties count together 120 dead (USS Akron and Dixmude).
So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.
While it says in the tweet "in 1986" there are no more than 100 deaths expected from chernobyl. Around 50 were killed at the accident, and around a dozen more in the years after. As of 2005 fewer than 50 deaths were directly linked to the radiation exposure.from the accident itself.
Dr. Geraldine Thomas explained this pretty good in "The Rational Veiw"-Podcast, linked above. If we hat the same cancer-incidence by radioactivity related exclusion zones but with particulate matter, half the cities of europe would have to be closed off in summer.
It is not wrong. As I have already posted, although the 2005 report of the Chernobyl Forum concluded with expected 4000 excess deaths after the event itself, the used model (LNT) is highly contested and with the dosages most people were exposed to not useful.
It is expected that all in all fewer than 100 people will die because of chernobyl (including the ~50 people killed by the explosion and the ASR right after it).
Again, because my other comment is not visible to many of you:
The estimate of 50,000–60,000 Chernobyl cancer deaths is a widely cited, worst-case projection, but it is crucial to understand that this figure is not a factual count. It is a theoretical calculation derived from the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, a framework that is fundamentally flawed and inappropriate for assessing the health impact of low-dose radiation exposure.
The laxative properties disappear after a while (a few weeks). Our body accommodates for it so that 200g per day are no big problem anymore.
Do you have some sources for those quotes?
Where I live it's different. If someone wants to cross at a crosswalk, they have the right of way. If a child want's to cross anywhere, they have the right of way. Not on freeway (Autobahn) or highway (Schnellstraße) of course.
Also there is the Vertrauensgrundsatz (trust principle?). If yo cannot trust someone to know the laws or follow the law (children, visibly under influence, ...) treat them as such. Keep distance and keep slow, give right of way if necessary.
In two of three final reports there are bombs worn or placed by the attackers. In two of the reports the final assault was started by government personell (either directly, letting it look like the hostage takers started it, or by killing the guy on a dead man's switch). In one report it was classified as a suicide attack from the start.
The dead man's switch was confirmed by one of the surviving attackers. He also was the one speaking of a dispute between the attackers concerning the target building (school vs. police station).
They wore explosive belts. That's why i supect they intended to blow themself up. Sure, I could be wrong. But then you got to find better sources.
Why are you getting cynical now?
I asked where it states that Putin bombed the school. Your own source contradicts your comment. So please explain.
Where in that article does it say it was bombed deliberately? And by Putin?
The first explosions were the bombs placed by the attackers themselves. The fighting afterwards was as expected.
America does WHAT now?
No, i don't need sources on that. I'd like to hear claims on what happened in and around the square... Why it's called a massacre? How many were killed? On which side were those killed? Were the 'sides' as clear cut as we are told? Why were there protests and why did it escalate?
What happened exactly at Tiananmen Square? You have some good sources?
E: Yeah, i get it. "Look it up! Everyone knows!" I did, and I'd like some sources on the claims everyone thinks that happened. Most media outlets call it massacre but forget to put numbers, reasons and sources in the articles. What do YOU think what happened? What did YOU hear/read? What was the reason for the protest and what was the reason for the escalation?
There was a massive tsunami in the area killing almost 20k people, the power plant was not their first concern.
The guy died 4 years after the accident from lung cancer, not very common in nuclear power.
I never agreed that its outmoded or old tech.
At Fukushima Daichii died one worker of radiation poisoning and one in a crane incident. The evacuation killed 51 more. Scientific consense is, that the loss of life and cumulative lifetime would have been lower if there was no evacuation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents
For the total number of airships, the loss of life (and airships) is quite high...
I explicitly wrote "civil nuclear power". I know there were big incidents, especially in early military nuclear sites. Windscale and Kyshtym are two of those.
Yeah, read it. Also the article with the discussion on the death toll. 31 immediate deaths 60 attributable in the following two decades
The official WHO estimate with 4000 more cancer deaths until 2050 is based on the disputed LNT model. Even UNSCEAR itself says:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/let-s-separate-the-urban-myths-from-chernobyl-s-scientific-facts-20190705-p524f7.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world
The two airship accidents with the most casualties count together 120 dead (USS Akron and Dixmude).
More people died in airship incidents than in civil nuclear power.
E: typo
So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.