In connection with the reporting about contaminated areas you often see a mix of criteria for concepts such as “polluted” or “uninhabitable”.
As a conclusion of the following you will see that the areas can be contaminated without necessarily being uninhabitable.

I have tried to divide the discussion in the following:

  • How is it measured?
    Some of it is here.
  • What are we exposed to?
    An overview of natural radioactivity found here.
  • What can you speak?
    Apparently ignorance replaced by great confusion.
    Large populations – even in Europe – live exposed to
    10 mSv / year. few places more.
    Aparently without harm.

The background radiation we are all exposed to, is about 2 mS/year.

  • There are overwhelming material showing that moderate the influence of ionizing radiation are beneficial. Almost like a vaccination against cancer.
    But let that be.
  • What do you allow?
    In a race to the bottom politicians try to avoid criticism and specify still lower permissible doses for what is described as dangerous and to be avoided.
    Thus, the permissible exposure of workers at German nuclear power plants in 1988? Reduced from 22 to 2 mSv/year
  • The extreme is apparently reached in Japan.
    To be on the safe side, the (arbitrarily) a limit of
    one millisievert / year was introduced.
    This is only a tenth of that many Europeans have suffered throughout their lives.

Unfortunately, I must note that it was necessary to get all these details in place before you can get to the real.

What happened?
Leaving aside the obvious forgery and remember that the discussion is about uninhabitable spaces I can only say:

  • I have not found anything about the situation in Japan after the atomic bomb attacks.
    It was before ‘invented’ the concept uninhabitable areas.
  • To complete the picture from Japan I mention that people who were exposed to 500 mSv, and got weak symptoms of acute radiation sickness, nevertheless had no shorter life span than people in general.
  • Emissions from the accident at Three Mile Island was so extremely small that it is irrelevant; Also in this context.
    There were compensations for lost wages as compensation for unnecessary forcible evacuations and spent almost as much on ‘legal expences’.
  • Similarly, it must be noted that information about the accident at Fukushima are so entangled by conflicting that it is not possible to draw conclusions.

Thus, we must start with the disaster by Chernobyl.
There you will find information, some of it seems reliable.

  • Without source reference is a picture showing dead trees.
    OK There were major release of radioactive material.
  • Of course, effortlessly, you will find countless horror stories.
  • You see the “tilbage-flyttere” (babushkas) live in areas with
    555 kBq/m^2
    Almost all are old and will naturally die of old age before they may get injuries from the perhaps not so dangerous radiation.
  • Maybe this page help with reliable information on the situation shortly after the disaster.

Already in 2006 you will find an assessment by the BBC:
Chernobyl’s ‘nuclear nightmares’
The following is from this article.

  • “Low doses of radiation are a [very] poor carcinogen,” says Professor Brooks, som har spent 30 years studying the link mellom radiation and cancer.
    “If you talk to anybody and you say the word radiation, direkt you get a fear response. That fear response har caused people to do things att are scientifically unfounded.”
  • Beneficial effects:
    Other studies having come to even more startling conclusions’.
    Professor Ron Chesser, of Texas Tech University, US, har spent 10 years studying animals living Reviews within the 30km exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl.
    Han har found att, far from the effects of low-level radiation being Carcinogenic, it fremgår two boost dem att genes protect us against cancer.
    (Radiation hormesis?)

    Generally, information from the BBC considered reliable.

October 2015 The Guardian (England) comes forward with something similar:

  • For years, both animals and plants thrived in the forbidden zone that is closed to humans.
    Måske it is not so terribly terribly dangerous.
  • Especially the comments for this article gives a good insight into the general reluctance to accept information that goes against what I very rude call “ordinary childhood”.

Of course, Greenpeace has been out with activists – Wearing white protective clothing and breathing apparatus.
To tell the “back-movers” that their lives are in danger.
Of course, this white protective suit is completely without effect if the purpose is to protect against ionizing radiation.

If you, my unknown reader, have come so far, I suggest that you try to draw the consequences.

If you still have doubts and want more, I refer to anything else I have written:
Greenpeace’s credibility is a myth.
Chernobyl.
Fukushima.
Pollution of the ocean.
Unlike most doomsday prophets, I have a large scale given references to my sources.

If you feel you have missing information, write to me at thorkilsoee@gmail.com

Advertisements