Archives for posts with tag: Chernobyl


J-value or Justification Value.


Often we are faced with the problem:

Shall or Shall Not

We have classic dilemma:
“The Fat Man and the Trolley”
or shall I kill one, in order to save five?

Recently it has been attempted to quantify this recurring dilemma using J-value.
For good and for bad it has been necessary to include the value of human life and human wellbeing.
From the link in the heading, I quote:

  • How much should a nuclear power plant spend on protecting its workers?
  • Is it cost-effective to install a new safety system for railway signaling?
  • Should the Government be spending more to prevent road deaths?

I will ask:

  • Do you take on a bullet-proof west before you go out to post a letter?

From my time in Africa I have tried to face the problem:

  • How to spend the limited funds available if you want to give
    (some of) the countless orphans a better future life?

In my opinion a lot of the discussions should be modified considering the philosophy related to J-value.
The following are a few examples.

Relocation measures following nuclear power plant accidents.

From the highlights to a very detailed net-paper,
I refer that
75 % of the evacuations at Chernobyl and ALL at Fukushima were not justified if the evacuations were evaluated considering J-value.

Or more specific:
You consider years lost from the (very limited) radioactive pollution, assuming the alternative “Just stay at home.”
This is then compared to the years lost as a consequence of the mandatory evacuations.

Personally I will claim that the many “evacuation-casualties” has been a result of the reckless fight to demonize nuclear.


From the above mentioned paper I quote:
It balances the costs of a safety scheme against the improvement in quality of life of those affected as a result of implementing that scheme.

Going back to the example with the run away trolley you have:
blaThe scheme: Shifting the
bla – direction of the trolley.
blaCosts: Killing one man.
blaImprovement: Saving five
bla – lives.
blaJustification Value: 5 saved compared to one killed.

Relationship between radiation and harm

Originally – and to be sure – it was assumed that “No matter how little, all radiation is harmful”. (LNT or Linear No Threshold)
Without finding it specified, I understand that this assumption has been used in the above mentioned paper.

However, there are strong evidence showing that even 1000 mSv per year is not harmful if it is evenly distributed, thus giving the human “repair mekanisme” time to do the job.

For obvious reasons there is an enormous confusion about radiation and the above mentioned 1000 mSv/year is 50 times the limit used at Fukushima where people were evacuated – mandatory? – if the radiation was more than 20 mSv/year.
If this is considered there will be even less justification for the many evacuations.

Value of human life

For good and for bad it has been necessary to discuss the value of human life.
It has been done in the above mentioned paper.

In order to set it in perspective, I refer from a lecturer given by a German visiting professor in Dar es Salaam.
He did not shy away from difficult explanations and I remember the following:

  • In the good old times a lot of Germans had at good holiday in the then peaceful Yugoslavia.
    -mm –Some came home in a cuffin.
    -mm –You know: Bad roads and bad drivers.
    But one year one man came home with only one leg because the other had been eaten by a shark.
    The following year the flow of tourists was halved.
    Of course, it soon came back to normal.

Sometimes we can not shy away from the classic “Trolley Dilemma” where it is discussed: trolley_problem
“Shall I divert the train and kill one in order to save five?”

Still it is relatively easy.
But it is also asked: You stand on a bridge
bla Will you push one man to death in order to save five?
bla And what will you do if this man is a friend of yours?
bla Jump yourself.
An Indian soldier saved his group.
He got the Victoria Cross Post mortem.

Noise from windmills

What is the value of human life and welfare compared to the wish for
so-called green electricity?
See part of the discussion on

Contaminated / Uninhabitable Areas

More than half of all people live in contaminated sites.
Most air pollution or contaminated drinking water.
Whatever, our choice is in fact based on J-value.

Cleanup at Hanford

During the war and later during the Cold War, plutonium was produced at the Hanford US plant.
As with almost all military activity, there was a poor safety culture.
And, as it is usually the case with “nuclear clean-up”, there have apparently been exaggerated demands.
Unfortunately, it has been difficult to find anything but alarming information.
Typically, the account of a tunnel that collapsed.
The cleanup will be both expensive and late.
From the daily newspaper Information: A bombs require US victims.

Despite much search, it has not been possible to find factual information:
(Persons Injury / Death – mSv / ?? or Bq / ?? )
If you, my unknown reader, have factual information, write to me at


In connection with a political struggle between the English Government and the coal miners, it was decided, in fact demanded, that the plant for Plutonium production should also provide power.
As we know, this urgent decision resulted in a very poor security culture and much pollution.

From the Danish paper Information, which usually is anti-nuclear:
bla The British nuclear plant Sellafield houses Western Europe’s most
bla harmful buildings with tons of unknown radioactive material
bla stored in pools.
bla The cleanup will cost the British taxpayers unimaginable sums and
bla will last decades.

As usual, one should try to assess the situation as it was at the time of the Cold War and the political conflict.
Was it justified? J-value

A supporter of nuclear power feels that it should be added that spent fuel elements from nuclear power, along with other highly radioactive material, will be stored in pools under water for up to 30 years.
Of course, because it’s safe and convenient.

Belgian nuclear power 2018

Following the public debate, it may be felt that the Cold War is replaced by a new war For or against nuclear power.
In 2018 it appears that 6 out of 7 Belgian reactors were taken out of service due to incipient damage at connecting buildings.
blaThese buildings contained the pumps to be used if everything else
blafailed. And the buildings might not withstand a crash by an airplane.
On Ingeniørens Netavis (Nov 2018), this is addressed with the almost mocking headline:
One [not closed] out of seven is actually pretty miserable.
At the end of over 125 submissions, an assessment was proposed based on J-value.
In any case, such an assessment would have shown that the closures could only be defended as “politically motivated” and driven by an inflated popular mood.
This attempt to reach the core was not well received.

German resistance to nuclear power

In Germany, there is a popular fear of everything with Atom.
Apparently this can be traced back to a study, allegedly showing that children who lived near nuclear power plants had more cases of leukemia and other forms of cancer.
Although the original study has been disputed, an analysis based on J-value would have been appropriate.

  • In a desperate (and fruitless) attempt to find a connection between the clearly contradictory information, I ask if this (very small) deviation can be explained by Neutrinos.

But again, I emphasize that this, like so much else, should be assessed using the J-value philosophy.

Military Considerations

Although the term J-value was not used at that time, it must have been an almost inhumane task, e.g. deciding whether the invasion of Normandy should be postponed due to bad weather forecasts.

Fra en lang og grundig norsk e-bog
Radon, lung cancer and the LNT model
(52 sider) refereres:
Meget mere: Se
– – LNT eller “Liniar No Treashold” angiver at
– – “Lige hvor lidt så er stråling altid skadeligt”
1. Radon in homes: It is evident from this long paper that we can forget about most of the remedial actions for reducing the average radon level. This would save a lot of money for those involved.
2. Nuclear power: In the fight for reducing the CO2 release to the atmosphere, nuclear power could be a considerable contributor to the worlds energy supply. The world energy consumption increases annually by approximately 2 %. Also the use of fossil fuel with CO2 release increases. A significant contribution to halt and even reduce the CO2 release would be to increase the contribution from nuclear energy. It is a surprise to us that environmental organizations that worry about global warming – are not pro nuclear.
3. Reactor accidents We have had two major breakdowns of nuclear reactors which both have been treated according to the LNT-theory. For both Chernobyl and Fukushima consequences have been calculated using collective doses and LNT. In Chernobyl a number of people were hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome and 28 died within 3 months. There has also been recorded thyroid cancer to children that was drinking contaminated milk (I-131). Altogether 11 deaths have been recorded. Whether these cancers have been caused by the Chernobyl accident is rather douptful since similar changes in the thyroid have been observed without radiation. Furthermore, the thyroid doses from I-131 after the Chernobyl accident have not been measured and they are very poorly determined. Cancer deaths in combination with the reactor accidents are based on LNT. No threshold and no hormetic region has been considered. However, the most significant and serious decision taken after the reactor accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima was to evacuate several hundred thousands of people. The decision was taken based on the LNT-theory and the use of collective doses. No attempts were made to compare the radiation level in the contaminated areas with the level found in the HBR (High Background Radiation) regions. If such a comparison had been made, the most negative of the reactor accidents could have been avoided.

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.

The discussion

Although the term “Contaminated” is usually seen in relation to nuclear, it will be seen that most contamination in reality is a result of rejecting nuclear power.

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.
Although nuclear contamination worldwide is a minor problem it takes up a major part of the public discussion – also in the following.

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 tolerate?
    Here, as in most diskussions, 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, a limit of
    one millisievert / year was introduced. (Arbitrarily)
    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 the concept uninhabitable areas was ‘invented’.
  • To complete the picture from Japan I mention that people who at the nuclear bombing 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 “evidences” 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 “back-mowaers” (babushkas) live in areas with
    more than 500 kBq/m^2
    Almost all are old and will naturally die from 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.
Pollution of the ocean.
Unlike most doomsday prophets, I have a large scale given references to my sources.

And later (2018) you read at that UNHCR has adjusted the estimate of “late casualties” (from cancer?) from about 4000 to about zero.

If you feel you have missing information, write to me at

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Even in the debate on nuclear energy, it is hard to find so much misleading “Information” as in the debate on the deaths caused by the disaster at Chernobyl.
In the following I will try to make a summary.

  • When the disaster struck, I was in Tanzania where a friend of mine
    – a good English lady – followed the developments on TV – relaied from BBC.
    When she saw how the radioactive cloud slowly enveloped the whole earth, she went to her sleeping children to say goodbye.
    For now we will soon die all of us.
  • Also the Danish television remained determined to show the horror.
    Shortly after the accident you could hear that there were 1,000 killed and that on satellite photographs you could see the dead bodies on the streets and dead animals in the fields.
    It was added that it could not be ruled out that these figures would be much higher.
    A look at any ordinary Medical Manual would have shown that even if you get a lethal dose of radiation, it will take some time before you get symptoms and you will not ‘just’ wait to die on the street.
    It is still unclear how this, unfortunately not unique, “information” was planted in the media.
    (The total death toll from the disaster was below 50).

As usual Danmarks Radio had no need to go back to the truth.

  • Instead of giving factual information, shortly after the accident the public media “found” highly elevated levels of various forms of cancer.
    This should be seen in the context of cancer from radiation, as well as from smoking and asbestos, do not arise until after a “waiting period” (latency) between 5 and 20 years.
    Less for leukemia or thyroid cancer.
    Also this can be seen in any Medical Manual.
    – – Of course, this may be explained by that it soon became
    – – fashionable to explain all possible and impossible defects
    – – from radiation.
    – – And, of course, hope for compensation.
  • Numerous reports of horrific birth defects in children quickly gave column space for journalists who reported on many (nonexistent?) orphanages.

Here I will add that contrary to expectations, there has NEVER been found increased number of birth defects in children born to survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks on Japan, where there was completely different high emissions. See:

Of course it was not long before the media began to report on numeroous current and especially future deaths, mainly from cancer.

  • This should be seen in connection to experiences, mainly from survivors of the nuclear bomb attacks on Japan:
  • As time has passed and the survivors started to grow old, it has been possible to realize that ionizing radiation is a [very] weak carcinogen “. Source: BBC
  • Here it was discovered that survivors, who were exposed to 500 mSv or less, had no shorter life than the general population.
    – – 500 mSv as individual exposure will cause minor symptoms
    – – of acute radiation sickness, and is more than 100 times of
    – – what is normally allowed.
    Also this shows that, in contrast to the usual horror stories, the risk of later cancer is very limited.
  • Already in 2006 we could read the result of thorough, and hopefully honest, studies, showing that animals have performed excellently in the areas that have been declared as unhabitable to humans.
    In accordance with experience related to Radiation hormesis there has even been FEWER cases of damage (cancer) to the animals who have taken over the area.
  • And from The Guardian (2015)
    ”Wildlife Thriving around Chernobyl nuclear plant in spite of radiation”, you can get seemingly credible information.

Obviously: All this was “no problem” for the numerous scaremongers:

  • Greenpeace has been out with the following:
    “It is now more than 20 years since the Chernobyl nuclear accident that affected millions of people in western Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The disaster was the fault of a hundred times more radiation than the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    Today, over twenty years later, the nightmare continues for thousands of people. “

Even if you believe this and prefer Greenpeace as a source of honest information, you should try to look at

  • The record is probably reached with “information” about a million recorded deaths and seven million future.
    One is tempted to say that if we wait long enough, then we will be dead all of us.

Of course you will ask: How were serious scientists lured astray?

After the nuclear bomb attacks, lack of knowledge and a natural desire to be cautious translated into fear of future horrific injuries.
At the same time, it was made into a “law of nature” that future damage should be calculated from the LNT hypothesis that allows calculated statistical predictions.
Although recent data show that this hypothesis is clearly misleading,
Still the LNT is stil maintained stubbornly by “The Establishment.”


Although it is difficult to find data which is accepted by everybody, I dare to refer to den E-bogen STRÅLING OG HELSE, udgivet af Fysisk institutt, Det norske matematisk-naturvitenskapelige fakultet.
Mostly from this, I have the following
bla – In connection with the accident (mostly rescue-workers):
bla – Less than 50
bla – Later, as a result of radiation: Probably nil.
bla – Deaths following the forced, but mostly unnecessary, evacuations:
bla – More than 1000


Selv i debatten om kernekraft er det svært at finde så meget misvisende som i debatten om dødsfald i forbindelse med katastrofen ved Tjernobyl.
I det følgende vil jeg prøve at lave en opsummering.


Fra et norsk studie refereres:
Det er de psykiske effekter som er de mest alvorlige etter ulykken. [Tjernobyl]
En lang rekke mennesker har psykiske problemer som: depresjon, hypokonderi, hodepine, tretthet som nærmest er kronisk, dårlig konsentrasjon, redsel, følelse av håpløshet, mangel på kjønnsdrift og mange er både mentalt og fysisk utmattede.
For de som ble bestrålt eller lever i forurensede områder har en registrert en øking når det gjelder høyt blodtrykk, alkoholisme og til og med selvmord.

I modsætning til de fleste danske medier, berettes at det totale antal dødsfald var 28
Der rejses tvivl om hvorvidt de 11 konstaterede tilfælde af cancer i skjoldbruskkirtlen (alle) skyldtes radioaktivitet.

Slut indskud

  • Da katastrofen ramte, var jeg i Tanzania hvor en af mine venner
    en god engelsk dame – fulgte udviklingen på TV.
    Relaied fra BBC
    Da hun så hvordan den radioaktive sky langsomt omsluttede hele jorden, gik hun ind til sine sovende børn for at sige farvel.
    For nu skal vi jo snart dø alle sammen.
  • Det danske fjernsyn holdt sig bestemt ikke tilbage.
    Kort efter ulykken kunne man høre at der var 1000 dræbte og at man på satellitfoto kunne man se ligene på gaderne og døde dyr
    på markerne.
    Der blev tilføjet at det ikke kunne afvises, at tallene ville blive højere.
    Et kik i Politikens Lægebog ville have vist at selv om man får en dødelig dosis af stråling så varer det nogen tid inden man får symptomer og således ikke ‘sådan bare’ bliver liggende for at
    dø på gaden.
    Det er stadigvæk uklart hvordan denne, desværre ikke enestående, “oplysning” blev plantet i medierne.
    (Det samlede dødstal som følge af katastrofen var under 50.)

Som sædvanligt følte Danmarks Radio ikke behov for at dementere.
Man nøjedes med at slette udsendelsen fra arkiverne.

  • Til gengæld blev der kort efter ulykken ”konstateret” et stærkt forhøjet niveau af forskellige former for kræft.
    Dette skal imidlertid ses i sammenhæng med at kræft fra stråling, såvel som fra rygning og asbest, ikke kan konstateres før efter en ”venteperiode” (latensperiode) på mellem 5 og 20 år.
    Dog mindre for leukemi eller kræft i skjoldbruskkirtlen.
    Også dette kan ses i Politikens Lægebog.
    ——Naturligvis kan dette opsving forklares ved at det hurtigt kom ——på mode at forklare alle mulige og umulige skavanker ud fra ——stråling.
    ——Og naturligvis håbe på erstatning.
  • Utallige beretninger om forfærdelige medfødte skader på børn gav hurtigt spalteplads for journalister, der beretter om mange
    (ikke eksisterende?) børnehjem.

Her vil jeg indskyde at der mod al forventning ALDRIG har været konstateret øget antal medfødte (genetisk bestemte) skader hos børn født af overlevende fra atombombeangrebene i Japan, hvor der var tale om en helt anderledes kraftig stråling. Se:

Naturligvis varede det ikke længe før man begyndte at berette om utalleige nuværende og specielt fremtidige dødsfald hovedsageligt fra kræft.

Dette skal ses i sammenhæng med erfaringer, hovedsageligt fra overlevende efter atombombeangrebene i Japan.
Her har man efterhånden som tiden er gået kunnet konstatere at ioniserende stråling er et [meget] svagt carcinogen”. Kilde: BBC

  • Således konstaterede man at overlevende, der havde været udsat for 500 mSv, eller mindre ikke havde kortere levetid end normalbefolkningen.
    black500 mSv som enkeltstående påvirkning vil medføre
    blacksvage symptomer på akut strålesyge og er mere end 100
    blackgange det, der normalt tillades.
    Også dette viser at, i modsætning til rædselsberetninger, er risiko for senere kræft stærkt begrænset.

Allerede 2006 fremkommer resultatet af grundige, og forhåbentligt ærlige, undersøgelser, der viser at dyr har klaret sig fortrinligt i de områder ved Tjernobyl, der er  erklæret som ubeboelige for mennesker.
I overensstemmelse med erfaringer relateret til Radiation Hormesis har man også her konstateret FERRE tilfælde af skader (kræft) hos de dyr der har overtaget området.

Og fra The Guardian (2015)
”Wildlife thriving around Chernobyl nuclear plant despite radiation”,
får man tilsyneladende troværdige oplysninger.
Hvis man læser kommentarerne til denne artikel vil man få et godt indblik i den almindelige uvilje til at acceptere noget der går imod det, jeg temmelig ubehøvlet, kalder “Den Almindelige Barnetro.”

Alt dette var naturligvis ingen hæmsko for fantastiske forudsigelser.

  • Greenpeace har været ude med følgende:
    ”Det er nu mere end 20 år siden atomkraftulykken i Tjernobyl, der ramte millioner af mennesker i det vestlige Rusland, Ukraine og Hviderusland.
    Katastrofen var skyld i hundrede gange mere radioaktiv stråling end atombomberne over Hiroshima og Nagasaki.

    I dag, over tyve år senere, fortsætter mareridtet for tusindvis af mennesker.”

Hvis du tror på dette og foretrækker Greenpeace som kilde til torværdighed, så prøv alligevel at se på

  • Rekorden nås formentligt med “information” om en million konstaterede dødsfald og syv millioner fremtidige.
    Man fristes til at sige at hvis man venter tilstrækkeligt længe, så vil vi være døde – alle sammen.

Du spørger naturligvis: Hvordan er også seriøse forskere blevet lokket på vildspor?

Efter atombombeangrebene blev manglende viden og et naturligt ønske om at være forsigtig, omsat til frygt for fremtidige forfærdelige skader.
Samtidigt blev det hurtigt gjort til en “naturlov” at fremtidige skader skulle beregnes ud fra LNT-hypotesen, der giver mulighed for beregnede statistiske forudsigelser.
Selv om nyere data viser at denne hypotese er klart misvisende, ja så fastholdes den stædigt af “The Establishment.”

  • For at afrunde billedet nævnes at UNSCR har nedjusteret antallet af “sendødsfald” ved Tjernobyl fra omkring 4000 til “omkring nul.”

Hilsner og god tænkepause
Thorkil Søe
Fra den Norske E-bog Stråling of Helse citeres:
Etter reaktorulykken i Tsjernobyl har det vist seg at Cs-137 er den viktigste isotopen når det gjelder stråledoser til oss mennesker.
Den har en fysisk halveringstid på 30 år.
Cesium skilles relativt raskt ut av kroppen, og den biologiske halveringstiden for voksne mennesker er omkring tre måneder (den er noe mindre for barn).
Cs-137 har en biologisk halveringstid på 2-3 uker for sauer, mens den er ca. en måned for reinsdyr.

englandEnglish translation.
For kilder og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.

Og.klik påb Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.
I forbindelse med omtale af forurenede områder ser man ofte en sammenblanding af kriterier for begreber som ”forurenede” eller ”ubeboelige”.
For en ordens skyld nævner jeg at langt over halvdelen af jordens befolkning lever i områder, hvor der er luftforurening.
Over to millioner dør årligt på grund af luftforurening fra kulkraft.
På verdensplan er generel luftforurening skyld i ni millioner dødsfald.

Som en konklusion af det følgende vil man se at områder kan være forurenede uden nødvendigvis at være ubeboelige.

Jeg har prøvet at opdele diskussionen i følgende:

  • Hvordan måles det?
    Noget findes her.
  • Hvad udsættes vi for?
    En grundig oversigt over naturlig radioaktivitet findes her.
  • Hvad kan man tale?
    Tilsyneladende er manglende viden erstattet af stor forvirring.
    Store befolkningsgrupper – også i Europa – lever udsat for
    10 mSv/år.
    Enkelte steder meget mere.
    Tilsyneladende uden skadevirkninger.

Den baggrundsstråling, vi alle udsættes for, er omkring 2 mS/år.

  • Der er overvældende materiale, der viser at moderat påvirkning af ioniserende stråling er gavnlig. Næsten som en vaccination mod kræft.
    Men lad det nu være.
  • Hvad vil man tillade?
    I et ræs mod bunden forsøger politikere at undgå kritik og fastsætter stadig lavere tilladelige grænser for hvad der betegnes som farligt og skal undgås.
    Således blev den tilladelige påvirkning af arbejdere på tyske kernekraftværker i 1988? nedsat fra 22 til 2 mSv/år
  • Natural Radiation EUDet helt ekstreme nås tilsyneladende i Japan, hvor panikken overtrumfede logikken.
    For at være på den sikre side, fastsatte man (helt arbitrært) en grænseværdi på
    en millisievert/år.
    Dette er kun en tiendedel af det mange europæere har været udsat for gennem hele deres liv.

Desværre må jeg konstatere at det var nødvendigt at få alle disse detaljer på plads inden man kan komme til det egentlige.

Hvad er der sket?
Når man ser bort fra klart falskneri og husker at diskussionen er om Ubeboelige Områder kan jeg kun oplyse følgende:

  • Jeg har ikke fundet noget om forholdene i Japan, efter atombombeangrebene.
    Det var før man ‘opfandt’ begrebet Ubeboelige Omrder.
  • For at færdiggøre billedet fra Japan nævner jeg at personer, der var udsat for 500 mSv, fik svage symptomer på akut strålesyge.
    Alligevel havde de ikke kortere livslængde end normalbefolkningen.
  • Udslip fra ulykken ved Three Mile Island var så ekstremt små at det er uden relevans; også i denne sammenhæng.
    Der blev udbetalt erstatning for tabt arbejdsfortjeneste som kompensation for unødvendige tvangs-evakueringer og brugt næsten lige så meget på ‘legal expences’.
  • Tilsvarende må det konstateres at oplysninger om ulykken ved Fukushima er så indfiltrede af modstridende oplysninger at det ikke er muligt at drage slutninger.

Således må vi starte med katastrofen ved Tjernobyl.
Der finder man oplysninger, der trods alt virker pålidelige.

  • Uden kildeangivelse findes et billede, der viser døde træer.
    OK Der var meget store udslip af radioaktivt materiale.
  • Naturligvis finder man, helt uden besvær, utallige rædselsberetninger.
  • Man ser at “tilbage-flyttere” (Babushkas) lever i områder med over 500 kBq/m^2
    Næsten alle er gamle og vil naturligvis dø af alderdom før de eventuelt får skader fra den måske ikke så farlige stråling.
  • Måske kan denne side bidrage med troværdige oplysninger om situationen kort efter katastrofen.
    Her ser man en frygtindgydende tabel med tal for forurening.
    Der var megen radioaktiv forurening forbundet med katastrofen.
    Hvis man derefter ser hvorledes ”tilbage-flyttere” (Babushkas) lever gladelig i områder forurenet med over 500 kBq/m^2
    Ja så bliver tallene pludseligt knapt så frygtindgydende.

Allerede i 2006 finder man en vurdering fra BBC:
Chernobyl’s ‘nuclear nightmares’
Det følgende er fra denne artikel.

  • “Lave doser af stråling udviser [meget] ringe kræftfremkaldende virkning,” siger professor Brooks, der har tilbragt 30 år på at studere sammenhængen mellem stråling og kræft.
    “Hvis du taler med nogen, og du siger ordet stråling, får du straks en frygt reaktion.
    Denne frygt reaktion har foranlediget folk til at gøre ting, der er videnskabeligt ubegrundet.”
  • Gavnlige effekter:
    Andre undersøgelser er kommet til endnu mere overraskende konklusioner.
    Professor Ron Chesser, Texas Tech University, USA, har brugt 10 år på at studere dyr, der lever i det 30 kilometer udelukkelse zone omkring Tjernobyl.
    Han har fundet at virkningerne af et lavt niveau af stråling, langt fra at være kræftfremkaldende, så ser det ud til at sætte skub i de gener, der beskytter os mod kræft.
    (Radiation Hormesis ?)

    Almindeligvis kan oplysninger fra BBC betragtes som pålidelige.

Oktober 2015 kommer The Guardian (England) frem med noget tilsvarende: – – — – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – Dyr ved Tjernobyo

  • I årevis har både dyr og planter trivedes i den forbudte zone, der er lukket for mennesker.
    Måske er det ikke så forfærdeligt forfærdeligt farligt.
  • Specielt kommentarerne
    til denne artikel giver et godt indblik i den almindelige modvilje mod at acceptere oplysninger, der går imod det jeg, meget ubehøvlet, kalder “den almindelige barnetro”.

Naturligvis har Greenpeace været ude med aktivister – Iført hvid beskyttelsesdragt og åndedrætsværn.
For at fortælle “tilbage-flyttere” at deres liv er i fare.
Men denne hvide beskyttelsesdragt er helt uden virkning, hvis formålet er at beskytte mod ioniserende stråling.
Efter katastrofen var der megen luftbåret radioaktivitet.
Men i dag er dette fine åndedragtsværn nærmest latterligt.


Hvis du, min ukendte læser, er kommet så langt, vil jeg foreslå at du prøver at drage konsekvenserne.


Hvis du stadigvæk er i tvivl og ønsker mere, henviser jeg til noget andet jeg har samlet sammen:
Greenpeaces troværdighed er en myte.
Forurening af Oceanet.
I modsætning til de fleste Dommedagsprofeter har jeg i stor stil givet referencer til mine kilder.

Hvis du har FAKTUELLE oplysninger, der mangler, så skriv til mig på


Når man taler om katastrofe og forurening, bør man sammenligne med katastrofen ved Bhopal. (1984)
Den alvorligste industrielle ulykke var The Bhopal disaster.
Her var der mindst 3800 døde, 100.000vis syge og forgiftede samt en meget omfattende forurening.
I virkeligheden ti gange så alvorligt sammenlignet med Tjernobyl og Fukushima TILSAMMEN.
Men det gik mest ud over fattige indere der, som så mange andre, ‘sådan bare’ var flyttet ind på et forbudt område.
Det var ikke en ulykke med radioaktivitet.
Nu er det næsten glemt.

Militære Områder

Ofte ser man hvorledes der ved militære anlæg har været en dårlig sikkerhedskultur, og efterlader forurening, der ikke ville være acceptabel ved civile anlæg.
Ikke bare i det gamle Sovjet.
Desværre er der flere eksempler, der benyttes til at dæmonisere også civil brug af atomkraft.
Fx et kollaps af en tunnel ved et nedlagt militært koldkrigs-anlæg ved Hanford i USA.
Hvis man læser ovenstående link og sammenligner det venstre billede med det andet, der stammer fra et civilt anlæg i Sverige.
Ja så løber det koldt ned af ryggen – i hvert fald på mig.

Svensk affald

Hilsner og god tænkepause
Thorkil Søe

På Ingeniørens netavis, der normalt er domineret af modstandere af alt med Atom læser man at
De mange evakueringer var unødvendige og derigennem skadelige.

Frygten for stråling er bestemt ikke ubegrundet.
Men i det meste af den offentlige debat er den vildt overdrevet.

– – – – For kilder og henvisninger:
– – – – Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.
I stedet for at rode rundt og blande tingene sammen – Lad os begynde med at vurdere det vi ved:

  • Enheder: Den biologiske virkning af radioaktivitet måles i
    mSv (milli Sivert)
    Mere se her.
  • Strålesyge, der næsten altid skyldes akut skade, har et velkendt og klart afgrænset forløb.
    Således er det ikke svært at afvise næsten alle krav, hvor stråling angives som årsag til alle mulige lidelser.
  • Naturligvis løber det koldt ned af ryggen på os når vi tænker på at Strålesyge slog 60.000 Hiroshima-borgere ihjel inden udgangen af året.
    Dette tal er udover dem, der døde næsten øjeblikkeligt af trykbølgen og brandsår.
    Trods alt, så var de menneskelige lidelser alligevel mindre end ved ildstormen i Tokio.

LNT (Liniear No Treshold, eller lige meget hvor lidt, så er det skadeligt)
Denne hypotese er baggrunden for næsten al vurdering af skader fra moderat eller lille påvirkning af ioniserende stråling.
black – Det kom frem, nok mest i mangel af bedre.
black – Det gør det muligt at lave statistiske beregninger og komme frem
black til forudsigelser, der ofte bliver helt groteske.
black – Det passede godt i den kolde krigs propaganda.
black – Det hævdes og begrundes at kullobbyen stod bag hypotesen.
black – Som det ses af det følgende er denne forudsætning urealistisk.
black – Et humoristisk, men alligevel relevant, indslag findes her.
black – En mere saglig gennemgang kan findes her.


Da man efter mange år kunne lave en opgørelse af livsforløbet af de overlevende fra atombombeangrebene kom man bl.a. frem til følgende:

  • Personer, udsat for strålings-doser under 500 mSv havde ikke kortere levetid end normalbefolkningen.
    —– 500 mSv som enkeltstående påvirkning vil medføre
    —– svage symptomer på akut strålesyge og er mere end
    —– 100 gange det, der normalt tillades.

Allerede på dette grundlag kan man rent logisk udlede at:
Hvis der havde været en stærk sammenhæng mellem stråling og cancer; så ville mange af disse personer have fået cancer.
Og således ville middellevetiden have været væsentligt kortere end normalbefolkningen.

Dette kan således tages som et bevis for at der er meget lille korrelation mellem stråling og cancer.

  • Personer, der kun lige overlevede den akutte strålesyge
    (3000 mSv), havde derimod en gennemsnitlig levelængde, der var 3 år mindre end normalbefolkningen.
  • Børn født af forældre, der havde været udsat for endog meget høje doser af ioniserende stråling havde ikke flere medfødte misdannelser end normalbefolkningen.
    Således kan fx dette link afvises som oplagt bedrageri.

Fra kilder, der kan anses for at være troværdige, bekræftes ovenstående.

  • Allerede i 2006 beretter BBC hvorledes dyrelivet trives i de forbudte områder ved Tjernobyl.
    Angiveligt bedre og med færre tilfælde af kræft.
    Således kommer man nærmere et andet tabubelagt emne: Radiation Hormesis.
  • Fra samme artikel hæfter man sig ved udtalelsen om at lave doser af radiation er et [meget] svagt karcinogen.
  • Dyr ved Tjernobyo2015 finder man en artikel i
    The Guardian (England). Her konkluderes at:
    I årevis har både dyr og planter trivedes i den forbudte zone, der er lukket for mennesker.

De mange kommentarer til ovennævnte artikel viser hvorledes årtiers af dygtig misinformation har godt hold i læserne.

  • Efter atombombeangrebene i Japan er der rapporteret mange tilfælde af ”kronisk strålesyge”.
    Også dette savner imidlertid ethvert holdepunkt i den medicinske virkelighed.

På nedenstående graf angiver de hvide fælder EKSRRA tilfælde af kræft blandt de overlevende efter atombombeangrebene i Japan.
Modsat utallige dommedagsprofetier ser man at der er få extra tilfælde af kræft.

Kræft fra stråling - kun det hvide

For at bringe dette i det rette perspektiv fremhæver jeg at den stråling der var et resultat af ulykkerne ved Tjernobyl og specielt ved Fukushima var størrelsesordner mindre en den ved atombombeangrebene i Japan.
Konspirationsteorier trives i bedste velgående.

  • Her angives at dødsfald ved Tjernobyl allerede er nået 1.000.000 og at der kan forventes 7.000.000 fremtidige dødsfald.
    Man fristes til at sige at hvis vi venter længe nok, så vil vi være døde – Allesammen.
  • Hvis man søger efter billeder af vandskabte børn og hjælper lidt med billedmanipulation er det ikke svært at nå frem til noget som dette.
    – – – – For snart meget længe siden hjalp jeg en dreng,
    – – – – der var født helt uden arme. Det var ikke et resultat
    – – – – hverken af stråling eller af Thalidomid.
  • I betragtning af ovenstående fristes man til at sige at Greenpeace er tilbageholdne når de skriver:
    ”Det er nu mere end 20 år siden atomkraftulykken i Tjernobyl, der ramte millioner af mennesker i det vestlige Rusland, Ukraine og Hviderusland. Katastrofen var skyld i hundrede gange mere radioaktiv stråling end atombomberne over Hiroshima og Nagasaki.
    I dag, over tyve år senere, fortsætter mareridtet for tusindvis af mennesker.”

    Alligevel er min vurdering at
    Greenpeaces torværdighed er en myte.

Nu venter jeg kun på din vurdering.
Skriv til mig på

Lidt mere

Kortfattet oversigt over skader ved stråling.
Dansk helsefysiker giver en vurdering.
Der Spiegel er ved at se realiteterne.