Upper estimates peg the death toll at almost 100,000 as an indirect result of the disaster.
Gotta lurve those estimates.
Actual death toll less than 100.
You really think 100k deaths would not show up in statistical analysis, even in the former soviet union?
These specious estimates are based on a scientifically discredited formula, that was only ever a conservative guide to setting up nuclear regulations. The LNT model of damage from chronic low level radiation.
It behoves the Register to be more scientific and less gullible when promoting stories.
LNT basis its predictions on the false assumption that the chance of developing cancers from low level radiation is linearly proportional to the total lifetime dose.
In reality studies show that the chance of developing cancer is related to the peak single exposure.
Like digital transmissions nothing much happens until you get a very high level of noise. Error correction in DNA has evolved to take care of low level natural radiation.
So next time you hear 'there is no safe limit for radiation exposure' or 'the governments own safety standards indicate that' or 'Fukushima disaster' remind yourself that the actual facts are somewhat different.
The worst conceivable nuclear accident in the world happened at Chernobyl.
And less than 100 people died from it.
Or will die from it.
The lessons of Chernobyl are three fold
- that nuclear power is 100-10000 times safer than previously thought
- people believe what they are told in preference to finding out the facts at a ratio similar to the above.
- people with deep pockets are not interested in the public knowing the truth.
Its interesting to note that the other area where propaganda has overtaken and suffocated rational inquiry is also energy related.