> The mortality rate from solid tumors increases by 52% at 10 years for each accumulated gray, a unit of absorbed radiation that is equivalent to 1,000 millisieverts, or about 10,000 chest X-rays. The individual risk, however, remains very low.
1000 mSV????
How the hell did they aquire these?
In my country 20 mSV is the yearly maximum for nuclear workers. 400mSV the total maximum over a lifetime and over 2mSV in a year leads to a special notification of the government agency and questions of what went wrong.
Ah yes, the clean and sustainable enegry
And coal gets you higher chances for everyone
Was the study conducted in Chernobyl?
The radiation readings inside nuclear power plants are lower than the ones near coal one.
Who would have thought…
From what I can see, they are comparing the rates of cancer to a similar cohort drawn from the general population and the rate of cancers increases at the most ~40% from the baseline for the highest cumulative doses.
Hopefully this will trigger similar studies for occupational risks in other industries, particularly interesting are the petrochemical industry, agrochemical and agriculture, because of the possible long term exposition to harmful chemicals.
As a person who lives in nuclearless country, I often forgot that other country actually invested money in nuclear energy and have an interest to keeping it Not-so-hated to the public;
but guys, two wrongs don’t make a right, nuclear can increase chances of cancer just as well as coal increase Exponentially them.
The point is not demonizing nuclear, is giving the tools to make a decision or coming to a conclusion with the most data we can have.
We all fight agins the fossils fuels but this whataboutism don’t help the planet.
Higher than I would have expected. I wonder how this compares to pilots or ingesting cancerous substances like alcohol?
Cool, now do the people who live near but don’t even work at coal plants.
10 comments
Horrible, but not really surprising.
> The mortality rate from solid tumors increases by 52% at 10 years for each accumulated gray, a unit of absorbed radiation that is equivalent to 1,000 millisieverts, or about 10,000 chest X-rays. The individual risk, however, remains very low.
1000 mSV????
How the hell did they aquire these?
In my country 20 mSV is the yearly maximum for nuclear workers. 400mSV the total maximum over a lifetime and over 2mSV in a year leads to a special notification of the government agency and questions of what went wrong.
Ah yes, the clean and sustainable enegry
And coal gets you higher chances for everyone
Was the study conducted in Chernobyl?
The radiation readings inside nuclear power plants are lower than the ones near coal one.
Who would have thought…
From what I can see, they are comparing the rates of cancer to a similar cohort drawn from the general population and the rate of cancers increases at the most ~40% from the baseline for the highest cumulative doses.
Hopefully this will trigger similar studies for occupational risks in other industries, particularly interesting are the petrochemical industry, agrochemical and agriculture, because of the possible long term exposition to harmful chemicals.
As a person who lives in nuclearless country, I often forgot that other country actually invested money in nuclear energy and have an interest to keeping it Not-so-hated to the public;
but guys, two wrongs don’t make a right, nuclear can increase chances of cancer just as well as coal increase Exponentially them.
The point is not demonizing nuclear, is giving the tools to make a decision or coming to a conclusion with the most data we can have.
We all fight agins the fossils fuels but this whataboutism don’t help the planet.
Higher than I would have expected. I wonder how this compares to pilots or ingesting cancerous substances like alcohol?
Cool, now do the people who live near but don’t even work at coal plants.