Very glad you posted that link Chimbu.
Did you miss the bit on 15 Mar about 400 mS/hr between reactors 3 and 4? Now go back to your graphic on radiation doses and look up 400 mS. Hint: it's in the brown box, and the brown box is not good.
In the latest update on that link Iodine-131 levels in milk and vegetable in certain areas are above safety levels. Iodine-131 is an interesting fission by-product. It is more toxic in low doses than in high doses. It's used in thyroid cancer treatment. In larger doses it can
cure cancer (it just kills the thyroid cells), but in very small doses it can actually
cause the thyroid cancer.
Look, we can to and fro about this all day long. I'm not saying the radiation chart is inaccurate. But you have to look at the caveats written on the chart itself, especially the last line:
"If you're basing radiation safety procedures on an internet png image and things go wrong, you have no-one to blame but yourself".
Go ahead. Read it. It's right on the very last line of the chart. It makes a big difference what type of radiation you're talking about and how the exposure occurs. You see? Nothing is as simple as you want to make it out to be, and it's certainly not as simple as the naive Bolt would have you believe.
How many people died as a direct result of radiation exposure at Chernobyl? Approximately 60.
Yep. 60 is not too many I suppose. How about the approximately 6000 cases (and increasing) of thyroid cancer due to radioactive iodine intake, most of which are attributable to the accident? Not significant?
Any words of wisdom for them? Just hang in there young fella?
How many people died as a direct result of radiation poisoning post Hiroshima AND Nagasaki in the 65 years since those bombings?
Less than 500.
There's those words again Chimbu.
"Direct radiation poisoning." 45% of atmoic bomb survivors were found in a study 10 years ago to have thyroid disease attributable to radiation exposure. This is
not direct radiation poisoning, but is a result of radiation exposure. Any words of wisdom for them too? How exactly do you tell a thyroid cancer patient that their radiation exposure years ago was just harmless?
I can't explain the survival of the Australian POWs anymore than anyone else, other than to say they were lucky, and good on them. The odd smoker never gets lung disease. So smoking doesn't cause lung disease?
Now just 65 years later they are REALLY thriving cities with no abnormal patterns of cancer evident.
The first bit is correct. They are thriving cities (and why shouldn't they be?) The second bit is absolute crackpottery, and demonstrably false. Hard evidence is available in the form of many studies and very good post-war medical records kept by the Japanese. Thyroid cancer. Solid tumour cancers. The list goes on, and all are evident in statistically significant quantities among Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. Particularly those who were young at the time, as radiation is known to have an increased risk when the young are exposed (hence the skin cancer thing - most damage is already done when you are young).
Read Bolt all you like. You will not find any credible science on his blog.