The general clinical symptoms of radiation sickness depend chiefly on the total dose of radiation. Observations have shown that a single wholebody exposure of up to 100 rads produces comparatively mild, transitory changes, regarded as premorbid. Doses of more than 100 rads cause various forms of radiation sickness (of the bone marrow or intestines, for example) of varying severity, in which both the main symptoms and the outcome depend chiefly on the extent to which the hematopoietic organs are involved. Single wholebody doses of more than 600 rads are considered absolutely lethal; victims die within a month or two after exposure. In the most typical form of acute radiation sickness, with doses of more than 200 rads, primary reactions (nausea, vomiting, and general weakness) begin to appear within minutes or hours. Symptoms subside after three or four days, and an apparently healthy stage ensues. However, careful clinical examination reveals that the sickness has progressed. This stage lasts from 14-15 days to four or five weeks, after which the general condition deteriorates, the feeling of weakness increases, hemorrhages occur, and the body temperature rises. As a result of the involvement of the hematopoietic organs, the leukocyte count in the peripheral blood decreases steadily (after a temporary increase) and reaches extremely low levels (a condition called radiation leukopenia), predisposing the patient to sepsis and hemorrhage. This stage lasts two or three weeks. There are other forms of radiation sickness. For example, whole-body irradiation at doses ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 rads gives rise to the intestinal form of the condition, which is characterized primarily by involvement of the intestine. Eventually, the water-salt balance is disturbed, owing to severe diarrhea, and the blood circulation is impaired. A patient suffering from this form of radiation sickness usually dies within days, bypassing the ordinary stages of the condition. After whole-body doses of more than 5,000 rads, death occurs within one to three days, or even during the exposure itself, from injury to brain tissues (as in cerebral radiation sickness). Other forms of radiation sickness are a function mainly of the site of irradiation. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Radiation+Sickness
LOL. Do you know how much 100 rads is? Even those 3 guys (THREE! Out of a "melting down reactor", THREE guys get "sick", not dead. Hell, let's shut down the industry and go to coal power. No one ever gets hurt there) More people died installing solar panels last year than got exposed to any radiation whatsoever in this "worst accident ever in Japan". Normally I let your ridiculous opinions slide, but you're utterly and completely full of shit here and deserve to be called out for it. Again, if you have questions I'd be happy to help answer them. But you're not doing that. Here, you're trolling.
while talking about Chernobyl, which was a) old, b) a poor design, c) in effect, sabotaged and d) not contained properly...it's important to realize that of the 140 or so workers that were initally hit with the doses that you're talking about in the OP, "only" 47 of them died from it. 28 immediately, and 19 over the next 20 years. That's from people who were actively dropping sandbags right on top of the hot (temperature and radiologically) uncovered nuclear sludge pile, not people around the globe receiving "massive doses of fallout". 47 deaths from immediate responders. All told, less than 4000 people got cancer b/c of the Chernobyl accident. Note: not "died", "got cancer". Worldwide. Now factor that 20% of people worldwide get cancer, and you realize that your fears about nuclear power are completely baseless and unfounded scientifically. Anything I can do to allay more of your fears, just ask. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/health_impacts.html Don't believe me though, ask the UN.
What's really going to blow your mind, though? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7132017.stm So while you may have a point with the title of the thread, it's the ignorance of people like you to science and the zealous faith in an anti-nuclear campaign that is causing death by coal.
From your link above: True, but an explosion at a Toys R Us isn't good, either. The author isn't explaining where she gets the numbers for the "3000 rads" initiating at the site. That level is completely inconsistent with anything even potentially capable in even the worst loss of coolant scenario. Then again, what do you expect from these credentials: Happy to. There wouldn't be a "nuclear explosion". There could be an explosion of built-up hydrogen, which again is bad. But even in the previous explosion, NO DAMAGE WAS FOUND AT THE REACTOR where the hydrogen exploded, much less the adjacent reactors in adjacent buildings. So I think it's safe to say, as a nuclear specialist, that all of this is misinformed grandstanding and leaps of imagination. Good find, Maris.
MSW from the University of Georgia is an expert on nuclear energy? Good to know Ms. Keeton still has career options. BRINGIN' IT BACK!!!! :dancewookiee: The jokes really take the edge off of shaping my tin foil hat and stocking up on MREs.
I guess you're still hiding under a ticket counter at the airport, where apparently there is no news broadcast, but even the Japanese government has admitted to 160 cases of radiation poisoning already, and news sources have it higher. 3 of the 4 reactors are now on red alert due to failing cooling systems.
Ah, Ms. Keeton. Haven't thought about her for awhile. Apparently, neither has anyone else - there is no new news on the web about her. barfo
So, Brian, if the di-lithium crystals can't take the heat, what happens? Explosion, or will we be sucked through a rip in the spacetime continuum? barfo
As usual, you're incorrect. 4056 people DIED, SO FAR. Also dead: Health of plant workers and local peopleIn the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months. Four hundred times more radioactive material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. The Japan reactor currently melting down is the largest in the world, about 100 times more powerful than Chernobyl was. 40,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Sounds like serious stuff to me. People will continue to die from the radiation fallout for decades to come, but as in most cases of cancer it will remain unknown what the source was. Several countries cannot avoid consuming contaminated water, milk, meat... Half of northern Eurpope is probably contaminated in some way from it. Sweden and Finland were hit the hardest, with Sweden actually being the country who discovered and reported the disaster 36 hours after it happened with Russia still concealing it from the world. from wiki Contamination from the Chernobyl accident was scattered irregularly depending on weather conditions. Reports from Soviet and Western scientists indicate that Belarus received about 60% of the contamination that fell on the former Soviet Union. However, the 2006 TORCH report stated that half of the volatile particles had landed outside Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. A large area in Russia south of Bryansk was also contaminated, as were parts of northwestern Ukraine. Studies in surrounding countries indicate that over one million people could have been affected by radiation.
Scroll down to this for more ways Chernobyl killed and maimed immeasurable numbers of people: Assessing the disaster's effects on human health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Got any more jokes about solar panel installers?
Why are you quoting wikipedia, while I quote the World Health Organization and the UN? And yes, more than 160 have died installing solar panels, which is more than got ANY RADIATION WHATSOEVER in Japan. Not "poisoning", b/c that total was a whopping 3. ANY RADIATION WHATSOEVER. In doing maintenance on the reactor, I frequently received doses of radiation. Fortunately for me, they're less than you get from living in the the atmosphere of Beautiful Central Oregon. Every year, the difference of radiation that you and I get from the sun is larger than the dose 157 of these people received. The joke is your grasping at straws written by social workers, while discounting experts.
Please defend this number. Below, your quote calls you a liar. Yes, because you're ignorant of nuclear engineering and have an axe to grind. First, you're mixing numbers. Chernobyl released 400x Hiroshima. There has been very little release of containment at the reactor in Japan. Second, a reactor can't blow up like a bomb. Third, the reactor "melting down" has not lost containment. Fourth, it's incapable of criticality, because of the boron and seawater injections. That fuel is ruined. It may have had a "potential" of 100x Chernobyl (I didn't see a link for that), but that fuel cannot go critical. Again, that's made up. Instead of reading wiki, read some source material and ask questions about things you don't understand. I really want to help eradicate public stupidity about the "invisible dangers." More people die in Ukraine of cancer than the rest of the world b/c of unfiltered cigarettes and heavy vodka drinking. 20% of the world dies from cancer as it is, because of that big radiation-maker known as The Sun and other issues.
Are you going to tell me why you think you're going to be dosed with 100 rads in one shot and get radiation poisoning? Or just not acknowledge that you're talking out of your hat, you needed some education and now you're a bit smarter about the world outside of your front porch?
It doesn't have to be a choice between hemlock or cyanide. Solar and wind, and hydroelectric are all far safer and less polluting than the incredibly destructive coal and nuclear plants. Woodburning is even safer and less polluting. Nuclear and coal are both old archaic "technologies" that have already been demonstrated to be dangerous, impractical, and extremely expensive when including the cost of environmental and health damage they have wrought upon the Earth.
Nuclear is old technology, compared to wind and solar? I disagree. Nuclear was invented b/c of its efficiency and engineered for its safety. It's the best we have. And ignorance is hurting our environment and health. And you're advocating that cutting down enough trees to feed the energy needs of 6B people is not damaging to the environment?
One more time. You are ignoring what has already been admitted by Japan and reported by many news outlets. Your UN and WHO "reports" continually dismiss their own estimates as unreliable and uneducated guesses at best. Did you even read them? wiki cites it's sources, which when checked for this article appear beyond repute. They also always present and weigh both sides. You are welcome to systematically dispute each article they cite if you think you're more expert than they. Have at 'em! References1.^ ICRIN Project (2011). International Chernobyl Portal chernobyl.info. http://chernobyl.info. Retrieved 2011. 2.^ International Atomic Energy Agency (2006). Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident and their remediation: Twenty years of experience. Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group ‘Environment’. Vienna: IAEA. pp. 180. ISBN 92–0–114705–8. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf. 3.^ "Fuel Unloaded from Chernobyl Reactor". Chernobyl.info. http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=&navID=534&lID=2. Retrieved 11 September 2010. 4.^ Kagarlitsky, Boris (1989). "Perestroika: The Dialectic of Change". In Mary Kaldor, Gerald Holden, Richard A. Falk. The New Detente: Rethinking East-West Relations. United Nations University Press. ISBN 0860919625. 5.^ Elisabeth Rosenthal (International Herald Tribune) (6 September 2005). "Experts Find Reduced Effects of Chernobyl". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/i...rnobyl.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin. Retrieved 11 September 2010. 6.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Medvedev, Zhores A. (1990). The Legacy of Chernobyl (paperback ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0393308143. 7.^ "DOE Fundamentals Handbook — Nuclear physics and reactor theory" (DOE-HDBK-1019/1-93 / Available to the public from the National Technical Information Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal., Springfield, VA 22161.). volume 1 of 2, module 1, page 61. United States Department of Energy. January 1996. http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/ns/techstds/standard/hdbk1019/h1019v1.pdf#page=85.5. Retrieved 3 June 2010. 8.^ "Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition (NUREG-0800)". United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. May 2010. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/. Retrieved 2 June 2010. 9.^ N.V.Karpan : 312-313 10.^ a b c d e f g h "IAEA Report INSAG-7 Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1 Safety Series, No.75-INSAG-7". Vienna: IAEA. 1991. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub913e_web.pdf. 11.^ A.S.Djatlov:30 12.^ "The official program of the test" (in Russian). http://rrc2.narod.ru/book/app7.html. 13.^ A.S.Djatlov:31 14.^ The accumulation of Xenon-135 in the core is burned out by neutrons: higher power settings burn the Xenon out more quickly. This results in shifting neutron flux/power within a graphite-moderated reactor such as the RBMK. 15.^ The information on accident at the Chernobyl NPP and its consequences, prepared for IAEA, Atomic Energy, v. 61, 1986, p. 308-320. 16.^ The RBMK is a boiling water reactor, so in-core boiling is normal at higher power levels. The RBMK design has a negative void coefficient above 700 MW. 17.^ N.V.Karpan:349 18.^ E. O. Adamov; Yu. M. Cherkashov, et al. (2006) (in Russian). Channel Nuclear Power Reactor RBMK (Hardcover ed.). Moscow: GUP NIKIET. ISBN 5-98706-018-4. http://accidont.ru/book.html. 19.^ Dyatlov, Anatoly (in Russian). Chernobyl. How did it happen?. http://rrc2.narod.ru/book/gl4.html. 20.^ "Chernobyl as it was - 2" (in Russian). http://www.reactors.narod.ru/pub/chern_2/chern_2.htm. 21.^ Davletbaev, R. I. (1995) (in Russian). Last shift Chernobyl. Ten years later. Inevitability or chance?. Moscow: Energoatomizdat. ISBN 5-283-03618-9. http://accidont.ru/Davlet.html. 22.^ a b Pakhomov, Sergey A.; Yuri V. Dubasov (16 December 2009). "Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident". Pure and Applied Geophysics (open access on Springerlink.com - © retained by authors) 167: 575. doi:10.1007/s00024-009-0029-9. 23.^ Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impact (Chapter 1). Nuclear Energy Agency. 2002 24.^ Checherov, K.P. (25–27 November 1998) (in Russian). Development of ideas about reasons and processes of emergency on the 4-th unit of Chernobyl NPP 26.04.1986. Slavutich, Ukraine: International conference "Shelter-98". 25.^ B. Medvedev (June 1989). "JPRS Report: Soviet Union Economic Affairs Chernobyl Notebook" (in English). Novy Mir. http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA335076. Retrieved 11 September 2010. 26.^ "Cross-sectional view of the RBMK-1000 main building". http://www.neimagazine.com/journals/Power/NEI/March_2006/attachments/RBMK1000Key.jpg. Retrieved 11 September 2010. 27.^ Medvedev, Grigori (1989). The Truth About Chernobyl (Hardcover ed.). VAAP. ISBN 2-226-04031-5. 28.^ National Geographic. (2004). Meltdown in Chernobyl. [Video]. 29.^ Shcherbak, Y. (1987). Chernobyl. 6. Yunost. (Quoted in Medvedev, Z. p. 44) 30.^ Adam Higginbotham (2006-03-26). "Adam Higginbotham: Chernobyl 20 years on | World news | The Observer". London: Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/26/nuclear.russia. Retrieved 2010-03-22. 31.^ Mil Mi-8 crash near Chernobyl. [Video]. 2006. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw-ik1U4Uvk. 32.^ Zeilig, Martin (August/September 1995). "Louis Slotin And 'The Invisible Killer'". The Beaver 75 (4): 20–27. http://www.mphpa.org/classic/FH/LA/Louis_Slotin_1.htm. Retrieved 2008-04-28. 33.^ "Веб публикация статей газеты". Swrailway.gov.ua. http://www.swrailway.gov.ua/rabslovo/?aid=62. Retrieved 2010-03-22. 34.^ "Методическая копилка" (in russian). Surkino.edurm.ru. http://surkino.edurm.ru/p4aa1.html. Retrieved 2010-03-22. 35.^ "Chernobyl haunts engineer who alerted world". CNN Interactive World News (Cable News Network, Inc.). 1996-04-26. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/chernobyl/230pm/index2.html. Retrieved 2008-04-28. 36.^ a b Bogatov, S.; A. Borovoi, A. Lagunenko, E. Pazukhin, V. Strizhov, V. Khvoshchinskii (2008-12-01). "Formation and spread of Chernobyl lavas". Radiochemistry 50 (6): 650–654. doi:10.1134/S1066362208050131. 37.^ Petrov, Yu.; Yu. Udalov, J. Subrt, S. Bakardjieva, P. Sazavsky, M. Kiselova, P. Selucky, P. Bezdicka, C. Jorneau, P. Piluso (2009-04-01). "Behavior of melts in the UO2-SiO2 system in the liquid-liquid phase separation region". Glass Physics and Chemistry 35 (2): 199–204. doi:10.1134/S1087659609020126. 38.^ Journeau, C.; E. Boccaccio, C. Jégou, P. Piluso, G. Cognet (2001). Flow and Solidification of Corium in the VULCANO facility. http://www.plinius.eu/home/liblocal/docs/Flow_Solidification_VULCANO.pdf. 39.^ Mevedev Z. (1990):58-59 40.^ Chernobyl: The End of the Nuclear Dream, 1986, p.178, by Nigel Hawkes et al., ISBN 0-330-29743-0 41.^ Sattonnay, G.; C. Ardois, C. Corbel, J. F. Lucchini, M. -F. Barthe, F. Garrido, D. Gosset (2001-01). "Alpha-radiolysis effects on UO2 alteration in water". Journal of Nuclear Materials 288 (1): 11–19. doi:10.1016/S0022-3115(00)00714-5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=176c731b3153a03f1c27bc6f948bd647. Retrieved 2009-08-21. 42.^ Clarens, F.; J. de Pablo, I. Diez-Perez, I. Casas, J. Gimenez, M. Rovira (2004-12-01). "Formation of Studtite during the Oxidative Dissolution of UO2 by Hydrogen Peroxide: A SFM Study". Environmental Science & Technology 38 (24): 6656–6661. doi:10.1021/es0492891. 43.^ Burakov, B. E.; E. E. Strykanova, E. B. Anderson (1997). "Secondary Uranium Minerals on the Surface of Chernobyl" Lava"". Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings. 465. pp. 1309–1312. 44.^ Burns, P. C; K. A Hughes (2003). "Studtite, (UO2)(O2)(H2O)2(H2O)2: The first structure of a peroxide mineral". American Mineralogist 88: 1165–1168. http://www.kubatko.com/studtitestructure.pdf. 45.^ The Social Impact of the Chernobyl Disaster, 1988, p166, by David R. Marples ISBN 0-333-48198-4 46.^ "Chernobyl's silent graveyards". BBC News Online. 2006-04-20. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/...res_chernobyl0s_silent_graveyards_/html/1.stm. 47.^ IAEA Report INSAG-1 (International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group). Summary Report on the Post-Accident Review on the Chernobyl Accident. Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-1.IAEA, Vienna, 1986. 48.^ a b c "Expert report to the IAEA on the Chernobyl accident" (in Belarusian). Atomic Energy. 1986. http://accidont.ru/expert.html. 49.^ "NEI Source Book: Fourth Edition (NEISB_3.3.A1)". Insc.anl.gov. http://www.insc.anl.gov/neisb/neisb4/NEISB_3.3.A1.html. Retrieved 2010-07-31. 50.^ "Ten years after Chernobyl : What do we really know?" IEAE, April 1996 51.^ "Tchernobyl, 20 ans après" (in French). RFI. 2006-04-24. http://www.rfi.fr/actufr/articles/076/article_43250.asp. Retrieved 2006-04-24. 52.^ "TORCH report executive summary" (PDF). European Greens and UK scientists Ian Fairlie PhD and David Sumner. April 2006. http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/118/118559.torch_executive_summary@en.pdf. Retrieved 2006-04-21. (page 3) 53.^ "Path and extension of the radioactive cloudl" (in French). IRSN. http://www.irsn.fr/FR/popup/Pages/tchernobyl_animation_nuage.aspx. Retrieved 2006-12-16. 54.^ IAEA Bulletin Autumn 1986PDF (0.38 MB) 55.^ Mould, Richard Francis (2000). Chernobyl Record: The Definitive History of the Chernobyl Catastrophe. CRC Press. p. 48. ISBN 0-750-306-70X. 56.^ Ympäristön Radioaktiivisuus Suomessa — 20 Vuotta TshernobylistaPDF (7.99 MB) 57.^ "Chernobyl Accident". World Nuclear Association. May 2008. http://world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html. Retrieved 18 June 2008. 58.^ Dederichs, H.; Pillath, J.; Heuel-Fabianek, B.; Hill, P.; Lennartz, R. (2009): Langzeitbeobachtung der Dosisbelastung der Bevölkerung in radioaktiv kontaminierten Gebieten Weißrusslands - Korma-Studie. Vol. 31, series "Energy & Environment" by Forschungszentrum Jülich 59.^ "'Radioactive boars' on loose in Germany". Agence France Presse. August 2010. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100807/tts-germany-hunting-food-chernobyl-509a08e.html. Retrieved 9 August 2010. 60.^ Chernobyl source term, atmospheric dispersion, and dose estimation, EnergyCitationsDatabase, 1 November 1989 61.^ a b OECD Papers Volume 3 Issue 1, OECD, 2003 62.^ Hallenbeck, William H (1994). Radiation Protection. CRC Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-873-719-964. "Reported thus far are 237 cases of acute radiation sickness and 31 deaths." 63.^ Mould 2000, p. 29. "The number of deaths in the first three months were 31[.]" 64.^ a b c d Chernobyl: Catastrophe and Consequences, Springer, Berlin ISBN 3-540-23866-2 65.^ a b Kryshev, I.I., Radioactive contamination of aquatic ecosystems following the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 1995. 27: p. 207-219 66.^ EURATOM Council Regulations No. 3958/87, No. 994/89, No. 2218/89, No. 770/90 67.^ Fleishman, D.G., et al., Cs-137 in fish of some lakes and rivers of the Bryansk region and North-West Russia in 1990–1992. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 1994. 24: p. 145-158 68.^ a b "Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident and their remediation"PDF IAEA, Vienna 69.^ Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation, by Stefen Mulvey, BBC News 70.^ a b The International Chernobyl Project Technical Report, IAEA, Vienna, 1991 71.^ "Black Fungus Found in Chernobyl Eats Harmful Radiation". 72.^ "CRDP: Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme (United Nations Development Programme)". Undp.org.ua. http://www.undp.org.ua/?page=projects&projects=14. Retrieved 2010-07-31. 73.^ "UNSCEAR assessment of the Chernobyl accident". Unscear.org. http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html. Retrieved 2010-07-31. 74.^ "IAEA Report". In Focus: Chernobyl. Archived from the original on 2007-12-17. http://web.archive.org/web/20071217112720/http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/index.shtml. Retrieved 2006-03-29. 75.^ a b "UNSCEAR — Chernobyl health effects". Unscear.org. http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html#Health. Retrieved 2010-07-31. 76.^ a b "Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socia-Economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine" (PDF). http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf. Retrieved 2010-07-31. 77.^ Rosenthal, Elisabeth. (6 September 2005) Experts find reduced effects of Chernobyl. nytimes.com. Retrieved 14-02-08. 78.^ "Thyroid Cancer". Genzyme.ca. http://www.genzyme.ca/thera/ty/ca_en_p_tp_thera-ty.asp. Retrieved 2010-07-31. 79.^ "Chernobyl Forum summaries". Ns.iaea.org. http://www-ns.iaea.org/meetings/rw-summaries/chernobyl_forum.htm. Retrieved 2010-07-31. 80.^ International Atomic Energy Agency. What's the situation at Chernobyl? iaea.org Retrieved 2008-02-14. 81.^ International Atomic Energy Agency.Chernobyl's living legacy iaee.org Retrieved 14-02-08. 82.^ "Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine". The Chernobyl Forum: 2003–2005. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf. Retrieved 11 September 2010. 83.^ "Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated". Greenpeace. 18 April 2006. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406. Retrieved 15 December 2008. 84.^ "20 years after Chernobyl — The ongoing health effects". IPPNW. April 2006. http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/research.html. Retrieved 24 April 2006. 85.^ Kasperson, Roger E.; Stallen, Pieter Jan M. (1991). Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives. Berlin: Springer Science and Media. pp. 160–162. ISBN 0792306015. 86.^ "Interview: Miyazaki on On Your Mark // Hayao Miyazaki Web". Nausicaa.net. http://nausicaa.net/miyazaki/interviews/m_on_oym.html. Retrieved 2010-07-31. 87.^ "Processing the Dark: Heavy Water – A Film for Chernobyl | Movie Mail UK". Moviemail-online.co.uk. http://www.moviemail-online.co.uk/scripts/article.pl?articleID=308. Retrieved 2010-07-31. 88.^ "Blog". http://www.heavy-water.co.uk/. Retrieved 11 September 2010. 89.^ "Heavy Water: a film for Chernobyl". Atomictv.com. 1986-04-26. http://www.atomictv.com/Hwater.html. Retrieved 2010-07-31. We'd be better off if it could blow up like a bomb, because then it would be Japan's problem. Instead it just spews radiation, which spreads around the world via land and sea. It's a bomb that cannot be contained to any specific area, nor prevented from spreading. Insidious.
