Use an editor to spell check essay. Abstract "Growing concerns over climate change have highlighted the need to step up contribution of nuclear energy in the energy mix and to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels in the years to come.
This report concluded that for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are expected. This analysis will discuss main objections to the current WHO report and shows why it should not be considered a neutral scientific assessment of the actual health risks of the affected population, nor a reasonable basis for future decisions and recommendations.
The main point of criticism to this report has to be the fact that the health risk assessment is based on dose assessments, which are ambiguous, if not to say plain wrong.
The exposure of the population living in the 20km zone around the nuclear plant was omitted, even though this population may have been exposed to high levels of iodine before and during the chaotic evacuations. The quantity and selection of food samples used in the calculations of the internal radiation dose were shown to be inadequate and in contrast to samples published by the Japanese authorities.
No matter how expertly undertaken, a calculation of health risks can only be as exact as the assumptions that it is based on. An assessment that relies on data, whose reasonableness has to be questioned on the grounds of lacking neutrality, selective sampling, distortion and omission of relevant facts, cannot be accepted by the scientific community as a basis on which to make health recommendations.
Also, the report ignores the health risks for people outside of Fukushima. While radiation was spread to a large area of northeastern Japan, including the capital Tokyo, and polluted food, soil and waste were distributed beyond the borders of Fukushima prefecture, only the fourteen most affected residential areas Group 1 and 2 of the WHO report were considered for the total health risk assessment.
As a result of that, negating any measurable health effects for the population of the rest of Fukushima prefecture, Japan and the world.
In fact, the report makes the claim that outside the geographical areas most affected by radiation, even in locations within Fukushima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are expected.
From the Chernobyl disaster, however, that while the most affected populations were the ones living in the highly polluted fallout zones, a great number of people living in the less contaminated areas in the former Soviet Union, Europe and Asia Minor, were also affected, leading to increased incidences of morbidity and mortality.
As the health effects of low-dose radiation are not be predicted precisely in nature and as the generally accepted tool for calculating cancer risk is the linear non- threshold LNT model, the exposure of a small population with a high amount of radioactivity can have the similar results in absolute numbers of cancer cases, as the exposure of a large population with a relatively small amount of radioactivity.
While the effects by small amounts of low-dose radiation on large populations are generally more difficult to identify in epidemiologic studies, discounting them altogether disregards a large amount of cases in absolute numbers and can only be seen as an attempt to downplay the expected health effects of the nuclear disaster.
Moreover, continued radioactive emissions were not included in the assessment. The WHO report treats the nuclear catastrophe of Fukushima as a singular event and does not take into consideration continued emissions of radioactivity after the initial nuclear meltdowns in March As iodine has a half-life of 8 days, measurements this high, 90 days after the initial fallout on March 15, suggest additional contamination of the area with iodine at a later time.
The report also ignores the increased radiosensitivity of the unborn child. The authors of the report claim that the estimated dose levels of the population affected by the Fukushima disaster were too low to affect fetal development, and therefore excluded the possibility of miscarriages, increased perinatal mortality, congenital defects or cognitive impairments due to in 17 utero exposure.
The report also states that the radiosensitivity of a fetus was considered by the authors to be the same as for a one-year old child. In fact, the unborn child is the most sensitive form of human life: Furthermore, non-cancer diseases are not included in the health risk calculations.
Non-cancer health effects, such as cardiovascular diseases CVDinfertility or thyroid disease were not assessed quantitatively in the report. Furthermore, the possibility of such effects occurring as a result of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe was disregarded altogether.The Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Essay.
Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Pripyat a city of 49, will soon become a city of none. Chernobyl a city of 14, will soon become a city of none. The most devastating of these incidents was the core meltdown of reactor 4 at Chernobyl, better known as the Chernobyl disaster.
Published: chernobyl nuclear power plant in and audio tapes on 26 april Examples of damage-based theories of all time, nuclear disaster triggered the fukushima. In their ruthless argumentative essay fast food to help.
Chernobyl Disaster: Causes and Outcomes Chernobyl tragedy, which occurred in Ukraine on 26 April , is the worst nuclear accident in history and a sad lesson for humanity.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the causes of the catastrophe, identify the persons involved with it and define the aftermath of the nuclear fallout. Chernobyl Disaster Essay Examples.
12 total results. An Analysis of Press Activities During the Reporting Coverage of the Chernobyl Disaster in the Former Soviet Union. 2, words. 7 pages. A History of the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster in Ukraine. words. 1 page. We Will Write A Custom Essay Sample On The Chernobyl Disaster Essay FOR YOU For Only $/page.
order now. Control rods began to lower into the reactor chamber to slow down the out of control chain reaction, but failed to halt it. The reactor’s fuel began to dissipate and fall into the pool of cooling water. Nuclear Power Essay Sample. Disasters, Accidents & Risk An accident may cause a major disaster resulting in thousands of casualties and releasing high amounts of radiation into the environment, example: explosion of a reactor at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine and melting of the core of a reactor at Three-Mile Island in the United States.