Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Among any population, there's going to be a certain number of miscarriages, birth defects, leukemia, and early deaths. It's easy to blame the toxic waste dump because that intuitively makes sense, but without any hard data, it's hard to draw a scientific conclusion. Elevated background radiation simply doesn't cause that many additional cancer deaths.

I read this article today which does a decent job of estimating cancer deaths based on a certain amount of exposure: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044477240457758...

Some locations recorded doses as high as 22 rem (total exposure before evacuation). Afterward, the levels of radiation dropped quickly; the largest component came from iodine, and its level dropped by 50% every eight days.

How many cancers will such a dose trigger? To calculate an answer, assume that the entire population of that 2-rem-plus region, about 22,000 people, received the highest dose: 22 rem. (This obviously overestimates the danger.) The number of excess cancers expected is the dose (22 rem) multiplied by the population (22,000), divided by 2,500. This equals 194 excess cancers.



You may be right, but there will probably never be a scientific conclusion because who is going to fund an independent and rigorous scientific study? Would the government and mining companies risk their profits?

If you lived there and had seen the onset of serious health issues ever since the factory came to town, wouldn't the anecdotal evidence be enough to convince you of the cause? If I observe a zombie eating a person, and that person comes back from the dead to attack othres, I don't need to know if it's the bite that's responsible, I just need to stay away from zombies.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: