[chickenbig]

The linked to article makes a different claim

" The workers' compensation claims that have been recognized by labor authorities include six cases of workers who developed cancer or leukemia due to radiation exposure "

So compensation has been requested for cancers, of which one death has been reported.

I point to a Forbes opinion piece from a pro-nuclear person https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/09/06/no-the-ca... .

[Moldoteck]

In all cases no medical evaluation was done to prove the cancer was caused by radiation

[lostlogin]

Were you trying to reply to the parent? That’s more or less what I said.

[Moldoteck]

No, the reply is on point if you go to the link

[lostlogin]

Sorry, complete reading fail by me.

It’s a distant memory from my radiography training, but solid cancers generally take longer to appear post radiation exposure (compared to eg leukaemia), and that case seems early. The article claims that you can’t get lung cancer from a nuclear accident. I’m not sure why they say that, it seems a bold claim.

Whatever the case, they paid out the compensation.

There is no cancer that can be attributed to a particular radiation source. Population rates of cancer might change, but at an individual level, you can’t prove a thing.

From the perspective of the power plant, that’s lucky.

[Moldoteck]

It's not about being lucky. The dose was too low to make a measurable impact. And the effects can't happen this past as we have data about impact of heavy radiation after JP bombing.

So what we have is an industry with extremely low death rate impact that some countries put a stop on, like jp in the past or banned, like Germany, all while industries that caused more deaths like coal generation or even hydro are still used. And other branhces that do vastly more damage like smoking and alcohol are legalized. To me this is sad