Fortunately, Chernobyl health records are now available to the public. They show that people living in the radioactive traces fell ill from cancers, respiratory illness, anaemia, auto-immune disorders, birth defects, and fertility problems two to three times more frequently in the years after the accident than before. In a highly contaminated Belarusian town of Veprin, just six of 70 children in 1990 were characterised as “healthy”. The rest had one chronic disease or another. On average, the Veprin children had in their bodies 8,498 bq/kg of radioactive caesium (20 bq/kg is considered safe).
For decades, researchers have puzzled over strange clusters of thyroid cancer, leukaemia and birth defects among people living in Cumbria, which, like southern Belarus, is an overlooked hotspot of radioactivity from cold war decades of nuclear bomb production and nuclear power accidents.
Currently, policymakers are advocating a massive expansion of nuclear power as a way to combat climate change. Before we enter a new nuclear age, the declassified Chernobyl health records raise questions that have been left unanswered about the impact of chronic low doses of radioactivity on human health.
Errata. It is actually almost 1/3rd of the energy for SA is from renewables. You may want to adjust your post. The following info was already on the post. The solar page says 31.5% and the wind 27%, which is almost 60%. However, the solar page actually says 31.5% renewables and the wind page 27% wind. Thus, it’s almost one third. The good news is that there is an absolutely huge solar potential, as seen on the map at the post. The bad news is that this was a grievous math blunder and shows that it’s always important to double check everyone’s work, and that it’s bad to do numbers when tired. My apologies. On the solar energy page: “During 2012-13, South Australia produced 31.5% of the state’s total energy production from renewable energy.” https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/water-energy-and-environment/energy/energy-supply-and-sources/renewable-energy-sources/solar-energy/solar-energy-in-south-australia On the wind energy page: “The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) estimates that in 2012-13 approximately 27% of the state’s energy production came from wind power.” https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/water-energy-and-environment/energy/energy-supply-and-sources/renewable-energy-sources/wind-energy/wind-energy-in-sa
While the SA government web site says “31.5% of the state’s total energy production from renewable energy” and “27% of the state’s energy production came from wind power”. Actually it is saying production and not use. I found the original mistake wondering if they meant electricity or total energy, but in writing this I realised that this is production and not energy use. Australia and the USA could both be totally run off of solar and wind. The UK will have to be more creative and have mixed renewables.