0
storm1977

only 50 dead from Chernobyl: hype by activists

Recommended Posts

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ma06flynn


The April 26, 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the most catastrophic nuclear accident in history, was not so bad after all--or so claims a recent report produced by an international team of scientists convened by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The team, called the "Chernobyl Forum," included scientists and experts from eight U.N. agencies--including the World Health Organization (WHO), the IAEA, and the U.N. Development Program--as well as officials from Russia, Ukraine (where the accident occurred), and neighboring Belarus.

Released last September, the 450-page report, Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental, and Socio-Economic Impacts, claims that as of mid-2005, fewer than 50 people had died because of exposure to radiation from the accident, most of whom were emergency workers. Contrary to widespread fears that the eventual death toll would be tens of thousands, the report maintains the figure could be as low as 4,000. Emergency workers and nearby residents have not suffered from "decreased fertility," the report concludes; nor is there "any evidence of increases in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation exposure." And although the presence of radiocesium in milk, meat, and other foods "remains the most significant concern for internal human exposure . . . with the exception of a few areas, concentration levels fall within safe levels." Indeed, in the view of the report's authors, the worst casualties of Chernobyl have been largely self-inflicted: "People have developed a paralyzing fatalism because they think they are at much higher risk than they are, so that leads to things like drug and alcohol use, and unprotected sex and unemployment," said Fred A. Mettler, a radiologist who was the health effects team leader for the investigation, in a statement to the New York Times.

"The sum total of the Chernobyl Forum is a reassuring message," declared the WHO's Michael Repacholi in the report's summary--and the scant press attention given the report has largely echoed this mantra. (A New York Times editorial dismissed environmental groups that attacked the report for being "biased" toward the nuclear industry, pointing instead to the fact that the report reflected a consensus conclusion among several U.N. agencies and national governments.)

But according to other observers, while the report seems to demonstrate that Chernobyl's devastation is less dramatic than once thought, it can hardly be called "reassuring." They argue that the report provides little solace to those still suffering from the effects of the accident and fails to accurately portray its total impact. And they draw a sharp distinction between the actual report--which is composed of two draft studies, one on health consequences and another on the environment--and the report's summary and press release, which they argue minimize and contradict the report's findings.

Richard Garwin, an internationally renowned physicist and IBM fellow emeritus at the Thomas J. Watson Research Center, calls the report "deliberately misleading," arguing that it overlooks evidence that contradicts some of its conclusions. (The report prompted Garwin to respond with a pointed rebuttal, published by UPI on November 9, 2005 and available at the Garwin Archive on the web site of the Federation of American Scientists.) Garwin's criticism centers on what he sees as a glaring omission--the report's failure to cite the findings of a 1993 study produced by the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), which estimated that the worldwide "collective effective dose" from the Chernobyl accident was about 600,000 man-sieverts. He also refers to a report published last summer by the National Academy of Sciences on the effects of ionizing radiation, which concludes that each dose of whole-body radiation causes a lethal cancer at the rate of 0.04 cancer deaths per sievert of exposure. Taken together, these findings point to a much higher death rate than that publicized by the Forum. "Although it is impossible to identify these 24,000 among the many tens of millions of people who would die from similar cancers from natural causes over the same period," Garwin noted in his UPI op-ed, "those deaths are nevertheless a consequence of the radiation release."

Garwin, a nuclear power advocate, calls this omission a "terrible scandal," arguing that it lets the industry off the hook. The best way to minimize future accidents, he says, is to adhere to the principle of "polluter pays." But what the polluter is billed depends in large measure on what agencies like the IAEA report. "The nuclear industry has a good enough story to tell without ignoring these costs," contends Garwin. In his view, the cumulative benefits of nuclear power, to both society and the environment, outweigh even Chernobyl's consequences.

David Marples, a historian at the University of Alberta who has written several books about the Chernobyl disaster and has done extensive field research in the affected regions, also contests some of the Chernobyl Forum's figures. He finds the report consistent with earlier studies produced by the IAEA, which he says have attempted to minimize the health consequences of radiation exposure while highlighting other factors, like psychology, economics, and living standards.

One new feature, says Marples, is the long overdue acknowledgement that the accident caused an outbreak in thyroid cancers among people who were children at the time. According to the report's summary, there have been 4,000 such cases, which are often caused by drinking milk contaminated with radioactive iodine. While Marples commends the IAEA for finally recognizing this problem, he takes issue with the summary's claim that only nine deaths have resulted from these cases. He points to a 2003 study from Belarus that cites 19 deaths from thyroid cancer in that country alone. "Many of the experts I know in the region were not cited in this report, which raises some questions in my mind about the accuracy of its estimates," he says.

Another red flag for Marples was the report's findings regarding recovery operation workers (or so-called liquidators). The Forum cites a figure of about 600,000 "registered" liquidators but focuses on the 240,000 who took part in "major mitigation activities." According to the report, some 200,000 of these liquidators were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation--of whom an estimated 2,200 will eventually die from this exposure. Marples believes the number of liquidators exposed to dangerous levels of radiation is much higher. "There was no central registry to track these people, and we have no idea about the impact exposure had on their health," he says, but adds that the Chernobyl Forum's estimate "is belied by recently released Ukrainian KGB documents" that show widespread health problems among a large portion of the liquidators.

For Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner Jan Vande Putte, one major problem with the report is not the report itself, but its IAEA-drafted summary, which he says contradicts key findings of the Chernobyl Forum. Case in point is the figure of 4,000 total eventual deaths cited in the summary (and repeated by media outlets worldwide). According to Vande Putte, this figure is contradicted by the health report, which shows "that the death toll is closer to 9,000" when the population in low-contaminated areas in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation is also taken into account. In Vande Putte's view, the report is an amalgam of qualifications, reflecting gaps in knowledge and highlighting the uncertainty surrounding much of the analysis. This stands in stark contrast to the summary's list of definitive conclusions, which he chalks up to the IAEA's effort to "whitewash" history in a way that benefits the nuclear industry.

The Chernobyl Forum's Mettler concedes that some of the "spin" in the summary was misleading, saying that "the use of the word 'reassuring' was unfortunate." And, in comments he made to the Economist (September 5, 2005), Mettler acknowledged that the Chernobyl Forum was not able to examine all the potential effects of the radiation and focused on those it deemed most important. But he bristles at accusations of a whitewash, noting that "many of the people who worked on this report were definitely not pro-nuclear, and I can't believe they would see the report as downplaying the potential dangers of nuclear energy."

Regarding Garwin's assertion that the report underestimates the total eventual deaths by nearly 20,000, Mettler says that it is extraordinarily difficult to extrapolate total deaths worldwide from the sort of global exposure data used in the 1993 UNSCEAR study. The Forum, he contends, used the best scientific data it had on actual cases of exposed people to come up with its findings. "There is a big difference between looking at a person who got a particular dose and making large estimates about how many people could theoretically die globally because of the accident," he says.

For his part, Mettler believes that the real take-away message is not what the study says about Chernobyl, but "about what we must do when there is a major radiation release, for instance in a dirty bomb explosion." In the aftermath of the accident, "there was no timely information, authorities held back important information, there was not enough rapid medical attention, and people were evacuated who didn't need to be."

Len Ackland, the Bulletin's editor at the time of the accident and currently a journalism professor at the University of Colorado, also sees a larger--albeit bleaker--message in the report. Twenty years later, he observes, the prevailing problems at the time of the accident are still with us: "There is the intimate connection between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons proliferation, and we have yet to overcome the problem of the susceptibility of complex systems to human error. Chernobyl remains the symbol of these dark sides of nuclear power."

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Released last September, the 450-page report, Chernobyl's Legacy:
>Health, Environmental, and Socio-Economic Impacts, claims that as
>of mid-2005, fewer than 50 people had died because of exposure to
> radiation from the accident, most of whom were emergency workers.

Sounds like they are counting only the people who died within a few days of the accident due to ARS, and are assuming that no other deaths from thyroid cancer, long term radiation exposure etc count towards the death toll. I don't think that's a valid approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Thyroid cancer deaths were included... and were very few people. Thyroid cancer is very treatable. Few people die from this disease especially in an area where they were expecting an out break of it.

They are looking at long term Cancer, however, 20 yrs out, there are not the alarming number of people popping up with Cancer as they expect.

The paper from the WHO and IAEA say there could be as many as 4K deaths from long erm radiation cancer, that is if old age doesn't kill them first.

mean while, groups like Greenpeace make up fact such as over 200,000 have died.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Counting the number of casualties that can directly and irrefutably be attributed to the radiation is something entirely different from doing a statistical analysis on changes in mortality rates. It is simply two different questions that are being answered. I grow tired of reporters trying to misuse the discrepancy in numbers and accusing the parties of having hidden agendas.
HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just pick up a book called Voices from Chernobyl. Its basically the stories of the people who lived through it. It is very moving and somewhat frightening to read. The first story is of a widow of a fireman who was first on the scene. It tells how the wrinkles in the bed sheets would cut him and 14 days after the incident his skin/hair fell off and he was dead. Just crazy stuff. I did some searching and found the number 4 reactor on google earth:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=kiev&t=k&om=1&ll=51.38976,30.099358&spn=0.001476,0.00479

If you Zoom out and look to the northeast you can see the main town that was once host to 40,000 people. Zoom in and you can see just has deserted it really is. There are no cars, no people, no nothing, just over grown trees and bushes.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=kiev&t=k&om=1&ll=51.403115,30.061748&spn=0.005903,0.019162
_________________________________________
www.myspace.com/termvelocity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes I agree, the area is ravaged, however, over 300,000 people were moved from the areas surrounding Chernobyl so they wouldn't die.

Most of the people that died so far from the accident were workers and firemen responding to the "Fire" at the plant.

However, it should be noted that the initial exposure to the local area was NOT as catostrophic as it had been forecast to be. As a result, mass casualties from radiation have not yet occured 20 yrs since.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The paper from the WHO and IAEA say there could be as many as
>4K deaths from long erm radiation cancer . . .

I read the IAEA report, and their methodology seems pretty solid.

>groups like Greenpeace make up fact such as over 200,000 have died.

Maybe there's some small print at the bottom that says something like "not all deaths due to radiation exposure" or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you realize that produce farmed in large regions of the UK cannot be eaten decades later?

Quote


Elizabeth Cardis, International Agency for Research on Cancer: We have a report which came out a week ago which reviews trends over the whole of Europe. We found no increase in cancer that could be attributed to Chernobyl, except for the case of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions.



Hey it's only thyroid cancer....:S[:/]B|:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, but I am not sure I believe that claim....
What is the contamination from.... Why just certain area in England?

Based on air currents, that doesn't even seem to make sense..

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reference to produce in England affected by radiation I can find is due to a nuclear accident at an English Plant:

The Windscale fire

Main article: Windscale fire

In 1957, a fire at one of the twin Windscale reactors caused the world's worst nuclear accident until the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. (Both were later overshadowed by the Chernobyl accident in 1986.) An estimated 750 terabecquerels (TBq) (20,000 curies) of radioactive Iodine-131 were released, and milk and other produce from the surrounding farming areas had to be destroyed. For comparison, 250,000 terabecquerels (7 million curies) of Iodine-131 were released by Chernobyl, and only 0.55 terabecquerels (15 curies) of Iodine-131 by Three Mile Island.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>"Hey, only x number of people died needlessly..." sounds like a fairly ridiculous comment.

Not when you're comparing death tolls. Coal power kills about 30,000 people in the US a year. Two exceptionally dirty power plants in Massachusetts kill about 160 people a year by themselves. So "500 people died needlessly" is of course bad, but would be preferable to "30,000 people died needlessly."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The beat up the media gives for non-nuclear/radiation incidents as being of nuclear significance always amazes me...its almost like they relish in getting it wrong!

Mind you, the funniest one I've seen yet was "Explosion in a nuclear power plant near St. Petersburg". Now if you bothered to read the Swiss/German articles, the man was killed at a melting furncace near (ie- more than a kilometre from) the Sosnowji Bor plant.

Ah the joys of objective and factual reporting...:D
xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

tl;dr



Stop bitching about statistics and have a look at the bigger picture.

And if you all love nuclear power so much, we (that is Belgium) have some extra barrels with nuclear waste. since you're not a Muslim we'd be more than happy if you burried it in your garden. No worries...it'll take care of itself in 250000 years ;)

p.s. If your dick falls off after ten years, it won't kill you. And the radiation will have already nuked your balls by then so it's not like you'll need a dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm I'd like to know where that number comes from, because the World Health Organisation (WHO) were part of the group that published this.:S
xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0