Chernobyl - Disaster or Myth?

williamgrogan

The World Health Organisation has said that less than 40 people died in total as a result of the Chernobyl accident. They state that other than an increase in Thyroid disease, which killed one person, there has been no other negative health effect of the accident.

Most people believe that thousands even 10’s of thousands of people died and many were born deformed. There is no evidence of this.

davros

This was news to me, so I've dug up a reference:

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radition (UNSCEAR). They don't seem to have found evidence for an increased incidence of genetic abnormalities. They qualify the research a little by saying that data gathering was not always under ideal conditions but the finding is consistent with research on Japanese atomic bomb survivors and their decendants.

Very interesting!

Myksyk

All very interesting. Must look into this a little more. Have a friend heavily involved in the Chernobyl thing.

Typedef

I suppose it's contingent on what you mean by 'death'.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ChernyThyrd.html

According to many sources, one of which is linked above and quotes a presumably not totally disreputable source, thyroid cancer in children exposed to ionised radiation from the Chernobyl disaster (or incident) is many, many times higher then normal.

Sure 40 people died as a direct result of expose to radiation, but, many more are probably going to die (or have died) as a result of cancer 'arising' from Chernobyl.

Stating that doesn't offset the fact that "According to the UN report", Children from Chernobyl are twice as likely to have genetic mutations as those from a similar control group from the UK. (page 3 - chernobylherd.pdf UN).

Ergo, between thyroid cancer and genetic mutation, many more people then 40 have died because of the Chernobyl incident.

Some interesting reading though.

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/411/4067.html

I suppose it comes down to which set of statistics one chooses to believe. It is a proven fact that exposure to radiation will increase the likelyhood one has of contracting certain forms of cancer, ergo, to believe as the above linked article claims that

In the 1991, 'The International Chernobyl Project: An Overview: Assessment of Radiological Consequences and Evaluation of Protective Measures', published by the IAEA they reported "No abnormalities in either thyroid stimulating hormone of thyroid hormone were found in children examined. No statistically significant difference was found between surveyed contaminated and surveyed control settlements for any age group".

is patently false, on any quasi-intelligent examination of the proven consequences of radiation exposure.

From what I can tell, one set of scientists claims that the radiation damage to children was negligable, whilst another claims the damage was significant and has lasting, ongoing carcenogenic consequences.

I'd like to remain relatively objective on this one, but, from where I sit, it defys common sense to claim that an increase in cancer (an d thus eventually death) due to Chernobyl radiation expose is untrue.

Syth

Funny the way on the Skeptics forum, a forum devoted to rationality, trys to find the answer based on whether the reader 'believes' something happened...

davros

Originally posted by Syth
Funny the way on the Skeptics forum, a forum devoted to rationality, trys to find the answer based on whether the reader 'believes' something happened...

I presumed the point of the question was not to find out what happened but to find out how many "skeptics" had automatically accepted that the Chernobyl accident caused a huge upswing in birth defects. It's just an illustration of how a well-known and plausible 'fact' can turn out to be highly questionable.

Capt'n Midnight

From "At work in the fields of the Bomb" (book) Treidici
there was a reference to findings from a conference between Canada , UK , USA back in 1947 they concluded there was no safe level of radiation ie. ANY increase in background radiation has negative health implications.

williamgrogan

Here is an interesting photo gallery/journey through the Chernobyl region.

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html

(needless to say I don't agree with everything said.)

neuro-praxis

Well, what I'm now wondering is how the hell all those deformed children got to be in those orphanges.

And all those friends of mine who have spent months working in the orphanages...and who have taken years off their lives from the toxic gases in the air and the radiation...

I guess it's all just one big joke!

My goodness, you have no idea what skepticism means.

davros

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
I guess it's all just one big joke!

My goodness, you have no idea what skepticism means.

I think you missed the point by a mile. No one has suggested these institutions full of deformed children do not exist. Just that their deformities are not caused by the Chernobyl accident.

Such children exist in every country. In Belarus, it is convenient to label them victims of a nuclear accident because a lot of foreign relief is provided for that purpose. For me, the reason doesn't really matter: Belarus is a desperately poor country that obviously needs our help. We should be able to provide that help without tagging Chernobyl with the blame, unnecessarily.

neuro-praxis

I am aghast, literally.

Perhaps I should steer clear of this forum if this is what skepticism is passing for around here.

williamgrogan

Don't forget to take your Jelly Baby picture with you.

williamgrogan

Belarus is a desperately poor country that obviously needs our help

There certainly is a moral dilemma concerning Chernobyl fund raising activities.

Do you point out that there are no health problems related to the accident worth taking about and deprive the poor people there of donations that they undoubtedly need?

One downside however, is that partly because of the hype surrounding Chernobyl the NP Industry has been virtually shut down (except for France, Japan and a few other countries.) A consequence of this is that more fossil fuel is being burnt and that leads to Global Warming. In fact there is more radioactivity liberated into the environment by burning coal then there is producing the same amount of energy from NP.

Pat Kenny is a big fan of the whole Chernobyl was-a-massive-disaster myth and I remember he interviewed a cancer research doctor who happened to point out in passing that Belarus has one of the lowest cancer rates in Europe. Pat was surprised and pressed him on this but the doctor confirmed it. I sent him the WHO report years ago but he never replied to me.

The amazing thing is that evidence from the dropping of two nuclear bombs and Chernobyl is that while massive doses of radiation can kill you within a couple of weeks, if you survive longer than that you go on to live a more or less normal life span.

There is no evidence of any increase in cancer, with the exception of Thyroid disease (about 1,800 cases, one of which died) or birth defects from Chernobyl. The Thyroid problem, which is an unfortunate by product of a link between Radioactive Caesium and Iodine and the Thyroid’s need for Iodine, would have been avoidable if the Iodine tablets that the authorities had stored for this very purpose were distributed to the children. But the communist authorities tried to keep the accident a secret and never distributed the tablets or evacuated the children fast enough.

This obviously surprises Neuro-praxis but it is challenging this type of unfounded belief or myth that Skepticism is all about. The babies with the “growths” that were paraded on the TV were just about the same level of evidence that all CAM types parade – anecdotal. As far as I know there isn’t a single case of childhood deformity that can be linked to the accident.

If you read the Chernobyl fund raising web sites (which may exhibit a cult of the founder – 3 pictures of the founder on one home page) you see many statements that are obviously rubbish, “holidays provide respite to the children during the most dangerous time of the year for them to be in Belarus and Western Russia where the intense heat contributes to the spread of radioactive materials”, or this, “"For each child taken to Ireland they are "returned" two years of life”. Many of the other statements while carefully constructed and accurate actually mean very little. The poetry and paintings are nice though. The total raised by the Chernobyl Children’s Project amounts to 50 cent per head of population for Belarus per year.

Is there even such a thing as Chernobyl Heart, other than a Hollywood movie award winner?

In my opinion Chernobyl was a failure, not of Science or Engineering but politics, Totalitarian Communism.

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Don't forget to take your Jelly Baby picture with you.

Restrain yourself, wg. If you don't want to see images, turn them off in your options.

We don't want neuro-praxis to leave the forum. This thread has so far lacked someone who can provide evidence that genetic deformity is linked to the Chernobyl accident. Give n-p some space.

aphex™

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
I am aghast, literally.

Nobidy is denying there are a alot of sick kids over there, but SOME (atleast) may be sick for other reasons. For example, around chernobyl there were a few towns that weren't on the map, all the graves in the graveyard all have the same surname. 'That sort of thing' on such a scale, the whole (pretty small) town at it, is going to create problems.

You should all read this website , a photograph tour of the affected area. The town thing i mentioned is in there somewhere, i cant be bothered to find the page for you.

Anyway i think the WTO meant 40 people died right as the accident happened. It took 10 days for info to get out to people (soviet secrecy). Its all in that site i mentioned earlier.

williamgrogan

That link to Elena’s picture tour is to the same one as I posted a few posts back. The point about the graveyard where they all have the same surname is VERY interesting. I read it but the implications never dawned on me.

A major cause of deformity is in-breeding. “I couldn't find this village on my map, but the town cemetery tells the tale from the early 1800's, until 1986, all of the people who lived in this village were Smirnovs”. One of the realities of communism was that the movement of people was restricted. You needed a pass to leave an area. Maybe as a consequence of communism less people moved around the place so more in-breeding took place? Was Chernobyl a closed town?

There are a number of other interesting thoughts that come to mind after reading this log of Elena’s.

1/ Elena says 400 are left from 3,500 who stayed but that might be totally without any implication other than a large percentage of old people will die over a 20 year period. If say the majority of those that stayed were over 65, and I strongly suspect they were, with an average age of say 72 then after 20 years 85% might be dead of natural causes. Life expectancy in Russia is very low, I think about 52 for men partly because of the fact that the majority of Russian’s smoke.

2/ Some of the images of dolls that look burnt evoke sympathy but they shouldn’t, they are not burnt just discarded.

3/ One of the main images from the tour is the May Day posters and the pictures of the election house where free drink was supplied to encourage the locals to vote for the one and only candidate – no VVAT required here.

Another “statistic” bandied about by those that promote the Chernobyl Myth is that thousands of those involved in the cleanup have died. The reasons are the same as in point 1 above. The Russians used (I think) 400,000 men to do the clean up. Each man only worked in the plant for a few hours in total and then went home. Over the following 15 years tens of thousands of them died BUT the percentage of them that died was exactly what was expected of any similar cross section of Russian society. There were no extra deaths due to radiation.

PS

37 died over the two weeks from the start of the accident of either physical causes (two I think were blown up in the explosion) or high doses of radiation. There are no other attributable deaths other than one child who died of Thyroid cancer who probably got it from ingesting radioactive Caesium. As I said he wouldn’t have died if they had given out the Iodine tablets.

PPS

That tour of Elena's has 1.2 million hits.

neuro-praxis

The title of this thread even is sickening. Disaster or myth?!

The "mythical" compounds released into the atmosphere by the Chernobyl "disaster":

Plutonium is the most toxic substance man has ever produced, and it does not exist in nature. The body treats it as iron, due to the chemical similarity. It gets distributed by the blood system to feed growing cells. It can cause a variety of cancers and blood disorders.

Caesium 137 is mistaken by the body as potassium, which is needed by every living cell. It then concentrates in the muscles.

Iodine 131 is absorbed by the thyroid gland, which cannot determine whether it is natural or radioactive iodine. The thyroid gland makes important hormones to help the body function. Iodine 131 causes cancer and other disorders in the thyroid gland.

Strontium 90 – The body is fooled into accepting this element as calcium. It gets distributed throughout the bone structure and can cause leukaemia and a number of cancers, along with numerous other health problems.

Taken from http://www.chernobyl-ireland.com/aboutchernobyl/medicalimpact.asp

I have read what the following comprehensive reports have to say, too, however:

http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c05.html

http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/health.html

And consequently read the following reports:

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/451/4457.html

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/452/4467.html

And to give an idea of the kind of research that has been necessarily carried out (and its costs) in order to discover why there are so many problems in the areas surrounding Chernobyl:

http://www.un.org/ha/chernobyl/docs/health.pdf


Any findings that suggest that there is no link between deformity and illness to radiation I find quite difficult to swallow.

The reality remains that there are an enormous amount of cancerous and deformed children in the affected regions. Just because a link has not been located does not mean that a link does not exist.

The suggestion that their deformity is caused by inbreeding is not only an insult to their nations, but so far from skepticism that it's closer to grasping at straws.

It if fine and dandy to sit in a forum discussing how only 28 people have died (hello? The after-effects and later deaths count also, no?) because of a nuclear explosion in Europe...meanwhile, these deformed children sit coincidentally in the affected areas effectively rotting away.

William Grogan, you have no notion of what skepticism as a philosophy is. It is not proposing a controversial topic and asking for opinions on it...and then pulling arguments quite literally from the air to support one side. Issues like these are not even considered by philosophical skeptics. They are concerned with issues such as truth, being, cause and effect, etc.

Skepticism in and of itself as a philosophy cannot work, anyway, it its assertion that we can never be certain of our knowledge is an assertion of a certain truth. It is like relativism. It goes around in circles.

Read some Hume. If anyone was a true skeptic, he was.

GuanYin

While I disagree with neuro-praxis "unique" style of getting her point across, she actually has one or two valid points.

Firstly, befor eyou go anywhere, WHO reports are not gospel. The most skepticism I experience each year is when the latest WHO report lands on my desk. They run a ship so dis-jointed that an Irish government looks professional along side them. (if anyone wants any evidence of this, go look at their 720 degree turn on used needle contributions to HIV in Africa, where they surpressed the evidence because they felt it would damage the "unsafe sex" campaign they were trying to promote).

Secondly reporting in these countries is very difficult and many epidemiology survey teams have noted and remarked on this. This makes accurate reporting very difficult and not always conclusive.

The biggest fallout to the chernobyl disaster was the damage to the surrounding infrastructure in terms of resources and there is no doubt that it is this that has most contributed to the poor images and illnesses in the surrounding areas. Such a disaster took away the ability of many of these areas to support themselves and set the development back decades while disturbing the ecological balance in favour of pest and disease. These fall outs can have repurcussions to the general maintenance and health of a population.

Radioactive substances contaminating the surrounding food and water resources *ARE* a health risk and leukaemia is probably the greatest risk followed be several relatively rare cancer-linked blood disorders. Cancer is generally a western disease, and while the link of cancer to food additives and prervatives is unproven (although implicated) poorly developed countries have a lower cancer rate than developed countries.

However, cancer comes in many forms and a better question to ask is what are the incidences of certain cancers, specifically those associated with radioactive poisoning. In these cases you will find the chernobyl affected areas rank quite highly, while ranking low on the overall cancer scale. Statistics can lie unless you look at them logically and scientifically, which WG, you haven't.

What chernobyl has done, 1)is decrease the standard of living of the surrounding area, 2)contaminated many resources and 3)increaced incidences of radioactive poisoning related disease.

Even if you discount point 3 and are skeptical about point 2, point one is sufficiently strong enough to warrent the aide to these people, who had these conditons imposed upon them

williamgrogan

My point in raising this is that I have found over the years that most people think that the Chernobyl accident killed a far higher number of people than it actually did. I think this is partly to blame on the newspapers that ran headlines weeks after the accident saying that thousands had died within days of the accident. I think the Irish Times had 2,000 dead within a week (I am going from memory here). In fact it killed less than the collapse of either of two oil platforms, one in the North Sea (that killed about 120) and one near China (100+) or less than the number that died when a tanker of petrol crashed some years ago in Spain. Every year 2,000 coal miners die mining coal and the average life expectancy of a coal miner is probably 10-15 years less than other workers. I would guess that every year in Belarus about 10,000+ people die from smoking.

Also, the anti-Nuclear movement had a field day and has used the Chernobyl accident to push its anti nuclear agenda whereas if anything the accident shows that even after probably the worst possible NP accident few people died, far less than Bhopal for example.

I am and have always been in favour of Nuclear Power and now more than ever it should be reconsidered for Ireland. We should build a number of reactors in conjunction with the French and dramatically cut down on the importation and burning of fossil fuels. This will give us a stabilised future energy supply and solve our Kyoto Agreement pollution targets.

I might add that the founder of Greenpeace now supports NP.

To do this we must tackle the Chernobyl Myth because as long as the public at large believe that 10’s or 100’s of thousands of people were born deformed or died as a consequence of a nuclear accident they are unlikely to support NP.

If no one else bothers I will reply in detail to your points later.

BTW, when you stick your head above the parapet and announce that the emperor has no clothes you unfortunately have to accept abuse, so I assure you the fact that you referred to my opening comment as “sickening” does not surprise or bother me, it goes with the territory. I have had far worse abuse hurled at me face to face by the often extremely aggressive anti-Nuclear brigade.

Chernobyl was an economic disaster for Belarus, although certainly no where near as big a disaster as 70 years of communism, and certainly a disaster for the Communists and many have said that it helped bring about the eventual collapse of communism. It was not a disaster from the viewpoint of the number of deaths or diseases it caused.

GuanYin

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
William Grogan, you have no notion of what skepticism as a philosophy is.

So you know WG well then?

That said, you are pretty much the same type of poster in manner and attitude. You just sit on the other side of the fence.

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
And all those friends of mine who have spent months working in the orphanages...and who have taken years off their lives from the toxic gases in the air and the radiation...

How do you know this exactly? I'm unaware of any scientific method os assessing these claims. Could you link something?

The gases you would be referring to would only occur at flashpoints where certain chemical compounds were already present. Its unlikely aide workers would be at such sites. The accumulative action of the radioactive compound syou refer to would make it HIGHLY unlikely to affect any health adult exposed for a mater of months. Children and the elderly would be high risks along with anyone exposed over many years but not for mere months.

Don't get me wrong, I think WG is well off teh mark and you are hovering quite close to it, but my making emotive and inaccurate arguments like this, you are pretty much proving his point. You're probably better off sticking to the facts.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
In fact it killed less than the collapse of either of two oil platforms, one in the North Sea (that killed about 120) and one near China (100+) or less than the number that died when a tanker of petrol crashed some years ago in Spain. Every year 2,000 coal miners die mining coal and the average life expectancy of a coal miner is probably 10-15 years less than other workers. I would guess that every year in Belarus about 10,000+ people die from smoking.

I'm confused WG, how many deaths need to have occured before its worthy of note as a disaster? I'm unaware of this particular classification system? Whatis it? 100? 1000? 25,000?

So what if the papers sensationalised the story? they do it all the time, as you well know. It doesn't make the los of life any less unacceptable. Many people mess about with statistics and propose phallacies as facts, yourself included.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Also, the anti-Nuclear movement had a field day and has used the Chernobyl accident to push its anti nuclear agenda whereas if anything the accident shows that even after probably the worst possible NP accident few people died, far less than Bhopal for example.

Right! :rolleyes: perhaps they are just unhappy with the ability to maintain safety and to regulate the power of such reactors. The potential for destruction would be alot greater in Ireland by the way, considering or infrastructure and geographical limitations. Personally I think that nuclear power could be a very great contributer to our future (or even lack there of) especially when fossil resources run out. But I don't quite think I'd be happy with one in Ireland. At least not at the moment anyway.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
To do this we must tackle the Chernobyl Myth because as long as the public at large believe that 10’s or 100’s of thousands of people were born deformed or died as a consequence of a nuclear accident they are unlikely to support NP.

Again with the numbers. I would rat ethe amount of people directly afected by the disaster and fallout to be high enough to warrent concern. We still aren't sure what implications the radioactivity will have on the future generations. Sterility and infertility are major risks as is the risk of second generation hereditary mutations. Radioactivity tends to be a long term killer, so the mutated children will probably be those who have lived a long time in exposed areas. Have a read up on the subject before you debunk it.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
If no one else bothers I will reply in detail to your points later.

Oh great! More googled propaganda masquerading as fact! Its funny how I took some keywords from your arguments in certain posts and googled them and within the first few hits I got practically your entire argument structure!:dunno:

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Chernobyl was an economic disaster for Belarus, although certainly no where near as big a disaster as 70 years of communism, and certainly a disaster for the Communists and many have said that it helped bring about the eventual collapse of communism. It was not a disaster from the viewpoint of the number of deaths or diseases it caused.

Does it matter how big it was? I'd classify any unavoidable loss of human life as a disaster. Are the peoples live worth less because there were fewer? Does it make the potential danger less because there weren't more people in the blast radius? Your logic on this is a bit unclear to me.

Victor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The World Health Organisation has said that less than 40 people died in total as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

Odd for someone so assertive (or indeed aggressive?) in their viewpoint that you don't provide any link.

neuro-praxis

Hey Syke, maybe you could retain your dislike of me for this thread, eh?

GuanYin

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Hey Syke, maybe you could retain your dislike of me for this thread, eh?

Three points:

1) retain means "keep or maintain in place". you want me to keep disliking you on the thread?

2) To actually dislike you, I'd have to know you. I don't ergo I can't dislike you. I merely commented on your posting style.

3) I actually defended your point bar for once instance where you posted non factually.

so...ermmm.... maybe you should restrain your dislike of me for this thread :rolleyes:

neuro-praxis

Um...to retain also means to set aside, or to reserve.

I was suggesting that you could set aside your dislike of me.

But it's good to hear you don't dislike me. In the words of Ariel, that's another load off my mind.

And lastly, emotive responses have their place. I guess it wasn't here. The reality of the aftermath of Chernobyl have brushed quite closely with my life, and well, it's an emotive issue. I certainly have to defend my arguments but well, I don't have to defend myself.

GuanYin

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
But it's good to hear you don't dislike me. In the words of Ariel, that's another load off my mind.

Oh deary me. I couldn't possably dislike someone based on boards and I'm really quite surprised (and "hey" skeptical) you're in anyway upset by such a posability.
I think posabily your posting style is OTT, but hey, to each their own.

Don't be so defensive. I only had a go at you over the journal issue because I think you're wrong to keep the entry without letting me defend myself (which you are doing by slagging me off, deleting my comments and banning me). Thats off topic however.

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
And lastly, emotive responses have their place. I guess it wasn't here. The reality of the aftermath of Chernobyl have brushed quite closely with my life, and well, it's an emotive issue. I certainly have to defend my arguments but well, I don't have to defend myself.

If you can show me anywher eI had a go at you personally I'd be surprised. I onlypointed out that part of your post was exactly the sort of "myth" WG was posting about. I laid into WG's opinion and I doubt he'll be too bothered (its never bothere dhim before )

neuro-praxis

I think your irony meter is broken. This has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Do carry on. I've made my points, I'm satisfied enough.

GuanYin

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
I think your irony meter is broken. This has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

And here was me thinking we had a kodak moment!

williamgrogan

I'm confused WG, how many deaths need to have occured before its worthy of note as a disaster?

I wouldn’t refer to a car crash that killed say a family of 5 as a disaster. To the family it is but not to the public at large. At the other end of the scale an earthquake such as the one recently in Iran that killed 50,000 was a disaster. An accident that kills a coal miner is not a disaster and neither are the other 1,999 accidents per year that kill coal miners. So, 2,000 dead coal miners is not a disaster. I don’t think that say smoking is a disaster for Belarus although it probably kills 10,000 per year. So I don’t think the number of deaths is that relevant. If there was an accident in a factory that killed 37 people and gave one person terminal cancer I don’t think that would be a disaster. People coming back from Cheltenham often say that, “it was a disaster” when they had few winners.

I would hope this thread would not descend into nit picking about the exact meaning of words. That will get us nowhere.

My point is quite clear; the public believes that the deaths from Chernobyl were much greater than the evidence indicates and they do contribute to charities that claim to help those that are suffering from the effects of Chernobyl but who clearly are not. Is this not a scam then? To say, “well your money still goes to orphanages” is like the many arguments put forward with CAM treatments such as; “even if it doesn’t work, if it makes people feel better, is that not good?”, or “what about the placebo effect”, or “religion is a crutch that some people need so don’t knock it”. If the temperature on Earth is the same as that on Venus in a few hundreds years the 50 cent collected per year for the Belarusian’s wouldn’t matter too much.

In fact you could argue that because Chernobyl led to the downfall of communism that the long term effect was beneficial. Not that I am suggesting blowing up NP stations as a mechanism to defeat dictatorships. I have wondered that maybe the overall health of those living around the accident site might even improve due to the constant screening, it is now more likely that any cancers will be detected.

As far as I know there is no evidence of short or medium term cancer increases occurring in Belarus nor any deformities. So other than the 37 deaths there are only statistically insignificant ones. There is no doubt that other things humans do such as their eating habits and use of chemicals contribute to cancer and no one calls this a disaster. As far as I know the major contributor to radioactivity in the atmosphere was Nuclear Weapons testing.

Most of the anti-Chernobyl types are not even aware that a much bigger release of radioactivity occurred in Russia over many years from a `series of accidents and careless handling at a nuclear weapons facility than was released from Chernobyl. Yet no one talks about the effects of this “disaster”.

Any point about the health of those that cleaned up the site is that they were individually exposed to very little radiation. It is hard to believe that their health could have been adversely affected by it.

Sorry, Victor, Link to a WHO web site re the effects of the accident below. I do accept that googling for “Chernobyl” will throw up mostly “anti” sites. That’s to be expected, the same happens if you search for Homeopathy.

http://www.iaea.or.at/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eiaea%2Eorg%2FPublications%2FMagazines%2FBulletin%2FBull383%2Fgonzalez%2Ehtml&QueryZip=chernobyl&&viewTemplate=Iaea%2Fiaeacvw_smpl.hts&collection=IaeaSite

The IPHECA conclusions can be summarized as follows:

Psychosocial effects, believed to be unrelated to radiation exposure, resulted from the lack of information immediately after the accident, the stress and trauma of compulsory relocation to less contaminated areas, the breaking of social ties, and the fear that radiation exposure could cause health damage in the future.
A sharp increase in thyroid cancer was reported, especially among children living in the affected areas. By end-1994, 565 children aged 0-14 years were diagnosed as having thyroid cancer (333 in Belarus, 24 in the Russian Federation, 208 in Ukraine).
There was no significant increase in the incidence of leukaemia or other blood disorders.
Some evidence was found to suggest retarded mental development and deviations in behavioural and emotional reactions in a small number of children exposed to radiation in utero; however, the extent to which radiation might have contributed to such mental changes cannot be determined because of the absence of individual dosimetry data.
The types and distribution of oral diseases observed in the residents of "contaminated" areas were the same as those of the residents of "uncontaminated" areas.

http://www.iaea.or.at/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eiaea%2Eorg%2FPublications%2FMagazines%2FBulletin%2FBull383%2Fboxp6%2Ehtml&QueryZip=chernobyl&&viewTemplate=Iaea%2Fiaeacvw_smpl.hts&collection=IaeaSite



As regards Sykes predictable and usual attempt at throwing insults by referring to data gleaned from the web, I was of the same opinions re Chernobyl before the web was even in widespread use. In fact the IT published a letter of mine on the subject 15 or so years ago. Little of what I posted in this thread on this subject is new to me for many years other than the link to Elena’s picture tour. I did recently search Amazon for a book on Chernobyl but didn’t really see one I liked or was in print.

To answer neuro-praxis……..

It is interesting that you mention that the subject is emotive, it is as I know to my cost in many an argument.

Do only people who suspect they are wrong get emotional when arguing about these type of matters? Wait till I start a thread on Mother Theresa

Most of what you say is not terribly relevant to Chernobyl having deformed or killed thousands of people. Radiation exists naturally and we can handle it so simply having a more radioactive background is not necessarily dangerous. Moving from one part of Ireland to another can increase you annual dosages by several factors. Installing a Radon trap might stop you getting lung cancer but I never saw one for sale in B&Q.

I have now looked at you links (in fact this is what I was referring to when presumably Syke mis-understood my comment.) Your first link does not work, parts of it are missing.

The WISE people are anti-nuclear.

None of your links seems to show why you think that thousands have died. In fact many show the opposite.

When I see a sentence like this, “The conclusion of the IAEA that the death rate among liquidators is not higher than normal and its silence on the high incidence of diseases indicate a lack of appreciation for the work they did.” My italics. It puts me off the site.

An interesting point that was made about the 3 Mile Island accident was that the main damage to health was caused by psychological problems but that was caused by the scare mongers. In other words the people who preach that Chernobyl is poisoning the population of Belarus are probably contributing to these problems. A bit like Booths telling its customers that they are toxic.

I find this “quoted” table on the health effects on Belarusian children caused by the Chernobyl accident very hard to believe….

Disease increase in percent

disorder of nervous system and sensory organs: 43%
disorder of bone muscle und connective tissue system: 62%
illness of blood producing organs: 24%
diabetis 28%
congenital heart and circulatory diseases 25%

In my opinion Greenpeace is becoming more discredited every year by constantly exaggerating.

neuro-praxis

I never said thousands.

Edited to say: PS - I have tried to edit that link so that it works, but it is not displaying correctly in the post as it should. The post, when open in edited form, dsplays the url correctly, but for some reason, on this thread, it displays wrongly. Very confusing.

Try this: http://www.chernobyl-ireland.com/aboutchernobyl/medicalimpact.asp and if it doesn't work, just go to the http://www.chernobyl-ireland.com homepage yourself and track down the medical impact section.

GuanYin

ROFL

those are international atomic energy agency links!!

For the WHO report go

here

williamgrogan

There was a link there to the "International Conference: One Decade After Chernobyl" but it's broken.

Anyway the report is here, I checked.

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Programmes/Safety/Chernobyl/

luckat

I popped in because I was interested to see how a panel of sceptics (skeptics?) would rationally discuss a question normally treated with more emotion than logic.

Came to the wrong place, I see.

williamgrogan

Your post is a bit vague. Who is being emotional? The Skeptics or the non-Skeptic?

PaulP

neuro-praxis:

You gave a list of dangerous substances released by the accident. Unfortunately for you this does not prove anything. Everything is dangerous if it's is the wrong place or in the wrong concentration. Air in the bloodstream is fatal. Drink too much water and you die from hyponatraemia.

In the end whether exposure to plutonium etc is dangerous depends on how much plutonium etcix involved. It's all a matter of numbers.

Another matter of numbers is whether the general population in the area is suffering from ill-health because of the accident. And the numbers do not suggest this, as williamgrogan has pointed out.

GuanYin

Originally posted by PaulP
Another matter of numbers is whether the general population in the area is suffering from ill-health because of the accident. And the numbers do not suggest this, as williamgrogan has pointed out.

That is incorrect.

The numbers WG pointed out look at "cancer" in comparison to other countries and reports in the general area.

You are talking about an area with:
A) A lower unspecified cancer rate than western Europe.
An area with poor amenities in health reporting.

Leukemia and rare radiation associated cancers are much higher in the "chernobyl effected" areas than one would normally expect.

Radioactive posioning of resources has meant a rise in "general disease" in the surrounding area.

Birth defects and radioaction associated wouldn't be seen til 2nd or 3rd generation anyway so it is impossible to dismiss or discount this (and poor science in thecas eof anyone who does). Another issue which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere is sterility. I wonder has anyone looked as there could well be a rise in infertility and sterility in the areas.

williamgrogan

neuro-praxis saud, "I never said thousands".

Sorry but I understood that you agreed with (i.e. would say Yes to) the statement, "Do you believe that 1,000's died or were made deformed as a result of Chernobyl?"

How did you vote?

How many do you think died?

PaulP

Syke:

How about some before and after numbers to justify your claim that "Leukemia and rare radiation associated cancers are much higher in the "chernobyl effected" areas than one would normally expect." ?

And "Birth defects ... wouldn't be seen til 2nd or 3rd generation anyway" is not what you meant I hope.

GuanYin

Originally posted by PaulP
Syke:

How about some before and after numbers to justify your claim that "Leukemia and rare radiation associated cancers are much higher in the "chernobyl effected" areas than one would normally expect." ?

*sigh*

Source World Health Stat Q. 1996;49(3-4):209-12.
Scientific results obtained within the WHO International Programme on the Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident (IPHECA) have confirmed the increase of thyroid cancer cases in children who were exposed to radiation due to the accident in 1986.

AND

Lancet Oncol. 2002 May;3(5):269-79.
The Chernobyl nuclear accident on 26th April, 1986, led to a massive release of radionuclides into the environment. Although vast areas of Europe were affected by Chernobyl-related ionising radiation, the accident had the greatest impact in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation. Epidemiological studies that have investigated the link between the Chernobyl accident and cancer have largely focused on malignant diseases in children, specifically thyroid cancer and leukaemia. There is good evidence to suggest that rates of thyroid cancer in children from the countries that were formally part of the Soviet Union have risen as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident. The findings for childhood leukaemia are less conclusive. Rates for this disease do not seem to have been significantly affected by the Chernobyl-related ionising radiation, but there is a larger risk of infant leukaemia in contaminated areas of Europe.

Thyroid cancer is the biggest increase, my bad..... Leukemia has increased, but unfortunately several factors such as biased reporting have fusged the figures. While there is a rise, it cannot be shown to be significant (by biasd reporting i mean that the sub populations examined were not independantly selected).

My earlier WHO links shows the Thyroid increase as a 10-fold one.

Source World Health Stat Q. World Health Stat Q. 1996;49(3-4):209-12.
Analysis indicates that there has been an increased incidence of all cancers, with thyroid cancer accounting for most of that change. When cancer incidence data from Belarus are compared to data from the U.S., there is a higher incidence of thyroid cancer and a slightly higher incidence of Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in Belarus

These cancers have increased marginally, the main problem here was, from a scientific point of view (and this is touched on in a Nature review (Nature magazine (UK), April, 1996)) people went in with loaded ideas about what the would find (they expected walking mutants) it wasn't the case, there was a marginaly increase in all areas but not the level they were expecting.

The balance then became 'stating that Nuclear power isn't as risky as we once thought' Vs. 'Stating that Belarus has majorly effected'. In reality both statements are true.

Source Radiat Environ Biophys. 1998 Apr;37(1):53-5.
Petridou et al. have reported an increase in infant leukemia in Greek children born between 1/7/86 and 31/12/87 and have linked this increase to in utero radiation exposure due to the Chernobyl accident

This is a major point. The nature of radiation spead means that incidents won't belimitedto Belarus. While the Chernobyl-centred reporting focuses on the locality, many sub-studies on the surrounding areas have found associated incidents.

Source World Health Stat Q. 1996;49(3-4):209-12.
Accident recovery workers ("liquidators") are an especially high-risk group and need further medical follow-up.

This is one area that doesn't make the stats, because obviously the investigation is loaded against a population risk-analysis.

Bull Soc Sci Med Grand Duche Luxemb. 1996;133(2):41-5
Adults demonstrate a significant increase of morbidity due to these Hematological malignancies after the Chernobyl disaster..

These are those radiation related cancers I mentioned.

Originally posted by PaulP
And "Birth defects ... wouldn't be seen til 2nd or 3rd generation anyway" is not what you meant I hope.

My english let me down again perhaps.

I've already said this in another post but....

Alot of radiation related cancers are a result of cumulative exposure. They may not cause any significant biological damage without 10-15 years exposure at which case lung cancers and heart diseases increase along with some indications of increased susceptability to brain tumours. Now, these would only really be manifesting in the population now, or perhaps with the next generation, who may in fact have an increased incidence or infertility, sterility or birth defects among progeny. The time to really start looking at birth defects is over the next 30 years, as any major effects will most likely be seen in this next generation and the generation after.

williamgrogan

I don't have time to go into Syke's post in detail now, but in my opening comments on this thread I said .........

They state that other than an increase in Thyroid disease, which killed one person, there has been no other negative health effect of the accident.

So I accept this death as one of the <40 that died. Still not a disaster.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I don't have time to go into Syke's post in detail now, but in my opening comments on this thread I said .........


So I accept this death as one of the <40 that died. Still not a disaster.

Sorry but a disease doesn't have to kill to have a significant effect on the lifestyle of a people.

Apart from the financial drain on family, state and healthcare service in treatment you have quality of life effected for all those involved.

This cancer will most likely reduce the life expectancy of all involved. Effectively you are denying it is an issue because noone died. A rather biased way of looking at things and strangely for you, a rather emotive way at looking at things too, from a purely logistical point of view it would be better to have to deal with 500 deaths than treatment of 5000 thyroid-cancer sufferers who will die prematurely.

Just as a point of information

Radiat Environ Biophys. 2000 Mar;39(1):25-31
The thyroid cancer incidence among the birth cohort considered in Belarus and for a period starting from the cessation of the available observation data (1 January 1997) and extending to 50 years after the Chernobyl accident has been estimated to be about 15,000 cases

PaulP

Syke:

I still do not see any numbers to make a judgement. Stating a 10-fold increase is not good enough. If there were one case per million per annum, then going up to 10 per million per annum is not much and is well within statistical variation.

And as you said health reporting pre-Chernobyl was not good so how can we rely on any figures comparing before and after?


So on the basic question of whether many people were killed or had major health effects because of the accident, the verdict has to be that it is unproven. Which means that claims of major health effects are not to be believed.

And when a scientific paper uses the word 'significant' in relation to statistics, the authors are using in its technical meaning so it's good form to provide us with the numbers in question so we can see for ourselves.

GuanYin

Originally posted by PaulP
Syke:

I still do not see any numbers to make a judgement. Stating a 10-fold increase is not good enough. If there were one case per million per annum, then going up to 10 per million per annum is not much and is well within statistical variation.

And as you said health reporting pre-Chernobyl was not good so how can we rely on any figures comparing before and after?


So on the basic question of whether many people were killed or had major health effects because of the accident, the verdict has to be that it is unproven. Which means that claims of major health effects are not to be believed.

And when a scientific paper uses the word 'significant' in relation to statistics, the authors are using in its technical meaning so it's good form to provide us with the numbers in question so we can see for ourselves.

I think you are just playing at semantics now to try and defend a very weak position.

"significant" does not have to be a statistically related term, especially when medical doctors are publishing, basically having read the paper I take it to mean that although there is a rise the poor data mining cannot conclusively prove that the trend has altered since 1986. However, the effect Chernobyl has had on countries further away, is statistical and this is a surprising contrast to the findings in Belarus.

The concervative estimate for Thyroid cancer is 15,000 malignant cases to develop by approx 2030. Although other researchers have put that figure at 100,000.

I went for the conservative figure mainly due to epidemiological approach in that paper but also given the audience, which is a prime example of the reason reporting bias exists - people who already have a pre-existing conviction of what the results "should" be.

I understand the reason for the skeptical stance. But the facts are reported above from unbiased sources. To say Chernobyl hasn't had a significant effect (here's a scientist using the word "statistical") is being absolutely ignorant of all the research that has been reported. The disaster may not have been as drastic as the media led peolle to believe, but that is the media's fault and does not lessen the medical and socio-economic effects on the people in the Belarus region. The disaster may not have been as bad as we expected it might be, but that is really due to bias on our parts and a pre-conceived notion based on poor facts.

It was however, a disaster. I have WHO figures somewhere in hard copy and if I ever get around to finding them I'll give you exact numbers. Offhand I reckon the estimate is around 100,000 Chernobyl-related serious medical disorders reported with probably double that in non-serious (by which i mean things like stress, malnutrition etc.) cases.

The axe being grinded here is probably a valid one, but I think it went well past objectivity in making the point and into (as per usual in this forum) a fanatical polar stance of those who believe there are 3 armed mutants roaming thehills of Belarus.

You can be right and still accept the facts guys.

PaulP

Syke : your comment that '"significant" does not have to be a statistically related term, especially when medical doctors are publishing' just shows you do not know what you are talking about. Have a look at this reference. Any scientific paper looking at statistics has to use the technical meaning of the phrase "significant" when describing its results. And that applies even when the authors are medical doctors. They are still using and talking statistics. And so are you in your whole argument. If you are unfamiliar with statistics then you are waffling. Sorry to sound malicious but this whole debate is not about ill-helath but rates of ill-health: in other words statistics.

You wrote: "The concervative estimate for Thyroid cancer is 15,000 malignant cases to develop by approx 2030. Although other researchers have put that figure at 100,000.". Fascinating but totally un-illiminating. How many would have happened anyway? And these are only estimates. And they are wildly at variance with each other. In no way is this evidence of current helath problems caused by the accident. To the alleviation of which we are being asked to contribute.

GuanYin

Originally posted by PaulP
Syke : your comment that '"significant" does not have to be a statistically related term, especially when medical doctors are publishing' just shows you do not know what you are talking about. Have a look at this reference. Any scientific paper looking at statistics has to use the technical meaning of the phrase "significant" when describing its results. And that applies even when the authors are medical doctors. They are still using and talking statistics. And so are you in your whole argument. If you are unfamiliar with statistics then you are waffling. Sorry to sound malicious but this whole debate is not about ill-helath but rates of ill-health: in other words statistics.

You wrote: "The concervative estimate for Thyroid cancer is 15,000 malignant cases to develop by approx 2030. Although other researchers have put that figure at 100,000.". Fascinating but totally un-illiminating. How many would have happened anyway? And these are only estimates. And they are wildly at variance with each other. In no way is this evidence of current helath problems caused by the accident. To the alleviation of which we are being asked to contribute.

Paul I'm a medical researcher with a "significant" number of publications.
I know exactly what I am talking about. Medical Doctors publications do not tend to be as scientifically worded as pre-clinical researchers, mainly due to the type of scientific training they receive.

Its all nice giving fancy links to web sites but in practice and reality its not the same.
I'm well aware of statistical relevence in publications and statistics.

Of course, if it makes you feel better, we can stay away of the facts of teh situationand conceed to teh armchair experts in this forum?

williamgrogan

A small aside…..

Why is there money being collected for “orphanages”? I don’t think there are any orphanages as such in Ireland anymore. The world is chock full of couples who would do anything to adopt a baby or child. Would the various “Chernobyl” charities be better off getting the orphanages to shut down and the children fostered? Why are there so many children in orphanages in Belarus. Are we not being led to believe that it is to do with Chernobyl?

As far as I can see the Government of Belarus is little better than under communism. One charity suspended aid relief because the Belarus government was “taxing” it and took $300,000 from the charity’s account.

Here’s an interesting excerpt from http://going.imb.org/vim/main/testimonies/testimonies47.asp (it’s a religious charity site so suspect but it throws up an interesting point)

In Belarus we learned that the country - not larger than the state of Kansas - has at least 600 orphanages with 33,000 children listed as orphans. Most likely 90 percent are called "social orphans" where their family has literally thrown them away. Alcoholism is a major problem there with vodka so cheap and easy to buy. They are taught that as long as you have a bottle of vodka to drink, bread to eat, and a place to sleep, you have all that you need. These people are oppressed and enslaved. It is nothing for them to throw their children out - just so more money can be saved for more drink or worse yet, to buy a new sofa. There is no such thing as family values for these people.

Is this the reason there are so many orphanages? Nothing to do with Chernobyl at all.

If you solve the wrong problem you solve nothing!

Here’s another excerpt from a forum on adoption from Belarus..

http://forums.adoption.com/f158,1.html

I have not completed my adoption but have done a lot of research. What I have found is that the children are usually comparable in coloring to Russian children. They often have blond or brown hair and light eyes. So far I haven't heard of any adoptees showing signs of FAE/FAS. It is very much frowned upon in Belarus to drink while pregnant. I can't of course say it never happens, but people who have traveled and completed adoptions rave that the orphanages are wonderful and the caregivers are truly caring. While they want financially, they make the best with what they have, and there seems to be no neglect. (this is juct in the testimonies I have seen personally)

From the same forum….

We are just starting the dossier preparation, but research indicates that long term effects from Chernobyl are not a problem for children being born today. You may want to do a Internet search or check on some of the Yahoo Message boards re: adoption from Belarus. They have info. in their files about Chernobyl and health risks.

What does the following tell us?

There has been some discussion lately on the Yahoo group list in regards to Chernobyl and the effect it had on the children in Belarus. While you can get a lot of disturbing information by doing a search on the internet, I just wanted to assure those of you thinking about adopting from Belarus, but nervous because of Chernobyl, that so far none of the children that have been brought to the United States from Belarus have had any health issues associated with Chernobyl. If any of you have specific concerns, please feel free to bring them up and I will do my best to get you the answers!

All the above are from a board (using the same software as this one) that caters for those wanting to adopt children.

PS

I'm a bit curious as to how Syke's jibe at me, I'm now an "armchair expert" has anything to do with my point?

Paul's points were perfectly valid. How can you quote statistics that vary from 15,000 to 100,000. If the uncertainty is that high they are useless.

williamgrogan

Dear Genius,

Birth defects and radioaction associated wouldn't be seen til 2nd or 3rd generation anyway

I don’t accept this applies to Belarus without further evidence.

If this was true, then would those living for many generations in the West of Ireland in areas of high Radon concentrations not be expected to be spouting multiple arms and legs at a fantastic rate after 100’s of generations of accumulative damage? The radioactivity level varies by 10 to 15 times even within counties in Ireland.

Yours truly,

William Grogan

Armchair expert and Science Fan Boy

PaulP

If you know exactly what you are talking about then you have to know that the use of the word "significant" to describe the results of a scientific paper dealing in statistics can only mean "statistically significant". No other use of the word carries any scientific weight when talking about statistical results. But it's worse than that. Research of the type you quote is statistical. Therefore there is no other legitimate way of using the word "significant" in these papers. Its misuse is tantamount to fraud.

The statement "Medical Doctors publications do not tend to be as scientifically worded as pre-clinical researchers, mainly due to the type of scientific training they receive" gives the game away. A paper analysing statistics can only have results that talk about the "statistical significance" of the statistics.


You want us to accept the papers you quote as good science even as you make excuses as to why they are not up to the required scientific standard.

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Dear Genius

This discussion has been very interesting of late. Please leave the sarcasm out of it.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I'm a bit curious as to how Syke's jibe at me, I'm now an "armchair expert" has anything to do with my point?

Paul's points were perfectly valid. How can you quote statistics that vary from 15,000 to 100,000. If the uncertainty is that high they are useless.

How is it a jibe at you?

Its not always about you ya know

I think the point that I've been quoting peer reviewed scientific journals while you gave us the "Nuclear Promotions Board" (well the nuclear energy agency, but much the same) and a Yahoo group discussion pretty much is case in point mind you.


Well you see thats the problem with predicting the future William, you can't do it with certainty. The current figure stands at 5000-6000 cases.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan

I don’t accept this applies to Belarus without further evidence.

So what? It doesnt change anything?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
If this was true, then would those living for many generations in the West of Ireland in areas of high Radon concentrations not be expected to be spouting multiple arms and legs at a fantastic rate after 100’s of generations of accumulative damage? The radioactivity level varies by 10 to 15 times even within counties in Ireland.

2500 Irish homes have been identified as at a dangerous level Radon (200 Bq/m3 ) and it seems that 1/50 people exposed continuously will develop lung cancer, depending on the length and strength of exposure.

It seems too that smokers exposed at this level have a greater than average risk and those in non-smoking environments (non-passive) are lower than average at this level.

What makes you think that Radon has the same effect as ionisation radiation?

GuanYin

Originally posted by PaulP
If you know exactly what you are talking about then you have to know that the use of the word "significant" to describe the results of a scientific paper dealing in statistics can only mean "statistically significant". No other use of the word carries any scientific weight when talking about statistical results. But it's worse than that. Research of the type you quote is statistical. Therefore there is no other legitimate way of using the word "significant" in these papers. Its misuse is tantamount to fraud.

Bacause they didn't mantion numbers or figures in that passage and if they were to try publich a paper stating that they had a statistically significant result without showing the figures the reviewer would laugh them out of it and throw the paper back in their faces.

However, significant can also be used descriptively, and this is an acceptable (if slightly misleading) practice in the more clinical based journals that you will find medical doctors tend towards as opposed to pre-clinical research doctors (ie. PhD's) who tend to go for a more detailed, if verbose style of paper. (an example would be "Gut" which is very clinically orientated in its sources and American Journal of Gastroenterology which is very pre-clinical).

I've been reading, publishing in and reviewing peer-reviewed scientific journals for about 7 years now and I'm pretty au fait with the different types, styles and terminologies used.

For instance, I can say, "there were no significant muscular atrophy as a result of the treatment" in a clinical journal. There are no stats to back this up, its observational. It doesn't mean that there was no atrophy, but in comparison to another group or to an expected result it may not be significant. They also tend to use "negligable" in the same way.

Originally posted by PaulP
The statement "Medical Doctors publications do not tend to be as scientifically worded as pre-clinical researchers, mainly due to the type of scientific training they receive" gives the game away. A paper analysing statistics can only have results that talk about the "statistical significance" of the statistics.


You want us to accept the papers you quote as good science even as you make excuses as to why they are not up to the required scientific standard.

Oh dear oh dear. I just said the language used by medical and pre-clinical journals differs greatly. Mainly due to the education bias of the author and audience. They are peer reviewed journals. If you prefer to stick to websites (Skeptics ones at that which are inherently biased) as your informations sources, so be it, I'm only trying to give a balanced view.

I'm not disagreeing with the jist of the argument you are making (that the general publci overestimated the effect), but merely saying you are not taking the facts into account and as such are just as bad (by saying "there was no effect). I've noticed the "skeptics" here seem to paint everything as black/white or either/or. Its a very poor way to look at the world, scientifically.