The green movement has misled the world about the dangers of radiation.

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Exactly what he is saying has been mirrored on here many times scientifically illiterates, it entirely baffles me why people that ordinarily shun science like the plague suddenly seem to know everything when it comes to nuclear energy.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 5th April 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot)

I’ve made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.

I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week with Helen Caldicott(1). Dr Caldicott is the world’s foremost anti-nuclear campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards, and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize(2). Like other greens, I was in awe of her. In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of radiation. So I did what anyone faced with questionable scientific claims should do: I asked for the sources. Caldicott’s response has profoundly shaken me.

First she sent me nine documents: newspaper articles, press releases and an advertisement. None were scientific publications; none contained sources for the claims she had made. But one of the press releases referred to a report by the US National Academy of Sciences, which she urged me to read. I have now done so – all 423 pages(3). It supports none of the statements I questioned: in fact it strongly contradicts her claims about the health effects of radiation.

I pressed her further and she gave me a series of answers that made my heart sink – in most cases they referred to publications which either had little or no scientific standing, which did not support her claims or which contradicted them. (I have posted our correspondence(4a,4b), and my sources, on my website). I have just read her book Nuclear Power is not the Answer(5). The scarcity of references to scientific papers and the abundance of unsourced claims it contains amaze me.

But it gets worse; much worse. For the past 25 years, anti-nuclear campaigners have been racking up the figures for deaths and diseases caused by the Chernobyl disaster, and parading deformed babies like a mediaevel circus. They now claim that 985,000 people have been killed by Chernobyl, and that it will continue to slaughter people for generations to come. These claims are false.

The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (Unscear) is the equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Like the IPCC, it calls on the world’s leading scientists to assess thousands of papers and produce an overview. Here is what it says about the impacts of Chernobyl.

Of the workers who tried to contain the emergency at Chernobyl, 134 suffered acute radiation syndrome; 28 died soon afterwards. Nineteen others died later, but generally not from diseases associated with radiation(6). The remaining 87 have suffered other complications, included four cases of solid cancer and two of leukaemia. In the rest of the population, there have been 6,848 cases of thyroid cancer among young children, arising “almost entirely” from the Soviet Union’s failure to prevent people from drinking milk contaminated with iodine 131(7). Otherwise, “there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure.”(8) People living in the countries affected today “need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident.”(9) Caldicott told me that Unscear’s work on Chernobyl is “a total cover-up”(10). Though I have pressed her to explain, she has yet to produce a shred of evidence for this contention.

In a column last week, the Guardian’s environment editor, John Vidal, angrily denounced my position on nuclear power(11). On a visit to Ukraine in 2006, he saw “deformed and genetically mutated babies in the wards … adolescents with stunted growth and dwarf torsos; foetuses without thighs or fingers”. What he did not see was evidence that these were linked to the Chernobyl disaster. Professor Gerry Thomas, who worked on the health effects of Chernobyl for Unscear, tells me that there is “absolutely no evidence” for an increase in birth defects(12). The National Academy paper which Dr Caldicott urged me to read came to similar conclusions. It found that radiation-induced mutation in sperm and eggs is such a small risk “that it has not been detected in humans, even in thoroughly studied irradiated populations such as those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”(13)

Like John Vidal and many others, Helen Caldicott pointed me to a book which claims that 985,000 people have died as a result of the disaster(14). Translated from Russian and published by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, this is the only document which looks scientific and appears to support the wild claims made by greens about Chernobyl. A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves its figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the accident(15). There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease(16).

Its publication seems to have arisen from a confusion about whether the Annals was a book publisher or a scientific journal. The academy has given me this statement: “In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer-reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else.”(17)

Failing to provide sources, refuting data with anecdote, cherry-picking studies, scorning the scientific consensus, invoking a cover-up to explain it: all this is horribly familiar. These are the habits of climate change deniers, against which the green movement has struggled valiantly, calling science to its aid. It is distressing to discover that when the facts don’t suit them, members of this movement resort to the follies they have denounced. We have a duty to base our judgements on the best available information. This is not just because we owe it to other people to represent the issues fairly, but also because we owe it to ourselves not to squander our lives on fairytales. A great wrong has been done by this movement. We must put it right.

References:
1. http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/30/prescription_for_survival_a_debate_on
2. http://www.helencaldicott.com/about.htm
3. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII – Phase 2. National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html. The PDF costs $34.
4a. Here’s the correspondence: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/correspondence-with-helen-caldicott/
4b. And here are my responses to what she says are her sources: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/interrogation-of-helen-caldicotts-responses/
5. Helen Caldicott, 2006. Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer. New Press, New York.
6. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 2011. Volume II, Annex D: Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident. This is the latest section of the 2008 report Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Report to the General Assembly. See Paragraph 2, page 1 and Figure VII and paragraph 63, page 14. http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_D_Chernobyl_Report.pdf
7. Para 33, page 8 and para 4, page one. As above.
8. Para 99, page 19. As above.
9. Para 100, page 19. As above.
10. http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/30/prescription_for_survival_a_debate_on
11. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/01/fukushima-chernobyl-risks-radiation
12. Professor Gerry Thomas, Chair in Molecular Pathology, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College, London, pers comm, 1st April 2011.
13. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, page 6. As above.
14. Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko and Alexey V. Nesterenko, 2010. Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. I have this in pdf form, sent to me by the NYAS.
15. MW Charles, 2010. Review of Chernobyl: consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2010) 141(1): 101-104. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncq185. http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/141/1/101.full
16. The authors announce that they reject this method in the introduction to the book. Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko and Alexey V. Nesterenko, as above, page 2.
17. Sent to me by Douglas Braaten, Director and Executive Editor, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2nd April 2011.

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/
 
Last edited:
tinfoil said:
Moonbat is a douchebag and I ain't reading his drivel

He's a shill for the green lobby
Click to expand...

You are just as much an idiot as the treehuggers, his conversion to the benefits of nuclear energy is to be welcomed and not to be sneered at like you are doing.
 
wanderingbear said:
I dont think were one bit mislead. Radiation is poisonous.
Click to expand...

When you have a degree in any actual science, your OPINION in the matter my be valued. But since you know nothing about radiation, I'm going to say you are not qualified to participate in this discussion. Go home and refuse to take a shower.
 
wanderingbear said:
You dont deserve to have any thing to do with the Grateful dead. Change your name.
Click to expand...
hkcqi.jpg


And it's Led Zepplin.
 
Got to fucking hell and take your stupid ass poisons with you.We dont want nukes and we dont want you.So fuck of to another planet and blow it and yourselves up.
 
wanderingbear said:
Got to fucking hell and take your stupid ass poisons with you.We dont want nukes and we dont want you.So fuck of to another planet and blow it and yourselves up.
Click to expand...

Like I said, when you pass a middle school chemistry class, you might have a basic enough education to at least understand WHAT radiation and nuclear energy is. Until that time however, go back to posting fondu recipes and having acid flashbacks. That's your area of expertise, not science.
 
[h=2]Human exposure to radiation[/h]According to a 2008 United Nations (UNSCEAR) report, the Chernobyl accident had by 2005 caused 0.065 million man-Sieverts (Sv) of radiation exposure to recovery workers and evacuees, 0.18 million man-Sv to the populace of the Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, and a dose to most of the more distant European countries amounting to 0.13 million man-Sv. The same report estimated a further 25% more exposure would be received from residual radiosotopes after 2005.[SUP][2][/SUP] The total global collective dose from Chernobyl was earlier estimated by UNSCEAR in 1988 to be "600,000 man Sv, equivalent on average to 21 additional days of world exposure to naturalbackground radiation."[SUP][3][/SUP]
[h=3][edit]Dose to the general public within 30 km of the plant[/h]The inhalation dose (internal dose) for the public during the time between the accident and their evacuation from the area in what is now the 30 km evacuation zone around the plant has been estimated (based on ground deposition of caesium-137) to be between 3 and 150 mSv. This translates into between a 1 in 6700 and a 1 in 130 chance of developing a fatal cancer from this radiation. These figures are computed under the assumption that the ICRP risk factor of a 5% of a fatal cancer per Sv of exposure for adults (depending on the distance from the reactor and the day of evacuation). For one-year-old children, a dose estimate of between 10 and 700 mSv, equating to between a 1 in 2000 and a 1 in 30 chance of developing a fatal cancer, has been made.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Thyroid doses for adults around the Cherobyl area were estimated to be between 20 and 1000 mSv, while for one-year-old infants, these estimates were higher, at 20 to 6000 mSv. For those who left at an early stage after the accident, the internal dose due to inhalation was 8 to 13 times higher than the external dose due to gamma /beta emitters. For those who remained until later (day 10 or later), the inhalation dose was 50 to 70% higher than the dose due to external exposure. The majority of the dose was due to Iodine-131 (about 40%) and tellurium and rubidium isotopes (about 20 to 30% for Rb and Te).[SUP][5][/SUP]
The ingestion doses in this same group of people have also been estimated using the cesium activity per unit of area, isotope ratios, average day of evacuation, intake rate of milk and green vegetables, and what is known about the transfer of radioactivity via plants and animals to humans. For adults the dose has been estimated to be between 3 and 180 mSv, while for one-year-old infants, a dose of between 20 and 1300 mSv has been estimated. Again, the majority of the dose was thought to be mostly due to Iodine-131, and the external dose was much smaller than the internal dose due to the radioactivity in the diet.[SUP][6][/SUP]
[h=2][edit]Short-term health effects and immediate results[/h]The explosion at the power station and subsequent fires inside the remains of the reactor resulted in the development and dispersal of a radioactive cloud which drifted not only over Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, but also over the European part of Turkey, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Finland, Denmark, Norway,Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Estonia, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Ireland, France, and Corsica.[SUP][7][/SUP]), Canada[SUP][8][/SUP] and the United Kingdom (UK).[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] In fact, the initial evidence in other countries that a major exhaust of radioactive material had occurred came not from Soviet sources, but from Sweden, where on 27 April workers at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant (approximately 1100 km from the Chernobyl site) were found to have radioactive particles on their clothing.
It was Sweden's search for the source of radioactivity (after they had determined there was no leak at the Swedish plant) that led to the first hint of a serious nuclear problem in the Western Soviet Union. In France, the government then claimed that the radioactive cloud had stopped at the Italian border. Therefore, while some kinds of food (mushrooms in particular) were prohibited in Italy because of radioactivity, the French authorities took no such measures, in an attempt to appease the population's fears (see below).
Contamination from the Chernobyl disaster was not evenly spread across the surrounding countryside, but scattered irregularly depending on weather conditions. Reports from Soviet and Western scientists indicate that Belarus received about 60% of the contamination that fell on the former Soviet Union. A large area in Russia south ofBryansk was also contaminated, as were parts of northwestern Ukraine.
203 people were hospitalized immediately, of whom 31 died (28 of them died from acute radiation exposure). Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the disaster under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous the radiation exposure (from the smoke) was. (For a discussion of the more important isotopes in fallout see fission products.) 135,000 people were evacuated from the area, including 50,000 from the nearby town of Pripyat, Ukraine. Health officials have predicted that over the next 70 years there will be a 2% increase in cancer rates in much of the population which was exposed to the 5–12 EBq (depending on source) of radioactive contamination released from the reactor.
Soviet scientists reported that the Chernobyl Unit 4 reactor contained about 180–190 metric tons of uranium dioxide fuel and fission products. Estimates of the amount of this material that escaped range from 5 to 30 percent, but some liquidators, who have actually been inside the sarcophagus and the reactor shell itself (e.g. Mr. Usatenko and Dr. Karpan) state that not more than 5–10% of the fuel remains inside. Indeed, photographs of the reactor shell show that it is virtually empty.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] Because of the intense heat of the fire, and with no containment building to stop it, much of the ejected fuel was vaporized or particulized and lofted high into the atmosphere, where it spread.

[h=3]Workers and liquidators[/h]

Soviet badge awarded to 600,000+ liquidators.​

The workers involved in the recovery and cleanup after the disaster, called "liquidators", received high doses of radiation. In most cases, these workers were not equipped with individual dosimeters to measure the amount of radiation received, so experts can only estimate their doses. Even where dosimeters were used, dosimetric procedures varied - some workers are thought to have been given more accurate estimated doses than others.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] According to Soviet estimates, between 300,000 and 600,000 people were involved in the cleanup of the 30 km evacuation zone around the reactor, but many of them entered the zone two years after the disaster.[SUP][11][/SUP]
Estimates of the number of "liquidators" vary; the World Health Organization, for example, puts the figure at about 800,000; Russia lists as liquidators some people who did not work in contaminated areas.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] In the first year after the disaster, the number of cleanup workers in the zone was estimated to be 211,000. These workers received an estimated average dose of 165 millisieverts (16.5 REM).
The plume of radioactive debris unleashed by the disaster at Chernobyl has been said[SUP][who?][/SUP] to be approximately equal[SUP][vague][/SUP] to the contamination that would occur from 400 Hiroshima bombs. Even if this is correct, it is difficult to usefully compare the two types of event. An atomic bomb delivers most of its radiation as a near-instantaneous burst ofgamma-rays, followed by a much lesser dispersal of radioactive fallout consisting mainly of very short-lived radionuclides. A reactor explosion and fire, on the other hand, produces most of its contamination in the form of fallout, and this fallout, largely composed of melted or vaporised reactor fuel, tends to contain a much higher proportion of radionuclides with medium to long half-life. Levels of radioactivity in the vicinity of a recent atomic bomb blast thus rapidly diminish, while radioactive contamination from a Chernobyl-type accident is far more persistent.[SUP][12][/SUP]
A sevenfold increase in DNA mutations has been identified in children of liquidators conceived after the accident, when compared to their siblings that were conceived before. However, this effect diminishes sharply with time.[SUP][12]
[h=3]Plant and animal health[/h]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kiev-UkrainianNationalChernobylMuseum_15.jpg"]​

An exhibit at the Ukrainian National Chernobyl Museum. Birth defects rates are higher in contaminated areas. [SUP][15][/SUP]​

A large swath of pine forest killed by acute radiation was named the Red Forest. The dead pines were bulldozed and buried. Livestock were removed during the human evacuations.[SUP][16][/SUP] Elsewhere in Europe, levels of radiation were examined in various natural foodstocks. In both Sweden and Finland, fish in deep freshwater lakes were banned for resale and landowners were advised not to consume certain types.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] Information regarding physical deformities in the plant and animal populations in the areas affected by radioactive fallout require sampling and capture, along with DNA testing, of individuals to determine if abnormalities are the result of natural mutation, radiation poisoning, or exposure to other contaminants in the environment (i.e. pesticides, industrial waste, or agricultural run-off).
Animals living in contaminated areas in and around Chernobyl have suffered from a variety of side effects caused by radiation. Oxidative stress and low levels of antioxidants have had severe consequences on the development of the nervous system, including reduced brain size and impaired cognitive abilities. It has been found that birds living in areas with high levels of radiation have statistically significantly smaller brains, which has shown to be a deficit to viability in the wild.[SUP][17][/SUP] Barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) that live in or around Chernobyl have displayed an increased rate of physical abnormalities compared to swallows from uncontaminated areas. Abnormalities included partially albinistic plumage, deformed toes, tumors, deformed tail feathers, deformed beaks, and deformed air sacks. Birds with these abnormalities have a reduced viability in the wild and a decrease in fitness. These effects are likely due to radiation exposure and elevated teratogenic effects of radioactive isotopes in the environment.[SUP][18][/SUP]
Invertebrate populations (including bumblebees, butterflies, grasshoppers, dragonflies, and spiders) has significantly decreased. Currently, most radiation around Chernobyl is located in the top layer of soil, where many invertebrates live or lay their eggs. The reduced abundance of invertebrates can have negative implications for the entire ecosystem surrounding Chernobyl.[SUP][19][/SUP]
Radionuclides migrate through either soil diffusion or transportation within the soil solution. The effects of ionizing radiation on plants and trees in particular depends on numerous factors, including climatic conditions, the mechanism of radiation deposition, and the soil type. In turn, radiated vegetation affects organisms further up the food chain. In general, the upper-level trophic organisms received less contamination, due to their ability to be more mobile and feed from multiple areas.[SUP][20][/SUP]
The amount of radioactive nuclides found to have been deposited into surrounding lakes has increased the normal baseline radioactive amounts by 100 percent. Most of the radionuclides in surrounding water areas were found in the sediments at the bottom of the lakes. There has been a high incidence of chromosomal changes in plant and animal aquatic organisms, and this generally has correlated with the contamination and resulting genetic instability. Most of the lakes and rivers surrounding the Chernobyl exclusion zone are still highly contaminated with radionuclides (and will be for many years to come) as the natural decontamination processes of nucleotides with longer half-lives can take many years.[SUP][21][/SUP]
One of the main mechanisms by which radionuclides were passed to humans was through the ingestion of milk from contaminated cows. Most of the rough grazing that the cows took part in contained plant species such as coarse grasses, sedges, rushes, and plants such as heather (also known as calluna vulgaris). These plant species grow in soils that are high in organic matter, low in pH, and are often very well hydrated, thus making the storage and intake of these radionuclides much more feasible and efficient.[SUP][22][/SUP] In the early stages following the Chernobyl accident, high levels of radionuclides were found in the milk and were a direct result of contaminated feeding. Within two months of banning most of the milk that was being produced in the affected areas, officials had phased out the majority of the contaminated feed that was available to the cows and much of the contamination was isolated. In humans, ingestion of milk containing abnormally high levels of iodine radionuclides was the precursor for thyroid disease, especially in children and in the immunocompromised.[SUP][22][/SUP]
Some plants and animals have been able to adapt to the increase radiation levels present in and around Chernobyl. Arabidopsis, a native plant to Chernobyl, are able to resist high concentrations of ionizing radiation and resist forming mutations. This species of plant has been able to develop mechanisms to tolerate chronic radiation that would otherwise be harmful or lethal to other species.[SUP][23][/SUP] Recent studies suggest the 19-mile (30 km) "exclusion zone" surrounding the Chernobyl disaster has become a wildlife sanctuary. Animals have reclaimed the land including rare species such as lynx, Przewalski’s horses, wild boars and eagle owls whose populations are all thriving. When the disaster first occurred, many animals and plants died immediately; however, 25 years later, these animals and plants are reclaiming the abandoned cities to make it their habitat. Even the site of the explosion is flourishing with wildlife as birds nest in the wrecked nuclear plant, and plants and mushrooms live in and on the site.[SUP][24][/SUP]
Due to the bioaccumulation of Caesium-137, some mushrooms as well as wild animals which eat them, e.g. wild boars hunted in Germany and deer in Austria, may have levels which are not considered safe for human consumption.[SUP][25][/SUP] Mandatory radiation testing of sheep in parts of the UK that graze on lands with contaminated peat was lifted in 2012.[SUP][26]


[/SUP]

[/URL][/SUP]
 
[h=3]Suggested long-range effects[/h]

Graph of Down syndrome cases in Belarus.​

  • Down syndrome (trisomy 21). In West Berlin, Germany, prevalence of Down syndrome (trisomy 21) peaked 9 months following the main fallout.[ 11, 12] Between 1980 and 1986, the birth prevalence of Down syndrome was quite stable (i.e., 1.35–1.59 per 1,000 live births [27–31 cases]). In 1987, 46 cases were diagnosed (prevalence = 2.11 per 1,000 live births). Most of the excess resulted from acluster of 12 cases among children born in January 1987. The prevalence of Down syndrome in 1988 was 1.77, and in 1989, it reached pre-Chernobyl values. The authors noted that the isolated geographical position of West Berlin prior to reunification, the free genetic counseling, and complete coverage of the population through one central cytogenetic laboratory support completeness of case ascertainment; in addition, constant culture preparation and analysis protocols ensure a high quality of data.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
  • Chromosomal aberrations. Reports of structural chromosome aberrations in people exposed to fallout in Belarus and other parts of the former Soviet Union, Austria, and Germany argue against a simple dose-response relationship between degree of exposure and incidence of aberrations. These findings are relevant because a close relationship exists between chromosome changes and congenital malformations. Inasmuch as some types of aberrations are almost specific for ionizing radiation, researchers use aberrations to assess exposure dose. On the basis of current coefficients, however, one cannot assume that calculation of individual exposure doses resulting from fallout would not induce measurable rates of chromosome aberrations.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
  • Neural tube defects (NTDs) in Turkey. During the embryonic phase of fetal development, the neural tube differentiates into the brain and spinal cord (i.e., collectively forming the central nervous system). Chemical or physical interactions with this process can cause NTDs. Common features of this class of malformations are more or less extended fissures, often accompanied by consecutive dislocation of central nervous system (CNS) tissue. NTDs include spina bifida occulta and aperta,encephalocele, and—in the extreme case—anencephaly. The first evidence in support of a possible association between CNS malformations and fallout from Chernobyl was published by Akar et al.. in 1988. The Mustafakemalpasa State Hospital, Bursa region, covers a population of approximately 90,000. Investigators have documented the prevalence of malformations since 1983. The prevalence of NTDs was 1.7 to 9.2 per 1,000 births, but during the first 6 months of 1987 increased to 20 per 1,000 (12 cases). The excess was most pronounced for the subgroup of anencephalics, in which prevalence increased 5-fold (i.e., 10 per 1,000 [6 cases]). In the consecutive months that followed (i.e., July–December 1987), the prevalence decreased again (1.3 per 1,000 for all NTDs, 0.6 per 1,000 for anencephaly), and it reached pre-Chernobyl levels during the first half of 1988 (all NTDs: 0.6 per 1,000; anencephaly: 0.2 per 1,000). This initial report was supported by several similar findings in observational studies from different regions of Turkey.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]

[h=3]Science and politics: the problem of epidemiological studies[/h]

An abandoned village near Prypiat, close to Chernobyl.​

The issue of long-term effects of the Chernobyl disaster on civilians is very controversial. The number of people whose lives were affected by the disaster is enormous. Over 300,000 people were resettled because of the disaster; millions lived and continue to live in the contaminated area. On the other hand, most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain.[SUP][27][/SUP]
An increased incidence of thyroid cancer among children in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia affected by the Chernobyl disaster has been firmly established as a result of screening programs[SUP][28][/SUP] and, in the case of Belarus, an established cancer registry. The findings of most epidemiological studies must be considered interim, say experts, as analysis of the health effects of the disaster is an ongoing process.[SUP][29][/SUP]
Epidemiological studies have been hampered in the Ukraine, Russian Federation and Belarus by a lack of funds, an infrastructure with little or no experience in chronic disease epidemiology, poor communication facilities and an immediate public health problem with many dimensions. Emphasis has been placed on screening rather than on well-designed epidemiological studies. International efforts to organize epidemiological studies have been slowed by some of the same factors, especially the lack of a suitable scientific infrastructure.
Furthermore, the political nature of nuclear energy may have affected scientific studies. In Belarus, Yury Bandazhevsky, a scientist who questioned the official estimates of Chernobyl's consequences and the relevancy of the official maximum limit of 1,000 Bq/kg, was imprisoned from 2001 to 2005. Bandazhevsky and some human rights groups allege his imprisonment was a reprisal for his publication of reports critical of the official research being conducted into the Chernobyl incident.
The activities undertaken by Belarus and Ukraine in response to the disaster — remediation of the environment, evacuation and resettlement, development of uncontaminated food sources and food distribution channels, and public health measures — have overburdened the governments of those countries. International agencies and foreign governments have provided extensive logistic and humanitarian assistance. In addition, the work of the European Commission and World Health Organization in strengthening the epidemiological research infrastructure in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus is laying the basis for major advances in these countries' ability to carry out epidemiological studies of all kinds.

[h=3]25 years after the catastrophe[/h]Twenty five years after the catastrophe, restriction orders remain in place in the production, transportation and consumption of food contaminated by Chernobyl fallout. In the UK, they remain in place on 369 farms covering 750 km² and 200,000 sheep. In parts of Sweden and Finland, restrictions are in place on stock animals, including reindeer, in natural and near-natural environments. "In certain regions of Germany, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania and Poland, wild game (including boar and deer), wild mushrooms, berries and carnivorous fish from lakes reach levels of several thousand Bq per kg of caesium-137", while "in Germany, caesium-137 levels in wild boar muscle reached 40,000 Bq/kg. The average level is 6,800 Bq/kg, more than ten times the EU limit of 600 Bq/kg", according to the TORCH 2006 report. The European Commission has stated that "The restrictions on certain foodstuffs from certain Member States must therefore continue to be maintained for many years to come".[SUP][9][/SUP]
As of 2009, sheep farmed in some areas of the UK are still subject to inspection which may lead to them being prohibited from entering the human food chain because of contamination arising from the accident:
"Some of this radioactivity, predominantly radiocaesium-137, was deposited on certain upland areas of the UK, where sheep-farming is the primary land-use. Due to the particular chemical and physical properties of the peaty soil types present in these upland areas, the radiocaesium is still able to pass easily from soil to grass and hence accumulate in sheep. A maximum limit of 1,000 becquerels per kilogramme (Bq/kg) of radiocaesium is applied to sheep meat affected by the accident to protect consumers. This limit was introduced in the UK in 1986, based on advice from the European Commission's Article 31 group of experts. Under power provided under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA), Emergency Orders have been used since 1986 to impose restrictions on the movement and sale of sheep exceeding the limit in certain parts of Cumbria, North Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland... When the Emergency Orders were introduced in 1986, the Restricted Areas were large, covering almost 9,000 farms, and over 4 million sheep. Since 1986, the areas covered by restrictions have dramatically decreased and now cover 369 farms, or part farms, and around 200,000 sheep. This represents a reduction of over 95% since 1986, with only limited areas of Cumbria, South Western Scotland and North Wales, covered by restrictions.[SUP][33][/SUP]
​
369 farms and 190,000 sheep are still affected, a reduction of 95% since 1986, when 9,700 farms and 4,225,000 sheep were under restriction across the United Kingdom.[SUP][34][/SUP]
In Norway, the Sami people were affected by contaminated food (the reindeer had been contaminated by eating lichen, which are very sensitive to radioactivity).[SUP][35][/SUP]
[h=3][edit]Effect on the natural world[/h]

Earth Observing-1 image of the reactor and surrounding area in April 2009.​

According to reports from Soviet scientists at the First International Conference on the Biological and Radiological Aspects of the Chernobyl Accident (September 1990), fallout levels in the 10 km zone around the plant were as high as 4.81 GBq/m². The so-called "Red Forest" of pine trees,[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP] previously known as Worm Wood Forest and located immediately behind the reactor complex, lay within the 10 km zone and was killed off by heavy radioactive fallout. The forest is so named because in the days following the disaster the trees appeared to have a deep red hue as they died because of extremely heavy radioactive fallout. In the post-disaster cleanup operations, a majority of the 4 km² forest was bulldozed and buried. The site of the Red Forest remains one of the most contaminated areas in the world.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
In recent years there have been many reports suggesting the zone may be a fertile habitat for wildlife.[SUP][38][/SUP] For example in the 1996 BBC Horizon documentary 'Inside Chernobyl's Sarcophagus', birds are seen flying in and out of large holes in the structure itself. Other casual observations suggest biodiversity around the massive radiation spill has increased due to the removal of human influence (see the first hand account of the wildlife preserve). Storks, wolves, beavers, and eagles have been reported in the area.[SUP][38][/SUP]
Barn swallows sampled between 1991 and 2006 both in the Chernobyl exclusion zone had more physical abnormalities than control sparrows sampled elsewhere in Europe. Abnormal barn swallows mated with lower frequency, causing the percentage of abnormal swallows to decrease over time. This demonstrated the selective pressure against the abnormalities was faster than the effects of radiation that created the abnormalities.[SUP][39][/SUP] "This was a big surprise to us," Dr. Mousseau said. "We had no idea of the impact."[SUP][38][/SUP]
It is unknown whether fallout contamination will have any long-term adverse effect on the flora and fauna of the region, as plants and animals have significantly different and varying radiologic tolerance compared with humans. Some birds are reported with stunted tail feathers (which interferes with breeding). There are reports of mutations in plants in the area.[SUP][40][/SUP] The Chernobyl area has not received very much biological study, although studies that have been done suggest that apparently healthy populations may be sink instead of source populations; in other words, that the apparently healthy populations are not contributing to the survival of species.[SUP][41][/SUP]
Using robots, researchers have retrieved samples of highly melanized black fungus from the walls of the reactor core itself. It has been shown that certain species of fungus, such as Cryptococcus neoformans and Cladosporium, can actually thrive in a radioactive environment, growing better than non-melanized variants, implying that they use melanin to harness the energy of ionizing radiation from the reactor.[SUP][42][/SUP][SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects[/SUP]
 
[h=3]April 2006 IPPNW report[/h]According to an April 2006 report by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare(IPPNW), entitled "Health Effects of Chernobyl", more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected. The report projected tens of thousands dead among the liquidators. In Europe, it alleges that 10,000 deformities have been observed in newborns because of Chernobyl's radioactive discharge, with 5000 deaths among newborn children. They also claimed that several hundreds of thousands of the people who worked on the site after the accident are now sick because of radiation, and tens of thousands are dead.[SUP][74][/SUP]
[h=3][edit]New York Academy of Sciences publication[/h]Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is an English translation of the 2007 Russian publication Chernobyl. It was published online in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. It presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 deaths as a result of the radioactivity released. The authors suggest that most of the deaths were in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, but others were spread through the many other countries the radiation from Chernobyl struck.[SUP][75][/SUP]
The literature analysis draws on over 1,000 published titles and over 5,000 internet and printed publications discussing the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The authors contend that those publications and papers were written by leading Eastern European authorities and have largely been downplayed or ignored by the IAEA and UNSCEAR.[SUP][76][/SUP] Author Alexy V. Yablokov was also one of the general editors on the Greenpeace commissioned report also criticizing the Chernobyl Forum finds published one year prior to the Russian language version of this report.
A critical review by Dr. Monty Charles in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry states that Consequences is a direct extension of the 2005 Greenpeace report, updated with data of unknown quality.[SUP][77][/SUP] The New York Academy of Sciences also published a severely critical review by M. I. Balonov from the Institute of Radiation Hygiene (St. Petersburg, Russia) which stated that "The value of [Consequences] is not zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists, while inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error."[SUP][78][/SUP]
[h=3][edit]2011 UNSCEAR report[/h]The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) produced a report [SUP][79][/SUP] drastically different to many appreciations of the effects previously produced. The report concludes that 134 staff and emergency workers suffered acute radiation syndrome and of those 28 died of the condition. Many of the survivors suffered skin conditions and radiation induced cataracts, and 19 have since died, but not usually of conditions associated with radiation exposure. Of the several hundred thousand liquidators, apart from indications of increased leukaemia risk, there is no other evidence of health effects. In the general public, the only effect with 'persuasive evidence' is a substantial fraction of the 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer in adolescents observed in the affected areas. By 2005, 15 cases had proved fatal.
The total deaths reliably attributable to the radiation produced by the accident therefore stands at 62 by the estimate of UNSCEAR.
The report concludes that 'the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident'.
[h=3][edit]Other studies and claims[/h]
  • The Ukrainian Health Minister claimed in 2006 that more than 2.4 million Ukrainians, including 428,000 children, suffer from health problems related to the catastrophe.[SUP][7][/SUP] Psychological after-effects, as the 2006 UN report pointed out, have also had adverse effects on internally displaced persons.
  • In a recently published study scientists from Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany, published the “Korma-Report” with data of radiological long-term measurements that were performed between 1998 and 2007 in a region in Belarus that was affected by the Chernobyl accident. The internal radiation exposure of the inhabitants in a village in Korma County/Belarus caused by the existing radioactive contamination has experienced a significant decrease from a very high level. The external exposure, however, reveals a different picture. Although an overall decrease was observed, the organic constituents of the soil show an increase in contamination. This increase was not observed in soils from cultivated land or gardens. According to the Korma Report the internal dose will decrease to less than 0.2 mSv/a in 2011 and to below 0.1 mSv/a in 2020. Despite this, the cumulative dose will remain significantly higher than “normal” values due to external exposure. Resettlement may even be possible in former prohibited areas provided that people comply with appropriate dietary rules.[SUP][80][/SUP]
  • Study of heightened mortality in Sweden.[SUP][65][/SUP][SUP][81][/SUP] But it must be pointed out that this study, and in particular the conclusions drawn has been very criticized [SUP][82][/SUP] (article in Swedish from the Swedish doctors magazine)
  • One study reports increased levels of birth defects in Germany and Finland in the wake of the accident.[SUP][83][/SUP]
  • A change in the human sex ratio at birth in several European countries has been linked to Chernobyl fallout.[SUP][84][/SUP]
  • In the Czech Republic, thyroid cancer has increased significantly after Chernobyl.[SUP][85][/SUP]
  • The Abstract of the April 2006 International Agency for Research on Cancer report Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident stated "It is unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates – other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions – that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."[SUP][87][/SUP][SUP][88][/SUP] They estimate, based on thelinear no threshold model of cancer effects, that 16,000 excess cancer deaths could be expected from the effects of the Chernobyl accident up to 2065. Their estimates have very wide 95% confidence intervals from 6,700 deaths to 38,000.[SUP][89][/SUP]
  • The application of the linear no threshold model to predict deaths from low levels of exposure to radiation was disputed in a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)Horizon documentary, broadcast on 13 July 2006.[SUP][90][/SUP] It offered statistical evidence to suggest that there is an exposure threshold of about 200 millisieverts, below which there is no increase in radiation-induced disease. Indeed it went further, reporting research from Professor Ron Chesser of Texas Tech University, which suggests that low exposures to radiation can have a protective effect. The program interviewed scientists who believe that the increase in thyroid cancer in the immediate area of the explosion had been over-recorded, and predicted that the estimates for widespread deaths in the long term would be proved wrong. It noted the view of the World Health Organization scientist Dr Mike Rapacholi that, while most cancers can take decades to manifest, leukemia manifests within a decade or so: none of the previously expected peak of leukemia deaths has been found, and none is now expected. Identifying the need to balance the "fear response" in the public's reaction to radiation, the program quoted Dr Peter Boyle, director of the IARC: "Tobacco smoking will cause several thousand times more cancers in the [European] population."[SUP][91][/SUP]
  • Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University (a lecturer in medical physics and particle physics) gave a talk on ionising radiation 24 November 2006 in which he gave an approximate figure of 81 cancer deaths from Chernobyl (excluding 28 cases from acute radiation exposure and the thyroid cancer deaths which he regards as "avoidable"). In a closely reasoned argument using statistics from therapeutic radiation, exposure to elevated natural radiation (the presence of radon gas in homes) and the diseases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors he demonstrated that the linear no-threshold model should not be applied to low-level exposure in humans, as it ignores the well-known natural repair mechanisms of the body.[SUP][92][/SUP][SUP][93][/SUP]
  • A photographic essay by photojournalist Paul Fusco documents the legacy of the meltdown on local children [SUP][94][/SUP][SUP][95][/SUP]
  • Bandashevsky measured levels of radioisotopes in children who had died in the Minsk area that had received Chernobyl fallout, and the cardiac findings were the same as those seen in test animals that had been administered Cs-137.[SUP][96][/SUP]

[h=3]Chernobyl Forum report[/h]In September 2005, a draft summary report by the Chernobyl Forum, comprising a number of UN agencies including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), theWorld Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), other UN bodies and the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, put the total predicted number of deaths due to the accident at 4000.[SUP][61][/SUP] This death toll predicted by the WHO included the 47 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation from the disaster and nine children who died from thyroid cancer, in the estimated 4000 excess cancer deaths expected among the 600,000 with the highest levels of exposure.[SUP][70][/SUP]
The full version of the WHO health effects report adopted by the UN, published in April 2006, included the prediction of 5000 additional fatalities from significantly contaminated areas in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine and predicted that, in total, 9000 will die from cancer among the 6.9 million most-exposed Soviet citizens.[SUP][62][/SUP] This report is not free of controversy, and has been accused of trying to minimize the consequences of the accident.[SUP][71][/SUP]
[h=3][edit]TORCH report[/h]Main article: TORCH report
In 2006 German Green Party Member of the European Parliament Rebecca Harms commissioned two UK scientists for an alternate report (TORCH, The Other Report onCHernobyl) in response to the UN report. The report included areas not covered by the Chernobyl forum report, and also lower radiation doses. It predicted about 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths and warned that predictions of excess cancer deaths strongly depend on the risk factor used, and urged more research stating that large uncertainties made it difficult to properly assess the full scale of the disaster.[SUP][9][/SUP]
[h=3][edit]Greenpeace[/h]

Demonstration on Chernobyl day nearWHO in Geneva​

Greenpeace claimed contradictions in the Chernobyl Forum reports, quoting a 1998 WHO study referenced in the 2005 report, which projected 212 dead from 72,000 liquidators.[SUP][72][/SUP] In its report, Greenpeace suggested there will be 270,000 cases of cancer attributable to Chernobyl fallout, and that 93,000 of these will probably be fatal, but state in their report that "The most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alone the accident could have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004." Blake Lee-Harwood, campaigns director at Greenpeace, believes that cancer was likely to be the cause of less than half of the final fatalities and that "intestinal problems, heart and circulation problems, respiratory problems, endocrine problems, and particularly effects on the immune system," will also cause fatalities. However, concern has been expressed about the methods used in compiling the Greenpeace report.[SUP][71][/SUP][SUP][73][/SUP] It is not peer reviewed nor does it rely on peer review science as the Chernobyl Forum report did.

[h=3]French legal action[/h]Since March 2001, 400 lawsuits have been filed in France against "X" (the French equivalent of John Doe, an unknown person or company) by the French Association of Thyroid-affected People, including 200 in April 2006. These persons are affected by thyroid cancer or goitres, and have filed lawsuits alleging that the French government, at the time led by Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, had not adequately informed the population of the risks linked to the Chernobyl radioactive fallout. The complaint contrasts the health protection measures put in place in nearby countries (warning against consumption of green vegetables or milk by children and pregnant women) with the relatively high contamination suffered by the east of France and Corsica. Although the 2006 study by the French Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety said that no clear link could be found between Chernobyl and the increase of thyroid cancers in France, it also stated that papillary thyroid cancer had tripled in the following years.[SUP][97][/SUP]
 
Rune said:
Stop being such a liar, it makes you look like a liar.
Click to expand...

You are so lazy that you couldn't even go any further than Wiki for your info. How about you read the report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)? This is exactly what George Monbiot is talking about and why he is so ashamed at some of his erstwhile colleagues who lie and create propaganda rather than deal in facts. This propaganda is then lapped up by willing useful idiots like Rune who will believe anything he is spoonfed.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top