UN Releases Report On Chernobyl
February 28th, 2011
|
Yet another major scientific report has been released by the United Nations regarding the long term effects of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in 1986. The report really states a lot of what we already know: the full effects of the event on the health of the region are very difficult to impossible to gauge with complete confidence, and while there may be some cancer incidence associated with it, which cancers would have occurred on their own and which are radiation-related is impossible to determine individually.
The report did cite a statistically significant increase in thyroid cancer (no surprise there), which has since plateued and is expected to decline in the years to come. Thyroid cancer is rarely fatal and is especially associated with exposure to the fission byproduct iodine-131. The report also notes that twenty eight of the early responders with the highest doses of radiation likely died as a result of that radiation. This not the general population of the area but the first responders to the scene, some of whom received near fatal doses of radiation.
You can read the whole report here.
UN releases new report on health effects from Chernobyl disaster
Vienna. A UN scientific committee on Monday released a new report on human health ramifications from the 1986 Chernobyl accident in the then Soviet Union, Xinhua informed.
A total of 134 plant staff and emergency workers suffered acute radiation syndrome (ARS) from high doses of radiation, according to the report compiled by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
In the first few months after the accident, 28 of them died, the report said, adding Skin injuries and radiation-related cataracts were among the most common consequences in ARS survivors.
Although another 19 ARS survivors had died by 2006, those deaths had different causes not usually associated with radiation exposure, the report said.
The report also said that radiation doses to the general public in the three most affected countries — Belarus, Russia and Ukraine — were relatively low, and most residents “need not live in fear of serious health consequences.”
However, the severe disruption caused by the accident resulted in “major social and economic impact and great distress for the affected populations,” the report pointed out.
The disaster, the worst nuclear power plant accident in history, occurred in April 1986, at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, 130 kilometers from Kiev, now capital of Ukraine. The reactor was destroyed in the accident and considerable amounts of radioactive material were released to the environment.
UNSCEAR was established by UN General Assembly in 1955 to review sources of ionizing radiation and the effects on human health and the environment.
While the report does indicate the possibility of upwards of four thousand cancer deaths as a result of the radiation exposure, it should be noted that this is entirely hypothetical and based primarily on the linear non-threshold model of radiation exposure. That said, even if it is true, it would make the death toll of Chernobyl mercifully low compared to the number of deaths in other large industrial accidents or those killed each year as the result of burning coal.
That said, there remains enormous suffering in the region that the Chernobyl accident has come to stigmatize. Having been branded as a people without a future and a place tainted beyond all redemption, the region has seen crushing economic and social depression. Every day, babies are born in the area with severe birth defects and developmental disorders. It is not the radiation that has caused this but poor prenatal nutrition and that most insidious and unnoticed of plagues, fetal alcohol syndrome. As the world continues to point and gawk at those labeled as the victims of nuclear energy, the people of Ukraine and Belarus have been made to suffer an unending stigma and misplaced pity. Drug and alcohol abuse is epidemic.
It is long past due that the groups with a vested interest in demonizing nuclear energy move past this event and stop making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are the cause of the social and economic devastation, not the event itself.
This entry was posted on Monday, February 28th, 2011 at 11:13 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, Good Science, History, Nuclear, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
March 1st, 2011 at 12:37 am
Anti-nuke spin has already commenced:
http://channellingthestrongforce.blogspot.com/2011/03/chernobyl-25th-anniversary-fear-fest.html
Quote Comment
March 1st, 2011 at 7:04 am
In the case of Chernobyl, I find it disingenuous that the scaremongers to continue to invoke latency every time actual results fail to meet the dire predictions made previously. We were told shortly after the event, when the immediate death toll was found to be minimal, that the full impact would not be felt for twenty years. Twenty-five years later, the Cassandras are now saying it could be as much as sixty years before the damage appears, or maybe several generations in the future. At what point do we accept the fact that the impact of this accident has not been anywhere as serious as it was assumed it would be?
Quote Comment
March 1st, 2011 at 8:29 am
The “horror” of Chernobyl lies only in the fact that the Soviets evacuated the entire area as a precaution. Without the evacuation, greenies could not show us the abandoned town over and over again, and make it seem all of this was necessary.
Just some examples of “deadly” radiation from the book “Legacy of Chernobyl” (which is actually anti-nuclear):
- A photographer who took a photo of the destroyed plant from a helicopter, and therefore was exposed to the full radiation, lives today and is in good health.
- Several Pilots flew their helicopters over the reactor to drop lead and sand into the reactor. In the first flights they noticed the radiation gave them a “nuclear tan” similar to normal tan. They put metal under their seats the next flights to protect themselves. Most of them still live today.
- Some Farmers returned to the exclusion zone after failing to find adequate places to live. Despite eating “contaminated” food, many of them live to high age, and so do their farm animals. Recently a woman died at the age of 100 there. Anti-nuclear groups claim these farmers had an especially uncontaminated spot
Quote Comment
March 1st, 2011 at 10:34 am
Lets be careful here about not swinging too far to the other side of things on the issue of the harm caused by radiation from the Chernobyl event.
While I reject LNT, there’s really no argument that ionizing radiation is dangerous and can have severe chronic effects, including an increase in cancer risk, if you are exposed to a large enough dose of it. No, I don’t think people who are exposed to radiation from flying or dental x-rays have any increase in risk of anything, but those who might be exposed to near fatal doses on multiple occasions are likely to suffer various problems associated with it.
Some of the first responders to Chernobyl did receive enormous doses of radiation. In a few cases it was so high that they would not have survived if they had not received some medical attention afterward. A few of those who were tasked with the cleanup (the “liquidators”) even were exposed repeatedly to doses which, had they received it all at once, would easily have killed them. In some cases they became ill with radiation sickness and were taken away to recuperate, but returned again after the symptoms diminished and again reached the point of radiation sickness.
Sure, some of them are still in good health. Some are not. Exposure to radiation does not mean that there’s a 100% chance you’ll get cancer as a result.
Some of the helicopters even had their electronics fried by the ionization levels, so we’re really talking about HUGE dose levels.
A big part of this has to do with the Soviet response, however. They did a number of things that made it far worse. They refused to notify the rest of the world or accept any outside assistance. They made an effort to keep a low profile on things and therefore did not rotate in as many individuals as they probably should have, preferring to have the same pilot do multiple missions with a high cumulative radiation exposure.
If we look at the response there are areas where they obviously could have done far better. Immediate evacuation of the areas closest to the accident, with people being told to stay indoors with windows closed until an evacuation bus could come pick them up – that would hav helped a lot. Immediate distribution of potassium iodine would have helped. Rotating in a large number of cleanup crew with each individual receiving a lower number of total rotations into the highest radiation areas would have been a huge help. More aircraft would have helped, even if that meant accepting help from Western Europe or the United States, but they refused to do so. The German and French army’s had vehicles that were purpose built to conduct combat operations in nuclear-biological-chemical warfare zones and as such had independent air supplies and substantial crew shielding. These would have been perfect for providing response capability with maximum protection, but the Soviet Union was determined not to allow any external countries to get involved.
Lets not forget that the whole reason this happened was that they were operating a reactor in a manner that was completely outside its design specs and against the formal procedures for safety. It was, in my opinion, reckless to the point of being criminal. That’s not even to mention that there were corners cut in the reactor’s design and constructon.
Quote Comment
March 1st, 2011 at 11:03 am
Very high levels of radiation are dangeous, but my point was to expose the hysteria and exaggeration about tiny amounts of radiation or contamination.
The first two people to die of radiation at Chernobyl were sent from the control room to check out the reactor’s condition. People in the control room was not aware the reactor hat exploded, and they didn’t believe it when they were told. So they sent two men to the reactor, without any protective clothing except a cloth to cover the mouth (compare that to today’s protective suits), and they stood next to the cracked open, burning reactor for 2 minutes, looking directly into the fire, then returned. – Yes, this can kill people, but you might as well die in fires, floods, crime etc.
Quote Comment
March 1st, 2011 at 12:37 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Actually, I disagree with that statement. The way the reactor was operated was criminal not to mention stupid. But then, the tests should have been performed during commissioning and planned and executed in proper manners not rushed through during power production.
Quote Comment
March 1st, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Of course, if the Chernobyl reactors had been housed in protective containment structures as they are in practically all other countries (and thankfully at 3 mile island), there probably would have been no fatalities or significant regional contamination. New Russian reactors, of course, are now housed in double containment structures (from one extreme to the other).
But, overall, nuclear power has had the lowest number of fatalities and the least environmental impact of any energy system ever created!
Quote Comment
March 1st, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Matte said:
Can’t say I disagree with that. The turbine rundown test itself was not the only issue. They brought the reactor to the point of severe xenon poisoning and then pulled all the control rods out (which is never supposed to be done to begin with.) Anyone ought to know you don’t try to forcibly start an unstable reactor in a state of xenon poisoning because it’s bound to be unstable. Not even to mention they had the cooling system either shut down or partially deactivated for way longer than would be safe to restart.
Yes, stupid and criminal.
From what I have read the problem is not that the reactor operators didn’t realize what they were doing was horribly dangerous. It has more to do with the Soviet-era command culture. They did what they were told by a supervisor who was telling them to do things they knew were unsafe because they were not about to question orders.
Quote Comment
March 1st, 2011 at 11:46 pm
The thing with the contamination of the towns near the reactor is that it is very variable, to the point at which the reading on the survey meter can change quite drastically after just moving it only a few metres.
Quote Comment
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:44 pm
The thing with the contamination of the towns near the reactor is that it is very variable, to the point at which the reading on the survey meter can change quite drastically after just moving it only a few metres.
can you post a link to that info.
Quote Comment
March 17th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
“Sure, some of them are still in good health. Some are not. Exposure to radiation does not mean that there’s a 100% chance you’ll get cancer as a result.”
I’ve done some research myself about this disaster, mostly on the health consequences to the populations, and from what I’ve learned the Ukraine government and the governments of the countries heavily affected by Chernobyl fallout (Belarus especially) have suppressed studies/information about the health problems the populations suffer. Basically, they don’t bother to do research, they don’t bother to keep track of the people who were exposed. I don’t think any of us can sit here and say how radiation effects the population because we are not living there and we don’t observe it first hand. I watched this one documentary about the scientists who were studying the reactor 3 or so years after the accident ( it was called ‘inside the sarcophagus’), and they had a retrospective segment at the end in which one scientist described how many of his peers starting dying of heart issues, he described it in a way suggesting he knew it was because of the radiation they were exposed to. One guy died of heart failure at like 43 or something while studying the plant, they knew it was because of the radiation. But there deaths will not be attributed to Chernobyl, when in reality it most likely was related to the radiation.
Another good documentary is Chernobyl Heart. Obviously, these are documentary movies, but they involve first hand accounts from the population. One doctor in the documentary was asked about babies- how many babies are born perfectly healthy without any heart issues etc. He answered- 15-20%. Thats not normal! But I bet none of those children born with serious health issues/deformities are ever written about or attributed to Chernobyl. The people in these regions effected know best how the radiation has affected the populations, not this stupid article.
Quote Comment
March 17th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
So the anti-nuclear kooks can find doctors who don’t have any clue about what radiation can and most importantly can’t do to people?
That’s not news.
Nor is paranoid conspiracy theories about some kind of big cover-up of the problems a previous rather disliked government caused them.
It is people like you Sarah who are the problem here, people like you who are causing most of the health problems that the people affected by Chernobyl face and it is people like you who will cause most of the health problems the people living near Fukushima will face.
Quote Comment
March 18th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Anon, my point was you can read any report you want that minimize the negative effects of Chernobyl or how the health consequences have been limited. The PEOPLE who ACTUALLY WERE AFFECTED will tell a different story, specifically the people of Belarus, liquidators, their families, etc.
As far as cover up goes- its not a conspiracy. This particular Doctor may not know everything there is to know about radiation, but he lives there! He sees patients everyday, he is monitoring the health of his patients. He would see a trend better then anyone. Do you think he wouldn’t notice the difference in the health of children/people pre/post Chernobyl?
Voices of Chernobyl is a good book, its an oral history of the Chernobyl aftereffects told by survivors, wives of liquidators, children, grandmothers, liquidators themselves. She spent a lot of time in the affected regions doing research and interviewing the populations. I’m sure she knows a lot more about the circumstances there then you do, actually, I know she does- and I doubt shes a conspiracy theorist. She talks about the government inaction and suppression of information relating to Chernobyl related health problems. A doctor was jailed for 5 years, the only Doctor studying these health issues, because he dared to try to make such links. The government doesn’t want to pay for the peoples health care, disability, etc.
Its completely insulting to these people to suggest that Chernobyl didn’t have much of a health impact. It did. There are orphanages in Belarus that are overcrowded with children suffering horrible birth defects and genetic conditions, the nurses who work there stated these places DID NOT exist before Chernobyl. Not to say children were born without defects or health issues, but not nearly at the level they were post-Chernobyl. How did people like me cause this exactly? You sound like an idiot.
Quote Comment
March 18th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Sarah said:
The only one sounding like an idiot here is you. Depending on publications that only support your preconceived notions nether helps you understand the issues, nor does it make you credible in the eyes of those that have spent considerable effort developing an understanding of the Chernobyl event.
In particular invoking claims of horrible birth defects demonstrates that you have only a very shallow understanding of this event as these clams have been shown to be fraudulent. In very case the photos that were used have been traced to medical records that show that these effected children were born years, sometime decades before the event, and most of them are not from the ex-USSR, but from Western sources.
Voices of Chernobyl is more of a oral history of the level of disorganization that existed in the the Soviet Union at the time that it was on the brink of collapsing, than any real analysis of impact the accident itself. In other words it shows just how rotted the state was at the time, reflected in its response to this event. It’s a mistake to read anymore into it than that.
Quote Comment
March 19th, 2011 at 9:41 am
“nor does it make you credible in the eyes of those that spent considerable effort developing an understanding of the Chernobyl event.”
I am not intending to be credible in the eyes of anyone, especially random computer chair critics. I am not an expert, but at the same time I don’t deny what I have read or seen about how this disaster has affected the people. That’s pretty much the only thing that I care about when it comes to Chernobyl, the human effect.
Do I want to be a computer chair expert, who thinks I have a ‘credible knowledge’ of everything about Chernobyl? That would be nice, but it would never be sufficient to develop a full understanding, as I said you have to really actually experience it through the eyes of those affected. Thats impossible from your computer chair research. I’m a computer chair critic just as yourself who takes on the view that Chernobyl has affected people’s health at a far greater impact then these studies claim.
http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/baverstock.html
http://www.chernobyl-international.com/medical-impact.html
http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.9.AdiRoche.1.htm
Quote Comment
March 19th, 2011 at 11:17 am
If you don’t look at statistics and basic scientific plausibility then you are pretty much guaranteeing that you will be wrong. Though I suspect you don’t really care all that much whether or not you are right or wrong as you’re more interesting in feeling good about yourself.
The human effect of Chernobyl was mostly due to the evacuation and the scaremongering, not the radiation.
Quote Comment
March 19th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Sarah said:
Well you have certainly achieved that, if nothing else.
Quote Comment
March 19th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Sarah said:
I make a distinction between the first responders and the “liquidators” versus the general population around the area.
Some of those who were the first responders were exposed to nearly fatal doses of radiation repeatedly.
I do not deny that some of them have suffered health effects. In fact, a few first responders died of acute radiation poisoning.
Sarah said:
Now you are making a big assumption.
In actuality, I have several family members who have volunteered to be part of orphan care and medical programs in Eastern Europe, including the Chernobyl area. My brother went there and brought back a lot of pictures and direct information. I’ve really considered going there myself. In fact, I may go there this summer.
There are a huge number of children born there in horrible shape. They have severe developmental problems.
It’s not radiation, it’s fetal alcohol syndrome. You would not believe how horrible the social situation is there. Alcoholism is epidemic, even to the point where poor people are killing themselves drinking denatured alcohol. Drug use is rampant too, but mostly alcohol. The area is horribly socially depressed, worse than most of us could imagine. Prenatal care is all but non-existent. Children are being given up as soon as they are born because they are basically presumed to be flawed from the get go. Many are born to unwed young girls. It also seems rape is common but hardly reported.
I don’t think most of us could really appreciate how terribly the whole social fabric of the area has been depressed.
Quote Comment
March 20th, 2011 at 7:57 am
drbuzz0 said:
That is so heartbreaking! Is it really post-Chernobyl radiation scaremongering that is responsible, or is it just a general collapse in living standards resulting from the fall of the Soviet Union?
Quote Comment
March 20th, 2011 at 9:11 am
George Carty said:
I’m sure both have contributed, and indeed much of the former Soviet Union is still in pretty bad shape, but it seems that the area in Belarus and Ukraine around Chernobyl is considerably worse than the rest of the former USSR.
Quote Comment
December 27th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
[...] results="10"]radiation meter[/affmage] [groupmage source="groupon" location=0 display=6]This story really puts the effects of radiation exposure from the recent even in Japan in perspectiv…which numbers are actually the truth as to how many people died from that disaster. The Soviet Union [...]
Quote Comment
September 18th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
I am really pleased to read this webpage posts which contains tons
of useful data, thanks for providing such statistics.
Quote Comment