You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #36: Where are the tens of thousands of Chernobyl dead? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #19
36. Where are the tens of thousands of Chernobyl dead?
They're not dead because most of them didn't even get sick.

Some did. There were cancers. There were deaths. The number is FAR lower than "tens of thousands".

Here's what the UNSCEAR report had to say about it:

For the last two decades, attention has been focused on investigating the association between exposure caused by radionuclides released in the Chernobyl accident and late effects, in particular thyroid cancer in children. Doses to the thyroid received in the first few months after the accident were particularly high in those who were children and adolescents at the time in Belarus, Ukraine and the most affected Russian regions and drank milk with high levels of radioactive iodine. By 2002, more than 4,000 thyroid cancer cases had been diagnosed in this group, and it is most likely that a large fraction of these thyroid cancers is attributable to radioiodine intake. It is expected that the increase in thyroid cancer incidence due to the Chernobyl accident will continue for many more years, although the long-term level of risk is difficult to quantify precisely.

Among Russian recovery operation workers with higher doses there is emerging evidence of some increase in the incidence of leukaemia. However, based on other studies, the risk of radiation-induced leukaemia would be expected to fall within a few decades after exposure.

Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, and some indication of an increased leukaemia incidence among the workers, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations. Neither is there any proof of other non-malignant disorders that are related to ionizing radiation. However, there were widespread psychological reactions to the accident, which were due to fear of the radiation, not to the actual radiation doses.

There is a tendency to attribute increases in the rates of all cancers over time to the Chernobyl accident, but it should be noted that increases were also observed before the accident in the affected areas. Moreover, a general increase in mortality has been reported in recent years in most areas of the former Soviet Union, and this must be taken into account when interpreting the results of Chernobyl-related studies.

UNSCEAR's assessments of the radiation effects

The bold format is mine.

There is a great deal of material on Chernobyl. It was studied in depth. Although I do not expect to change anyone's mind with a few postings, I do hope that you will become better acquainted with what happened -- and with all aspects of the issue of nuclear energy. Thirty years is way too long to fear science fiction when science fact is within easy reach.

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Wind power fatalities are higher than nuclear Pigwidgeon  Jul-13-07 01:00 PM   #0 
  - Don't sky dive near wind turbines  liberal N proud   Jul-13-07 01:05 PM   #1 
  - Explain please  doodadem   Jul-13-07 01:07 PM   #2 
  - Read the spreadsheet at the link  Pigwidgeon   Jul-13-07 01:27 PM   #10 
  - Read through this table...  A HERETIC I AM   Jul-13-07 01:32 PM   #11 
  - Consider the long-term effects of nuclear power.  bbernardini   Jul-13-07 01:10 PM   #3 
  - Nuclear energy didn't even exist until the 1940s  ben_meyers   Jul-13-07 01:32 PM   #12 
  - Nobody knows what to do with the nuclear garbage  Warpy   Jul-13-07 01:13 PM   #4 
  - We barked out the fuel-rods/reprocessing angle a few days ago  TheBorealAvenger   Jul-13-07 01:19 PM   #7 
  - Thousands of years? No. That's a misconception.  Pigwidgeon   Jul-13-07 01:58 PM   #14 
  - I think I can logically link these death rates-the wind power ones-  EST   Jul-13-07 01:15 PM   #5 
  - I agree - Nuclear power is the safest but not without problems.  HonorTheConstitution   Jul-13-07 01:17 PM   #6 
  - Here, here!  Pigwidgeon   Jul-13-07 02:00 PM   #15 
  - Plus, hardly anyone's died during construction of new nuclear plants in the past 20 years!  Zenlitened   Jul-13-07 01:19 PM   #8 
  - Since nuclear power was an after thought to help defrey the cost of nuclear weapon,  John Q. Citizen   Jul-13-07 01:26 PM   #9 
  - Of course we all live in dread fear of the Belgian, Swiss, Swedish and Romanian  NNadir   Jul-13-07 06:37 PM   #23 
  - SO while ercecting a 100ft tower for a wind turbine  FogerRox   Jul-13-07 01:49 PM   #13 
  - Insurance companies always factor in...  TreasonousBastard   Jul-13-07 02:05 PM   #16 
  - Note to self: do insurance companies insure nuke plants?  FogerRox   Jul-13-07 05:48 PM   #21 
     - They do while they are being built...  TreasonousBastard   Jul-13-07 11:13 PM   #26 
        - I jumped the gun, UR right,  FogerRox   Jul-14-07 12:46 AM   #35 
  - 0.4 deaths per Twh, only recently decreasing to 0.15 deaths per Twh  Pigwidgeon   Jul-13-07 02:27 PM   #18 
     - Including Chernobyl's tens of thousands of cases of  NCevilDUer   Jul-13-07 03:17 PM   #19 
     - Where are the tens of thousands of Chernobyl dead?  Pigwidgeon   Jul-14-07 06:31 AM   #36 
        - The USC group estimates 30K-60K deaths on reanalysis of the data used by UNSCEAR to predict 9K  struggle4progress   Jul-14-07 01:39 PM   #38 
     - If one is to compare the 2 death rates, the methodology should be the same  FogerRox   Jul-13-07 05:46 PM   #20 
  - So far, aside from Chernobyl, and...  TreasonousBastard   Jul-13-07 02:09 PM   #17 
  - This, of course, is not to say that wind is as dangerous as dangerous fossil fuels.  NNadir   Jul-13-07 06:33 PM   #22 
  - You forgot  losthills   Jul-13-07 09:07 PM   #24 
     - You forgot to count the deaths from Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Frankfurt  NNadir   Jul-14-07 08:21 AM   #37 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Jul-14-07 05:59 PM   #39 
  - Cancer Rate Near Vogtle Nuclear Plant Questioned  philb   Jul-13-07 10:40 PM   #25 
  - People die in ordinary industrial accidents at nuclear power plants:  struggle4progress   Jul-13-07 11:30 PM   #27 
  - They ARE counted  Pigwidgeon   Jul-14-07 12:02 AM   #32 
     - Your OP suggests no deaths from power reactors since Chernobyl  struggle4progress   Jul-14-07 12:28 AM   #34 
  - 4 Workers Killed in Accident at Japan Nuclear Power Plant (2004)  struggle4progress   Jul-13-07 11:35 PM   #28 
  - May 1993: a worker died in explosiuon and fire at Zaporozhye Unit 5  struggle4progress   Jul-13-07 11:41 PM   #29 
  - Crane accident at German nuclear power plant: two killed (May 07)  struggle4progress   Jul-13-07 11:42 PM   #30 
  - Some entries from a Greenpeace calendar  struggle4progress   Jul-13-07 11:55 PM   #31 
  - Molten metal splashes, killing Russian nuclear worker  struggle4progress   Jul-14-07 12:12 AM   #33 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC