Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New research shows that nuclear industry has been hiding mortality from Chernobyl for decades

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
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 08:50 PM
Original message
New research shows that nuclear industry has been hiding mortality from Chernobyl for decades
"Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.

Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct.

Using criteria demanded by (UN agencies tasked with objective evaluation nuclear public health issues) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl.

Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent.

Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas ... revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, ... as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies....

<snip>

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, ...a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world."


Full abstract (Free use applies)

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health


Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: +7-495-952-80-19; fax: +7-495-952-80-19. [email protected]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. A complete study by the United Nations, IAEA, and World Health Organization disagree with you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-15-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. Don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-nuclear power fantasy
Gawd, TheWraith, you just don't know how to play the Pro-Coal game do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-15-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Do you know how to read? The paper is a damning indictment of that very work
The very first thing the paper addresses is:
Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.

Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct.

Using criteria demanded by (UN agencies tasked with objective evaluation nuclear public health issues) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl.

Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent.

Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas ... revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, ... as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies....

<snip>

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, ...a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world."


And if you want to try and attack the academic credibility of a publication of the New York Academy of Sciences, be my guest. The paper is credible and its findings are far more valid than the work you are trying to use to dismiss it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-15-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. So your focus is in preventing us in The West from building any Soviet-style reactors... SUCCESS!
My hat is off to you sir! You have convinced me. We should never, ever build any Soviet-style nuclear power plants. As everyone knows, Chernobyl was built with inadequate safety controls from day one and it had NO CONTAINMENT VESSEL at all. Why, you've even managed to use the power of argument and good article linking to stop those Soviet-style reactors from ever being built in the US, UK, Japan, France, etc., as they were never built commercially anywhere in the west. Nice little job of time travel there "Kristopher Koal-Man" really nice!

Now back to the realities actually facing us here in the USA, the EU, and Asia.

On a serious note. You haven't mentioned the thousands of brave men who died from being the ones "selected" to build the containment vessel for the damaged Chernobyl reactor after the accident. They all knew they were going to die but they did their duty to help save the lives of others. Each man was given a limited amount of time they could be near the reactor and knew that they would die if they worked too long. This is the danger of building a reactor with no containment. This is why we in the west never build them like that.

And just to be sure there is no false information from K. Koal-Man left in the atmosphere, no person in America, the UK, or the EU is suggesting, planning, nor thinking of building poorly designed reactors such as that. Ever. He is just using a boogie-man from decades ago to scare you all into resigning yourself to the fact that you need coal powered electricity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. No, the focus is on the lack of transparency in issues related to nuclear power
But if you want to take up the subject of the safety of nuclear plants, the established stats regarding the possibilities of failures, and the way that statistics are being inappropriately used to create support for a poor policy option, well, I'll be happy to exchange thoughts on the topic.

Perhaps you'd like to review this for content on the topic.
ttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261464&mesg_id=261464

Look for the subthread coming off the header "Good article, thanks"


It also touches on the nuclear industry meme you're pushing lately about the relative danger from the radioactive emissions of coal and nuclear. We have left a discussion about that hanging also.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. Blaming Soviet secrecy on the nuclear industry is ingenious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. You must not have read the abstract
Edited on Wed Oct-13-10 10:17 PM by kristopher
"Using criteria demanded by

the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
the World Health Organization (WHO), and
the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)

resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl."


Now, how do you think the parameters discussed in those lines were established? Do you seriously have an alternative explanation for what entity besides the nuclear industry would seek to deliberately limit the investigation in ways that would result in under-reporting of affected individuals?

A detailed study reveals that

3.8–4.0% of all deaths

in the contaminated territories

of Ukraine and Russia

from 1990 to 2004

were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe.


Do you really, honestly, and truly think that qualified researchers would have designed a study that failed to pick up effects on this scale unless it were designed specifically to trim the data?

This is the take of the Nuclear Energy Institute on the same topic:
A landmark United Nations study published in September 2005

estimated that while 4,000 people theoretically could die from radiation-induced cancers,

only 56 deaths could be attributed to radiation exposure from the accident.

That total includes the 47 emergency workers mentioned above and nine people who died from thyroid cancer—most of whom were either children or adolescents at the time of the accident."


ETA: From NYAS article in OP:
"...a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-10 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. So, the IAEA bullied the WHO and UNSCEAR into accepting their parameters?
And WHO and UNSCEAR just rolled over and took it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. That is exactly what happened.
Edited on Thu Oct-14-10 11:06 AM by kristopher
You apparently have no experience dealing with the influence of these entities. A small scale example - we have a dirty coal plant in the area and there is concern about health effects from emissions in the local area. For nearly 20 years we have tried to get monitors set up to collect the data required to examine whether known local illness clusters are related to the pattern of dispersion of the emissions from the power plant.

And for 20 years the utility and the power plant owners have blocked the needed legislative action for getting those monitors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-10 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. That's strange...
Edited on Thu Oct-14-10 03:54 PM by Dead_Parrot
...the WHO seems perfectly happy to report on coal deaths elsewhere.

Are you sure the World Health Organisation is responsible for legislation in Delaware?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-15-10 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Every day the anti-nuke conspiracy theorists get weirder and weirder.
This reminds me of the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very amusing time that an anti-nuke informed me in this space that the IEA and the DOE websites were lying because they claimed that solar energy still doesn't produce one exajoule of energy per year on the entire planet.

The source of this claim was entirely faith based, but, as I say, hilarious.

Of course we all recognize that Kiev and Harrisburg are both uninhabited cities, except, of course, for the giant three headed semi-humans with ant heads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-15-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Right...
212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world

New York Academy of Sciences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-15-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. You should probably check the disclaimer on page vi. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. This is an excerpt from a book (which is not new).
Edited on Wed Oct-13-10 09:51 PM by joshcryer
Pretty sure it's been debated to death here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-10 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Yup
The OP is old stale news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-10 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. On this topic 2009 is new to most people.
Note the Nuclear Energy Institute is still hawking the discredited numbers they helped to create.

Trust me, you will see this again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-10 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I believe you
Trust me, you will see this again.

Given your habit of cutting and pasting the same thing over and over again, I find this very easy to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-13-10 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. It fits in with the nuclear power industries MO
Obfuscate and when that quits working outright lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGregory Donating Member (427 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Not only eloquence, but the grammar to match
It fits in with the nuclear power industries MO
------------------------------------------------

Confusing the plural with the possessive I see.

It should be "the nuclear power industry's MO"
That is the possessive form you seek.

What you wrote, "industries"; is called a PLURAL.

The grammar matches the vocabulary.

Dr. Greg

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-10 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. It is considered boorish to pick on somebody's English in an internet forum...eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGregory Donating Member (427 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-10 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Perhaps if poor scholarship were not tolerated.
It is considered boorish to pick on somebody's English in an internet forum...eom
=======================================================

Yet the same uneducated person can call people "frauds"
when they don't agree with educated opinion?

Actually I don't agree with this bit of "netiquette".

If someone takes offense when their poor vocabulary and
poor grammar is pointed out; then maybe that will give
them the motivation to study and learn proper grammar.

One of the problems today is the poor level of academic
achievement. The education establishment is so afraid
of "offending" the person that they let it slide.

Perhaps we should expect people to speak in complete
sentences, with proper grammar. If someone doesn't
measure up; then they should be called on their poor
display until they improve.

Why tolerate mediocrity and less?

Dr. Greg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnlinePoker Donating Member (837 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-15-10 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. So correct your errors before criticizing others
If someone doesn't measure up; then they should be called on their poor display until they improve.
=================================================================================================

This is an incorrect use of a semicolon. You are not separating two independent clauses. A comma is the correct punctuation mark in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-15-10 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. ABSOLUTELY! He failed to properly separate a prepositional phrase and an independent clause
Anybody who PASSED English Composition 101 should know THAT. How EMBARASSING!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-15-10 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. I did not "take offense", I am just pointing out a boor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrGregory Donating Member (427 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. I don't give a damn.
I did not "take offense", I am just pointing out a boor
===================================

I don't give a damn. I don't subscribe to the
foolishness of this "anything goes" on the net.

My use of the semicolon is proper according to my
several decades old grammar books. Separating independent
clauses is only ONE use of the semicolon. It is NOT the
only use.

I don't subscribe to this NONSENSE that capitalization is
shouting. Capitals are used for emphasis!! This was in
the days of old typewriters which couldn't change fonts.
We used capitals for emphasis.

Although one may argue the subtleties of the usage of
punctuation mark, this issue here was over the difference
between the possessive and the plural. This is something
one normally expects 2nd or 3rd graders to be able to handle.

Although everyone is entitled to an opinion, all opinions
are not equally valid. Someone that doesn't have the mental
capabilities or brain power of a 2nd or 3rd grader is entitled
to their opinion but that opinion should be discounted as being
worthless by those with a higher degree of scholarship.

Dr. Greg

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Oh boy! A real smarty pants and educated person. We are so honored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-10 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
27. The Soviets being secretive, SHOCKING!!!
:eyes:

Just another excuse to bash Nuclear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. No, it's "just" another example of nuclear industry hiding data that is prejudicial
Sorry you can't muster the objectivity to view the facts dispassionately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-16-10 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Hardly the case though
when a deliberate lie is being made or detrimental information industry wide is withheld and someone calls them on it, is not bashing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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