It would appear, based in information I have, that Chernobyl is used a
folk explanation for all and any problem in in for USSR.
Internationally verified studies (by the WHO in the mid 90's) showed
that the actual death toll from Chernobyl was in the 40's (
http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm), about 30 from acute radiation sickness
and 10 from thyroid cancer. More deaths from leukemia are expected, but
it is too early for these to appear.
The most recent study is "Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation",
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation,
UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes,
Volume 2: Effects, Annex J (106 pp) ISBN : 92-1-422396
"413 Apart from the substantial increase in thyroid cancer after
childhood exposure observed in Belarus, in the Russian Federation and in
Ukraine, there is no evidence of a major public health impact related to
ionizing radiation 14 years after the Chemobyl accident. No increases in
overall cancer incidence or mortality that could be associated with
radiation exposure have been observed. For some cancers no increase
would have been anticipated as yet, given the latency period of around
10 years for solid tumours. The risk of leukaemia, one of the most
sensitive indicators of radiation exposure, has not been found to be
elevated even in the accident recovery operation workers or in children.
There is no scientific proof of an increase in other non-malignant
disorders related to ionizing radiation."
"415. There is a tendency to attribute increases in cancer rates (other
than thyroid) over time to the Chemobyl [sic] accident, but it should
be noted that increases were also observed before the accident in the
affected areas. More- over, a general increase in mortality has been
reported in recent years in most areas of the former USSR, and this must
also be taken into account in interpreting the results of the
"416. Increases of a number of non-specific detrimental health effects
other than cancer in accident recovery workers have been reported, e.g.
increased suicide rates and deaths due to violent causes. It is
difficult to interpret these findings without reference to a known
baseline or background incidence. The exposed populations undergo much
more intensive and active health follow-up than the general population.
As aresult, using the general population as a comparison group, as has
been done so far in most studies, is inadequate."
The human tragedy of sick, abandoned, and deformed children in the
region is real, but the causal link with Chernobyl is not established.
> I dont think those in Belarus and around Chernobyl would agree with
> all their cancers and deformities.My daughter visited Belarus las t
> october and was horrified that deformed babies were so common due to
> Chernobyl and were then given to orphanages.However these issues are
> so complex that I dont think one can come out with quick answers
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:george murphy
> To: Vandergraaf, Chuck
> Cc: 'M.B.Roberts' ; acg ; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 12:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Kyoto
> "Vandergraaf, Chuck" wrote:
> > No, Michael, IMHO, you are not too green. Kermit the frog
> > said "It's hard being green." I would say that it
> > difficult to be too green!
> > ..............................
> > But it is easy to be ignorantly green. Note,
> > e.g., the opposition of many self-described greens to any
> > form of nuclear power which (as Jon points out) could make
> > a big dent in greenhouse emissions.
> > George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 21 2001 - 09:28:07 EDT