Thanks for these URLs. I didn't have time last weekend to dig around for
this information and I'm glad you had the URLs at your finger tips. Of
course, the information is supplied by the Uranium Institute and this will
probably be considered "propaganda" by anti-nuclear activists.
Incidentally, the same "folk explanations" were used following the Three
Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. Any animal miscarriage, any animal
deformity, and any failed crop was attributed to that accident, even though
it was shown that it was inconceivable that there could be any link.
A more recent "folk explanation" is the effect of DU on Gulf War and Bosnia
veterans. Yet, the media are all too happy to propagate this sort of
nonsense and misinformation. I suppose that, if you tell a lie often
enough, it is considered to be a fact.
From: Jonathan Clarke [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday April 21, 2001 8:34 AM
Cc: acg; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Kyoto
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
<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 Chemobyl-related studies."
"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,
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 Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: george <mailto:email@example.com> murphy
To: Vandergraaf, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> Chuck
Cc: 'M.B.Roberts' <mailto:email@example.com> ; acg
<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> ; email@example.com <mailto: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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 10:54:06 EDT