Nuclear's green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril

[bananas]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/01/fukushima-chernobyl-risks-radiation

Nuclear's green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril

Pundits who downplay the risks of radiation are ignoring the casualities of the past. Fukushima's meltdown may be worse

o John Vidal
o guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 April 2011 20.00 BST

<snip>

Five years ago I visited the still highly contaminated areas of Ukraine and the Belarus border where much of the radioactive plume from Chernobyl descended on 26 April 1986. I challenge chief scientist John Beddington and environmentalists like George Monbiot or any of the pundits now downplaying the risks of radiation to talk to the doctors, the scientists, the mothers, children and villagers who have been left with the consequences of a major nuclear accident.

It was grim. We went from hospital to hospital and from one contaminated village to another. We found deformed and genetically mutated babies in the wards; pitifully sick children in the homes; adolescents with stunted growth and dwarf torsos; foetuses without thighs or fingers and villagers who told us every member of their family was sick.

This was 20 years after the accident but we heard of many unusual clusters of people with rare bone cancers. One doctor, in tears, told us that one in three pregnancies in some places was malformed and that she was overwhelmed by people with immune and endocrine system disorders. Others said they still saw caesium and strontium in the breast milk of mothers living far from the areas thought to be most affected, and significant radiation still in the food chain. Villages testified that "the Chernobyl necklace" – thyroid cancer – was so common as to be unremarkable; many showed signs of accelerated ageing.

The doctors and scientists who have dealt directly with the catastrophe said that the UN International Atomic Energy Agency's "official" toll, through its Chernobyl Forum, of 50 dead and perhaps 4,000 eventual fatalities was insulting and grossly simplistic. The Ukrainian Scientific Centre for Radiation, which estimated that infant mortality increased 20 to 30% after the accident, said their data had not been accepted by the UN because it had not been published in a major scientific journal.

<snip>

[LAGC]

1. This isn't anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl.

Chernobyl had a full melt-down and containment breach that affected a wide area.

Right now, the leakage at Fukushima is minimal (probably just run-off from the spent fuel pools) and very localized. While radiation levels are high 300 meters from the plant, if you go out even a mile from the plant the levels are negligible. It sounds like they've figured out where the leak is coming from, and will be patching the hole over the course of the next few days.

This whole event will be un-newsworthy in a few weeks. Watch.

[Wilms]

2. What do you make of this snip from the NY Times just yesterday?

On Wednesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said a soil sample from Iitate, a village of 7,000 people about 25 miles northwest of the plant, showed very high concentrations of cesium 137 — an isotope that produces harmful gamma rays, accumulates in the food chain and persists in the environment for hundreds of years.

The cesium levels were about double the minimums found in the area declared uninhabitable around the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, raising the question whether the evacuation zones around Fukushima should be extended beyond the current 18 miles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/asia/01clean.html?_r=1&ref=world

[Possumpoint]

3. Making Lite Of A Heavy Subject

Situation is worse then you describe. Three of six reactors have had core meltdowns up to 70%. Reactor 4's storage pool has exposed fuel rods that should be under 30 feet of water. There are tons of radioactive water accumulating in reactor buildings and they are having problems moving it to safe storage. Various areas of the grounds are so radioactive that limits must be put on personal exposure. Reactor #1 shows evidence of having gone critical one or more times.

Yes, Chernobyl was much worse with an unconstrained reactor explosion that distributed highly radioactive material over a wide area. This event is still unfolding and is nowhere near under control. The 8" crack in a containment pool leaking radioactive water into the sea may/may not be the only one.

[PoliticAverse]

6. Levels a mile from the plant are not "negligible". You are very misinformed.

This event will be newsworthy for years.

[Ultraviolet Cat]

4. It's a problem of comparison . . .

My complaint about this whole issue is the assumption that Nuclear = Dangerous, Non-Nuclear = Completely Safe. The fact of the matter is this -- our current fossil fuel energy sources are far more dangerous to human life than nuclear in terms of lives lost. Take coal -- given the hazards of mining it, the environmental degradation of burning it, and the nuclear isotopes in the ash, you have a situation where you would need to have almost 40 Chernobyl level events in the United States *each year* to rival coal in the number of deaths. The same analysis can be made for all other fossil fuels (even ignoring the climate change implications and wars fought over their control).

So . . . renewables are your thing? Do you think that installing and maintaining the giant wind turbines necessary to provide grid scale electricity is perfectly safe (particularly when you consider offshore wind)? Workers are going to die in these cases. How about solar, you ask? How do you think that rooftop systems are going to get installed and maintained? Roofing is one of the more dangerous construction jobs, and there will be accidents and fatalities involved. Concentrated solar in deserts? Construction deaths, heat exhaustion deaths, etc . . . you get the point.

My point is -- there are risks involved with all energy sources, it's just that the risks of nuclear are more frightening sounding. When compared to the risks associated with all other sources, nuclear is actually one of the safer methods of generating electricity (particularly when you look at the newer reactor designs). What really bothers me is that blocking the construction of new nuclear plants now is doing little to spur the construction of alternative sources and is simply causing us to continue relying on far more dangerous fossil fuels, which means that far more people are being condemned to an early death than is necessary to generate the electrical energy that we need today. I'm not a "nuclear cheerleader" because I don't understand the risks and history of nuclear power -- I'm a nuclear cheerleader precisely because I do understand the risks and history of nuclear power -- in comparison to the risks and history of fossil fuels.

There is a great chart at this link that addresses this issue, with an endnote later in the chapter - http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_168.shtml. The whole book is recommended reading, by the way, if you are truly interested in looking at the idea of sustainable energy.

[kristopher]

5. Actually it is a problem of bad information being perpetuted - like you just did.

Nuclear is only "safe" if the analysis excludes the full fuel life-cycle.

The appropriate comparison is not to coal, it is to the noncarbon alternatives of renewable energy sources and efficiency.

The "crowding out" effect that building nuclear plants has on renewables/efficiency is not only predicted by both economic and social theory, it is documented in practice - there is no question it is real.


Take the cure.
!
V

[txlibdem]

7. +1

eom

[kristopher]

8. Rah rah sisboombah

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah cesium!

[txlibdem]

9. The other poster must have touched a nerve -- I see sweat on your face

Nobody can post facts about the relative dangers of coal or someone will attack, attack, attack (with more cut-and-paste drivel).

[kristopher]

11. The dangers of coal are an important topic to keep in the forefront of the discussion.

Where you go astray is your false claim that the only way to eliminate coal is with nuclear.

That line of bullshit worked when the nuclear industry first trotted it out, but just like the emperor and his wardrobe malfunction - the truth is plain for all to see.

Seriously, take the cure:
!
V

[FBaggins]

12. Nuclear power ISN'T the only way to eliminate coal.

You could also go with natural gas.

It would be a big step in the right direction, but it's only marginally better.

And while we're much further away from "Peak Gas" than the PO crowd claimed a few years ago... we'll still run out of it before we ever run out of coal

Hydro is better than either, but we've come close to running out of places to put it.

Nuclear is what is left.

You sure aren't going to replace 50% of electricity generation with wind/solar any time soon. Not with current technology.

[kristopher]

15. Right. Well I notice you skipped this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x285456#285456285456,

What do the National Academies of Science and Engineering say about our energy future?
Posted by kristopher on Sat Apr-02-11 01:20 PM


Pegging current US consumption at 4,000TWH the NAS&E authors tell us that deploying existing energy efficiency technologies is our "nearest-term and lowest-cost option for moderating our nation’s demand for energy", and that accelerated "deployment of these technologies in the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors could reduce energy use by about 15 percent (15–17 quads, that is, quadrillions of British thermal units) in 2020, relative to the EIA’s “business as usual” reference case projection, and by about 30 percent (32–35 quads) in 2030 (U.S. energy consumption in 2007 was about 100 quads)."

They state that more aggressive policies and incentives would produce more results and that most of the "energy efficiency technologies are cost-effective now and are likely to continue to be competitive with any future energy-supply options; moreover, additional energy efficiency technologies continue to emerge."

The authors offer that renewable energy sources "could provide about an additional 500 TWh (500 trillion kilowatt-hours) of electricity per year by 2020 and about an additional 1100 TWh per year by 2035 through new deployments."

They are less optimistic about increased contributions from nuclear plants writing that they might provide an additional 160 TWh of electricity per year by 2020, and up to 850 TWh by 2035, by modifying current plants to increase their power output and by constructing new plants." However they are very specific with warnings that nuclear powers economics for Gen3 plants are significantly worse than predicted by the 2003 MIT nuclear study. They further opine that failure to prove the economic viability of at least 5 merchant plants by 2020 (it used to be 2010) would probably rule out nuclear as a viable option going forward.

Since the report was penned we have seen a complete collapse of the very idea that US merchant reactors are even possible and the likelihood is that few, if any, new plants will actually be built. If any ARE built it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to demonstrate the economic viability that is called for in the Report. This means that if their caveat about proof of concept is accurate, new nuclear is unlikely to play any significant role in carbon reduction in the US.

And now we have Fukushima as a new barometer of costs to add to the benefit/cost ledger.



http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/library/

You are invited to download the study.

Electricity from Renewable Sources Status, Prospects, and Impediments
This report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering explores the potential for and barriers to developing wind, solar, geothermal, and biopower technologies for electric power generation. It concludes that with an accelerated deployment effort, non-hydropower renewable sources could provide 10 percent or more of the nation’s electricity by 2020 and 20 percentor more by 2035. However, for these sources to supply more than 50 percent of America’s electricity, new scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity are needed.

http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/library/


My 2 cents:
Proponents of nuclear power claim its contribution is central to our ability to respond to climate change. That simply isn't true. Nuclear is at the most a minor contributor, and at worst, it actually impedes the effort by diverting funds from more efficacious solutions.


Spread the Cure
1
V

[FBaggins]

18. Is this yet another thread where you tell us what you think they said...

...instead of poting what they actually said?

No thanks. I prefer the actual thing.

http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/library /

This isn't a link to a study. It's link to multiple studies... including reports that don't fit your summary.

They are less optimistic about increased contributions from nuclear plants

That isn't actually true. They're really talking about very comparable amounts of new generation capacity... but there are a number of nuclear plants that are nearing the end of their run and we can only expect a handful of new ones to be done by 2020. The 2035 number, if adjusted for retiring plants, is about the same or larger than the renewables figure.

Note the statement that precedes the ones you're looking at.

Third, the United States has many promising options for obtaining new supplies of electricity and changing its supply mix during the next two to three decades, especially if carbon capture and storage and evolutionary nuclear plants can be deployed at required scales.

Note what their actual point is? As I've been telling you for many months now, a significant change in the mix of power generation in the future requires storage new nuclear.

Sixth, substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are achievable over the next two to three decades through a portfolio approach involving the widespread deployment of energy efficiency technologies; renewable energy; coal, natural gas, and biomass with carbon capture and storage; and nuclear technologies.

So we can argue all day about what they're saying... but what they're clearly NOT saying is that renewables can provide 100% of our needs in the next 20 years without significant storage and without nuclear.

It concludes that with an accelerated deployment effort, non-hydropower renewable sources could provide 10 percent or more of the nation’s electricity by 2020 and 20 percentor more by 2035. However, for these sources to supply more than 50 percent of America’s electricity, new scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity are needed.


Strange that you would cite that here. I've been telling you (also for months) that we can ramp renewables up to about 20% of power generation over a couple decades, but can't get much past that without substantial changes (including massive amounts of storage or wholesale societal changes).

So now you agree?

[kristopher]

21. Let's call on another expert -

http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-1/

Smart Grid Heavy Hitters – Jon Wellinghoff, Chair of US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Jon Wellinghoff is the Chairman of the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – the FERC is the agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. As such, the FERC was the agency which Google Energy applied to for its licence to buy and sell electricity on the wholesale market, for example.

Shortly after his appointment as Chair of the FERC in 2009 by Barack Obama, Chairman Wellinghoff made headlines when he said, "No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States… renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands."...

http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-1/

Poor Chairman Wellinghoff, perhaps you could send him a version of your spin-for-nuclear nonsense and he would re-evaluate his conclusions...


ETA part 2:
http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-2/

[FBaggins]

23. You mean "let's spin to a new topic now that I've been busted on this one" ?

What a surprise.

:sarcasm:

[LAGC]

24. He's good at that.

Avoids answering criticism and changes the subject.

Don't you find it funny how there's all this rage against nuclear power, but not coal?

[kristopher]

25. The FERC chair says we do not need coal or nuclear.

That means you and Pam are wrong when you say we MUST have it for between 40-80% of generation.

You are wrong.

[LAGC]

26. Ah yes, the holy FERC chair.

And I'm sure he'll be out there with a hand-crank winding up a generator to power all our cities and industries at night. :eyes:

[kristopher]

31. Do you have any vetted evidence showing he is wrong? No, you do not.

You have nothing but unsubstantiated bull and snark.

http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-1/

[FBaggins]

29. Aren't you worried about striping your transmission?

I've never seen anyone shift gears so fast. :rofl:

First you're interested in using what the National Academies of Science and Engineering say about our energy future... now you're arguing against them by citing a political appointee math/law major as suddenly the most credible source?

Doesn't that just prove what I've been saying all along? Your standard for "authoritative" or "expert" has nothing to do with credentials or knowledge and everything to do with whether you think they support your position.

That means you and Pam are wrong when you say we MUST have it for between 40-80% of generation.

Nope.The National Academies of Science and Engineering says that 40-80% of generation needs to come from something other than renewables even decades from now. Nuclear is one of those possibilities... but you don't like that...

...so you're advocating coal.

[kristopher]

32. Your interpretation of the NAS study is self serving crap - wellinghoff's remarks prove it.

[FBaggins]

34. There wasn't any "interpretation"... they were just straight quotes.

Quotes that you can't deal with... and that you desperately hope a political appointee's opinion (not shared by scientists or the rest of the administration) can outweigh.

They can't.

[kristopher]

35. ROFL

[txlibdem]

19. Nothing will "cure" the truth.

You and I will never agree that nuclear power needs to be a part of our energy mix. I don't even believe we agree that we must end the reign of coal and oil as soon as humanly possible.

We need to double the amount of nuclear energy from its current 20% to 40% --and the rest will come from renewable energy sources:
+Solar PV
+Solar Thermal
+Onshore Wind
+Offshore Wind
+Geothermal Power Plants
+Tide and wave power
+and a proper amount of energy storage for the intermittent sources like wind and solar, making it a reliable base load power source
+this necessarily means having excess capacity in solar to make up for lesser wind power in winter and excess wind farms to cover for cloudy days, there is no other way to end coal.

We also need to improve the efficiency (decrease the energy consumption) of just about every darn thing we do today:
+Buildings need to be designed better and insulated far more --they waste energy
+Geothermal heating and cooling which saves from 50% to 80% on your heating/cooling costs yet costs only 20% more than "standard" systems
+LED lightbulbs instead of CFL or incandescent
+Appliances, e.g., Plasma TVs that use up to 600 watts when an LED or LCD model takes less than 140 watts
+Electric vehicles
+Bio fuels for the vehicles that need to stay in service yet have an internal combustion engine
+Bio oil and soybeans, hemp, etc., as substitutes for everything made from petroleum today --as much as possible

I call for a push toward renewable energy on the scale of the Race to the Moon of the 1960s. It will take nothing less to end the evil reign of coal and oil.

[kristopher]

22. There is no justification for more nuclear or coal.

http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-1/

http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-2/

Jon Wellinghoff is the Chairman of the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – the FERC is the agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. As such, the FERC was the agency which Google Energy applied to for its licence to buy and sell electricity on the wholesale market, for example.

Shortly after his appointment as Chair of the FERC in 2009 by Barack Obama, Chairman Wellinghoff made headlines when he said

"No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States… renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands."

The video is at the link above.

[txlibdem]

27. You keep posting that their is no need

for nuclear. And then you cite study after study that shows a maximum limit for renewable energy of 20% and none that ever go above that.

So, in your world, coal is still the dominant source of electricity. If zealots like you succeed in closing down all the nukes we will be getting 80% of our power from coal. Oh, that'll be a peachy world to live in now won't it???

Say it a thousand different ways if you like. The truth is that we need to end the reign of fossil fuels before they make the world a nightmarish hell from toxic waste and global climate change. We need to end coal long before we need to end nuclear.

[kristopher]

33. False statement: study that shows a maximum limit for renewable energy of 20%

That simply isn't true.


Reference OP this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=285456&mesg_id=285456

[CabalPowered]

10. I can't remember anyone arguing renewables are 100% safe but..

You're insinuating members are advocating for the construction of new thermal plants. I don't think you'll find one person here that would make that argument. Or advocate for "clean coal", or fracking, or deep-water drilling. But nuclear advocates like to use this tactic as.. well in comparison to coal/oil.. nuclear is safe and cheap!! Then comes the "you're anti-nuke therefore you're pro-coal fallacy, which has been trotted out so many times here that it's like watching reruns of a single episode of Jeoporady!

As for wind construction deaths.. You're right people have died from construction and maintenance of wind farms, mostly in Germany in the early 90's and most of were the result of an employee not using their safety equipment. I know a construction manager who is working on a large wind farm in SE Idaho. The company started out building thermal plants in Texas. If you ask him how he likes working on the wind farm.. his answer is routinely.. It's really boring work. I would much rather be constructing facilities in which the process is so routine that workers become bored by it. Whereas something as complex as a reactor or a thermal plant, there are a thousand ways to screw something up. And hundreds of ways to cut corners.

It's that degree of complexity, coupled with a profit motive and a large design debt, that throws all the bean counting out the window for nuclear power. When you start to account for externalities that span whole generations, you have to make huge assumptions about the future. Is your crystal ball that good? Or are you just feeling lucky? In the most extreme example.. Even after the new sarcophagus and processing facilities are built at Chernobyl, the structures will have to be maintained for thousands of years. The same will happen at Fukushima and at a much larger scale. When you start to account for even the most obvious of these "legacy" costs, nuclear power is a very expensive experiment. The book you cite fails to even mention Chernobyl. And then there's this gem on the preceding page:

"If we let private companies build new reactors, how can we ensure that higher safety standards are adhered to? I don’t know."

[Nederland]

13. Fukushima's meltdown may be worse?

Really? I'd love for him to explain exactly how Fukushima's meltdown could possibly release as much radiation as the Chernobyl accident. There was NO containment structure at the Chernobyl plant. None. How Vidal can think the Fukushima's meltdown could exceed Chernobyl's radiation levels is merely an indicator of how ignorant he is.

[NickB79]

14. "Their data has not been accepted by the UN"

"Because it has not been published in a major scientific journal."

If their data is sound, why haven't they published it? And if it hasn't been peer-reviewed, doesn't that make their claims antecdotal rather than factual?

[kristopher]

16. That's a Fox News kind of "mistake" isn't it?

Your header reads ""Their data has not been accepted by the UN" then continues "Because it has not been published in a major scientific journal". Those words may be in the paragraph you found them, however your selected usage creates a very misleading impression since a couple of paragraphs later the article notes "At the end of 2006, Yablokov and two colleagues, factoring in the worldwide drop in births and increase in cancers seen after the accident, estimated in a study published in the annals of the New York Academy of Sciences that 985,000 people had so far died and the environment had been devastated. Their findings were met with almost complete silence by the World Health Organisation and the industry."

So you took a statement about past obstacles to understanding the consequences of Chernobyl and act as if that represented current reality.

Imbedded in the explicit statement in bold above that moves the narrative forward is the link to this article by the New York Academy of Science (prestigious and peer-reviewed) publication of Yablokov's Russian Academy of Science's study:

http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1

Here is a part of the abstract. Note well the first two pargraphs:

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: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†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.

<snip>

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.

Finally let me add the last paragraph from the Guardian piece:
"Fukushima is not Chernobyl, but it is potentially worse. It is a multiple reactor catastrophe happening within 150 miles of a metropolis of 30 million people. If it happened at Sellafield, there would be panic in every major city in Britain. We still don't know the final outcome but to hear experts claiming that nuclear radiation is not that serious, or that this accident proves the need for nuclear power, is nothing short of disgraceful."

[NickB79]

17. Oh Kris, seeing boogeymen again?

The reason I didn't put the whole quote in at once is that "Their data has not been accepted by the UN because it has not been published in a major scientific journal" is that it WOULDN'T FIT IN THE SUBJECT LINE. No attempts at skewing the perception of readers, simply the limits of DU's posting abilities.

Secondly, the data I was questioning was the Ukrainian Scientific Centre for Radiation's claim "which estimated that infant mortality increased 20 to 30% after the accident". This was the study that the author says was never published in a scientific journal. Since there are numerous peer-reviewed studies already out there to quote (with VASTLY varying death tolls reported: Greenpeace estimated only 1/10 the death toll of Yablokov), it seemed odd that the author would even include one with such little substance.

[kristopher]

20. It isn't "seeing boogeymen"

It is simple recognition of the fact that you routinely attempt to spin posts in a way most favorable to the nuclear industry. Why you engage in that activity is your business, but the fact that you DO engage in such promotion is a matter of historical record.

[NickB79]

28. So my crime was not fitting the whole quote in the subject line

And asking why a particular study was quoted when that study was not published in any major scientific journals?

Well damn DU Sheriff Kristopher, lock me up and throw away the keys!

[kristopher]

30. That isn't what I wrote and you know it.

It has nothing to do with the break in the quoted line, it has to do with the impression you tried to create by using that line when two paragraphs later the class of information you wanted to cast in a bad light (as not fit for publication) was discussed as having been compiled and published by both the Russian Academy of Sciences AND the New York Academy of Sciences.

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: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†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.

<snip>

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.

[gtar100]

36. I'm glad you have the wherewithal to stand up to these nuclear power cheerleaders.

I don't have the research knowledge to put up with their mind games. All I know is the incredibly negative side-effects of its use and the overwhelming problem of disposing of the waste is more than enough information to know that we need to look to other alternatives for our energy needs. And more coal and natural gas is hardly an alternative. I appreciate your perseverence.