New Book About Chernobyl Out - a wake up call

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mackay

Almost Self-Reliant
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
1,332
Reaction score
0
Points
128
Harmless? Chernobyl Radiation Killed Nearly One Million People


NEW YORK, New York, - Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobylreactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences published today on the 24th anniversary of the meltdown at the Soviet facility.

The book, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," was compiled by authors Alexey Yablokov of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, and Vassily Nesterenko and AlexeyNesterenko of the Institute of Radiation Safety, in Minsk, Belarus.>

The authors examined more than 5,000 published articles and studies, most written in Slavic languages and never before available in English.

The authors said, "For the past 23 years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

"No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be
protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe," they said. "Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere."

The Chernobyl nuclear reactor was destroyed by an explosion and
fire April 26, 1986. Their findings are in contrast to estimates by the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency that initially said only 31 people had died among the "liquidators," those approximately 830,000 people who were in charge of extinguishing the fire at the Chernobyl reactor and
deactivation and cleanup of the site.

The book finds that by 2005, between 112,000 and 125,000 liquidators had died.

"On this 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, we now realize that the consequences were far worse than many researchers had believed," says Janette Sherman, MD, the physician and toxicologist who edited the book.

Drawing upon extensive data, the authors estimate the number of deaths worldwide due to Chernobyl fallout from 1986 through 2004 was 985,000, a number that has since increased.

By contrast, WHO and the IAEA estimated 9,000 deaths and some 200,000 people sickened in 2005.

On April 26, 1986, two explosions occured at reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant which tore the top from the reactor and its building and exposed the reactor core. The resulting fire sent a plume of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over large parts of the western Soviet Union, Europe and across the Northern Hemisphere. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia had to be evacuated.

Yablokov and his co-authors find that radioactive emissions from the stricken reactor, once believed to be 50 million curies, may have been as great as 10 billion curies, or 200 times greater than the initial estimate, and hundreds of times larger than the fallout from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nations outside the former Soviet Union received high doses of
radioactive fallout, most notably Norway, Sweden, Finland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria,Austria, Romania, Greece, and parts of the United Kingdom and Germany.


Disabled children from Belarus visiting the UK during Easter 2010
sponsored by the charity Medicine Chernobyl Belarus Special Aid Group.
>
(Photo by Matthew and Heather)

About 550 million Europeans, and 150 to 230 million others in the
Northern Hemisphere received notable contamination. Fallout reached the United States and Canada nine days after the disaster.

The proportion of children considered healthy born to irradiated parents in Belarus, the Ukraine, and European Russia considered healthy fell from about 80 percent to less than 20 percent since 1986.

Numerous reports reviewed for this book document elevated disease rates in the Chernobyl area. These include increased fetal and infant deaths, birth defects, and diseases of the respiratory, digestive, musculoskeletal, nervous, endocrine, reproductive, hematological, urological, cardiovascular, genetic, immune, and other systems, as well as cancers and non-cancerous tumors.

In addition to adverse effects in humans, numerous other species have been contaminated, based upon studies of livestock, voles, birds, fish, plants, trees, bacteria, viruses, and other species.

Foods produced in highly contaminated areas in the former Soviet Union were shipped, and consumed worldwide, affecting persons in many other nations. Some, but not all, contamination was detected and contaminated foods not shipped.

The authors warn that the soil, foliage, and water in highly contaminated areas still contain substantial levels of radioactive chemicals, and will continue to harm humans for decades to come.

The book explores effects of Chernobyl fallout that arrived above the United States nine days after the disaster. Fallout entered the U.S. environment and food chain through rainfall. Levels of iodine-131 in milk, for example, were seven to 28 times above normal in May and June 1986. The authors found
that the highest U.S. radiation levels were recorded in the Pacific
Northwest.

Americans also consumed contaminated food imported from nations affected by the disaster. Four years later, 25 percent of imported food was found to be still contaminated.

Little research on Chernobyl health effects in the United States has been conducted, the authors found, but one study by the Radiation and Public Health Project found that in the early 1990s, a few years after the meltdown, thyroid cancer in Connecticut children had nearly doubled.

This occurred at the same time that childhood thyroid cancer rates in the former Soviet Union were surging, as the thyroid gland is highly sensitive to radioactive iodine exposures.

The world now has 435 nuclear reactors and of these, 104 are in the United States.

The authors of the study say not enough attention has been paid to Eastern European research studies on the effects of Chernobyl at a time when corporations in several nations, including the United States, are attempting to build more nuclear reactors and to extend the years of operation of aging reactors.

The authors said in a statement, "Official discussions from the
International Atomic Energy Agency and associated United Nations' agencies (e.g. the Chernobyl Forum reports) have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings reported in the Eastern European scientific literature and consequently have erred by not including these assessments."
>
 

morgj

Power Conserver
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Points
34
Location
Virginia
according to the World Health Organization 1.2 million people DIE in auto accidents each YEAR

http://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/traffic_deaths_number/en/index.html

I appreciate your information because it helps each of us make an informed choice. Each and every day we are faced with real and imagined dangers, and we have to choose what and how we will be exposed to these dangers. I have to commute to work at present. So I have to weigh the above with the fact that I could die going to work. Yet, I must work to eat and provide myself shelter. A risk I can take. I choose to wear a seat belt to assist in minimizing the risk involved. I back off when someone is driving stupid.

Nuclear power for all its inherent dangers is not going away. It can't. There are too many people on earth and no reasonable alternatives at present to provide power requirements without a combination of a variety of sources. That is the reality. So we must make informed and assumed risks to go about our day to day lives. And as we push for electric vehicle to wean away from petroleum, we must have an ample power grid and supply to keep up with demand.

There will never be a global shut down of nuclear power. You will never get all the players to agree to it. Unfortunately, I don't have the answers either. I drive less than I used to, I try to conserve and recycle, and I have to understand that it is in God's hand as to what and where and how I'll end up. I also know that mother nature will always take care of herself despite our attempts to mess her up.

Each and every life has value and worth and I don't want to downplay 1 million people with deaths that may or may not be directly related to Chernobyl. There are so many other environmental and lifestyle choices and decisions that play into that equation. Over the 20 some years since the accident that pales in comparison to the nearly 1 million deaths from malaria each year. In 20 years that is 20 million people due to mosquitoes.

Interesting discussion.
 

Mackay

Almost Self-Reliant
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
1,332
Reaction score
0
Points
128
If it does not go away be are bound to destroy ourselves, our genetic code and life as we know it.

an auto accident is no comparison to the damage done to the earth and all her living things through radiaiton.

I can only assume you would prefer for your child to loose a leg through an auto accident rather than cancer from radiation poisoning, or thyroid cancer... or to have a grandchild born with defective legs.

The auto accident anology is absurd.
 

morgj

Power Conserver
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Points
34
Location
Virginia
not auto accidents. Auto deaths. Yearly. 1.2 million people. I was trying to provide perspective. I did not mean to come across as absurd.

There is no doubt that nuclear radiation is bad for you and the environment. But again, Nuclear power is not going to go away globally. I never said harmless, I never said safe, I said there were criteria we have to weigh in each and every decision. But I will be quiet now on this issue.
 

rebecca100

Almost Self-Reliant
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
13
Points
190
Location
NArkansas
Truly scary stuff and definately we need to at elast make an attempt to be prepared for the possibility of a nuclear emergency if it were to ever happen here. However downplayed radiation is it is still a major threat that covers a wide area. It is not anything to take lightly. I have to wonder would it take thousands of people dying here in the US for people to wake up and see that something has to give somewhere? Our nuclear plant here in AR was only built to withstand an 8 earthquake..... And here we are with everyday earthquakes and the New Madrid fault as a neighbor. It is great that they are relatively safe during the good times, but are we as a people prepared to deal with when they go bad? All becuase we like the comfort of being able to "have more"? Now I will get off the soapbox and go find something productive to do... Like turn out some lights......
 

chickenone

Lovin' The Homestead
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Points
54
morgj said:
not auto accidents. Auto deaths. Yearly. 1.2 million people. I was trying to provide perspective. I did not mean to come across as absurd.

There is no doubt that nuclear radiation is bad for you and the environment. But again, Nuclear power is not going to go away globally. I never said harmless, I never said safe, I said there were criteria we have to weigh in each and every decision. But I will be quiet now on this issue.
I thought your analogy was excellent and put it all in perspective.
 

chickenone

Lovin' The Homestead
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Points
54
If people are prepared to give up the luxury of electric power, I would say by all means, get rid of nuclear power. But I am guessing that even those opposed to nuclear power are not opposed to using electricity.

And therein lies the rub.

If I am wrong, I apologize.
 

FarmerChick

Super Self-Sufficient
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
11,417
Reaction score
14
Points
248
Anti nuclear protests have not worked and they won't work any time soon. Protesters need to pick an issue they might win.

While I know people will throw tons of 'unsafe' info out in the world...the world gets TONS of power from those plants in relative safety.

Nuclear plants are here to stay barring a world shattering problem other than an accident.

I live near a power plant. Doesn't worry me, so I do turn my lights on and glady pay them my money every month to have that power.



problem being, 2 sides to every single issue in this world. Those who say fine, allow it, those who protest it. That sure is never going to change!

Is there an SS connection I am missing or is this an anti-nuclear forum? :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top