[ RadSafe ] Chernobyl radiation death toll 56 so far - U.N

[Christian Hofmeyr]

Jaro, radsafers,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but IMHO true LNT, in
which each dose increment has the same probability of
causing a cancer, does not allow the 'allowance' the HPS
wants to make in terms of the consequences of collective
dose.  Chernobyl seems to be shaping up as the biggest nail
in the coffin of LNT.  This was heralded by the absence of
excesss leukemia relatively soon after the accident, and
with passing years the case gets stronger.
Regards
Chris Hofmeyr
Chris.Hofmeyr at webmail.co.za
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 22:10:42 -0400
 "Jaro" <jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>There was a similar article in the Globe and Mail
>newspaper.
>I sent them the following comment :
>
>To the Editor:
>
>Your AP article, "Toll from Chernobyl lowered" (Monday,
>September 5,
>2005) states that "The report said the final death toll
>attributed
>to radiation could reach 4,000."
>
>But this estimate is based on extrapolating radiation
>risks from
>high doses to low doses, using the so-called Linear
>No-Threshold, or
>LNT hypothesis.
>
>However, according to the POSITION STATEMENT OF THE HEALTH
>PHYSICS
>SOCIETY, "RADIATION RISK IN PERSPECTIVE," (posted at
>http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf ), "in
>accordance with
>current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health
>Physics
>Society recommends against quantitative estimation of
>health risks
>below an individual dose of 5 rem in one year or a
>lifetime dose of
>10 rem in addition to background radiation. Risk
>estimation in this
>dose range should be strictly qualitative accentuating a
>range of
>hypothetical health outcomes with an emphasis on the
>likely
>possibility of zero adverse health effects."
>The Position Statement continues, "There is substantial
>and
>convincing scientific evidence for health risks following
>high-dose
>exposures. However, below 5–10 rem (which includes
>occupational and
>environmental exposures), risks of health effects are
>either too
>small to be observed or are nonexistent. [....]
>Collective dose (the sum of individual doses in a defined
>exposed
>population expressed as person-rem) has been a useful
>index for
>quantifying dose in large populations and in comparing the
>magnitude
>of exposures from different radiation sources. However,
>collective
>dose may aggregate information excessively, for example, a
>large
>dose to a small number of people is not equivalent to a
>small dose
>to many people, even if the collective doses are the same.
>Thus, for
>populations in which almost all individuals are estimated
>to receive
>a lifetime dose of less than 10 rem above background,
>collective
>dose is a highly speculative and uncertain measure of risk
>and
>should not be used for the purpose of estimating
>population health
>risks."
>
>Thus while the media may wish to emphasize that the final
>death toll
>attributed to radiation "could reach 4,000," in fact they
>SHOULD be
>emphasizing that it is highly unlikely to be very much
>more than
>the "Fewer than 50 deaths [that] have been directly
>attributed to
>radiation released in the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power
>plant
>accident."
>
>=================================
>
>
>[ RadSafe ] Chernobyl radiation death toll 56 so far - U.N
>George J. Vargo vargo at physicist.net
>Mon Sep 5 17:52:41 CEST 2005
>
>Chernobyl radiation death toll 56 so far - U.N
>Mon Sep 5, 2005 3:38 PM BST
>
>By Francois Murphy
>VIENNA (Reuters) - The number of people killed by
>radiation as a result of
>the Chernobyl disaster, the world's worst nuclear
>accident, is so far 56,
>far lower than previously thought, the U.N. said on
>Monday.
>
>A report compiled by the Chernobyl Forum, which includes
>eight U.N.
>agencies, said the final death toll was expected to reach
>about 4,000 --
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release
>Date: 9/2/2005
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read
>and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and
>other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

_____________________________________________________________________
For super low premiums, click here http://www.dialdirect.co.za/quote

http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service