[ RadSafe ] Chernobyl's Reduced Impact

[Franta, Jaroslav]

Thank you Mike -- I just sent the letter below to the NY Times.

Also, according to Dr.Klaus Becker, who just returned from the International
Conference at IAEA in Vienna, "There have been actually only 8 thyroid
cancer deaths, including two not treated at all and several other unusual
cases. Of course, the fictional numbers around 4.000-8.000 have not been and
will and never will be detectable and are "estimated" on the basis of the
LNT/Collective Dose hypothesis. They met with strong objections by
essentially all experts (including the conference Chairman B. Bennett, IAEA
coordinator A. Gonzales, and last not least myself). Its only proponents
were E. Cardis and F. A. Mettler."

Jaro  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 



From: Franta, Jaro
Sent: Thursday September 08, 2005 9:31 AM
To: Editor of The New York Times (E-mail)
Subject: RE: " Chernobyl's Reduced Impact "


To the Editor,

In your Editorial today ("Chernobyl's Reduced Impact"), you state that "In
the long run, the experts predict, some 4,000 emergency workers and
residents of the most contaminated areas may die from radiation-induced
cancer."

But Burton Bennett, chair of the Chernobyl Forum and the conference, said
that on the contrary, the 4,000 figure was an upper-bound estimate and could
greatly overstate the risk from the accident. 

Bennett's comment is consistent with risk calculations based on
extrapolating from high radiation doses to low doses, using the so-called
Linear No-Threshold, or LNT hypothesis. 
As stated in 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."
Average Chernobyl-related doses have been a little over 1 rem per year, and
declining over time.
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."

The Chernobyl Forum statement said that apart from the still closed, highly
contaminated 30 km (19 mile) area surrounding the reactor and some closed
lakes and restricted forests, radiation levels had mostly returned to
acceptable levels.

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."

On the other hand, the Editorial correctly states that "the greatest public
health hazard has been mental. People from
the region are anxious and fatalistic, based on a greatly exaggerated view
of the risks they face. The result can be drug and alcohol abuse,
unemployment, and an inability to function."
Dr. Bennett confirmed that poverty and "lifestyle diseases'' posed a "far
greater threat'' to local communities.
Yet the media fail to make the connection with who is responsible for
perpetuating that "greatly exaggerated view of the risks [of radiation]" and
therefore also responsible for the enormous public health problem. 
The unwarranted fear and panic was whipped up by "environmental groups"
aided and abetted by a sensationalist media.
Why isn't this news?

============================


-----Original Message-----
From: Stabin, Michael [mailto:michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu]
Sent: Thursday September 08, 2005 7:13 AM
To: RADSAFE
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Chernobyl's Reduced Impact



The last paragraph is interesting, especially considering the source.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
Chernobyl's Reduced Impact
NY Times Editorial: September 8, 2005

An authoritative scientific report commissioned by the United Nations
has found that the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in
rural Ukraine - the worst nuclear accident in history - caused far less
health and environmental damage than originally feared. The findings
offer clues for coping with a major release of radiation from a nuclear
plant, whether caused by terrorists or by an accident. 

No sooner had the report been issued this week than it was attacked by
several environmental groups as a biased attempt to whitewash the
potential dangers of nuclear power. But the report reflects the
consensus of eight United Nations agencies, including those responsible
for health, the environment and nuclear power, and the governments of
Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. 

The explosion at one of Chernobyl's reactors sent chunks of the core
into surrounding fields and spewed clouds of radioactive particles into
the air for days afterward, contaminating large swaths of land downwind.
There were dire predictions that tens of thousands, possibly even
hundreds of thousands, of people might die from radiation-related
illnesses. So far 56 deaths have been directly attributed to the
accident, 47 among emergency workers and 9 among young children who
developed thyroid cancer after drinking contaminated milk. 

In the long run, the experts predict, some 4,000 emergency workers and
residents of the most contaminated areas may die from radiation-induced
cancer. That qualifies Chernobyl as a very serious accident but not a
catastrophe.

The greatest harm was inflicted on emergency workers; some succumbed
quickly to acute radiation sickness and show a slight rise in leukemia.
This suggests that proper equipment for such workers can greatly
mitigate the health damage after an accident. In the wider region, the
most concrete damage has been thyroid cancer, which has afflicted some
4,000 children. Some 99 percent were treated successfully, and 9 died.
Efforts in areas around nuclear plants to stockpile pills that block
thyroid cancer appear well advised. 

Most emergency workers and residents of contaminated areas received
relatively low radiation doses, comparable to natural background
exposures in some areas of the world. So there have been no decreases in
fertility and no increases in birth defects.

Instead, the greatest public health hazard has been mental. People from
the region are anxious and fatalistic, based on a greatly exaggerated
view of the risks they face. The result can be drug and alcohol abuse,
unemployment, and an inability to function. Disaster coordinators will
clearly have to factor mental health effects into their planning. 









CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE

This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, 
dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information 
may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.  

AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE

Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de 
l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits 
d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, 
divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations 
non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée 
envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.