[ RadSafe ] Hormesis evidence from Chernobyl- Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski

[howard long]

ALARA kills! 
  100,000 + abortions were caused by Chernobyl fear- mongering.
  Why else would data like this be suppressed than to preserve jobs, John J? 

  " - the worst harm was caused not by radiation, 
  and not to the flesh, but to the minds."
   
  Howard Long 
  
Jerry Cuttler <jerrycuttler at rogers.com> wrote:
  From: "Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler at rogers.com>
To: "Canadian Nuclear Discussion List" <cdn-nucl-l at mailman1.cis.mcmaster.ca>,
"ANS Member Exchange Listserv" <mbrexchange at list.ans.org>,
"RAD-SCI-L" <rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU>
Subject: Op-ed article on Chernobyl accident by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 09:27:46 -0400

It seems this article could not get published in the "media".
Not politically correct.

Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHERNOBYL: THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN
Zbigniew Jaworowski
Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland


For twenty years the drama of the Chernobyl accident at the end of April 
1986 has persisted. Vivid worldwide in the memory of the public, even now it 
affects millions in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

On the night of 25-26 April 1986, an enormous quantity of radioactive dust 
was released into the air from the melting reactor core of the badly-built 
and poorly-maintained Soviet reactor at Chernobyl, in the Ukraine. It put 
out as much radioactivity as 0.5% of all previous 543 nuclear explosions in 
the atmosphere. The Chernobyl dust covered all Europe and Northern 
Hemisphere. It penetrated up into the lower stratosphere and fell even at 
the South Pole. Nothing worse could happen with a power reactor: a total 
meltdown of its core, and a ten days free release of radioactive material 
into the open air.

Surprisingly, however, the worst harm was caused not by radiation, and not 
to the flesh, but to the minds.

In terms of human losses (31 early deaths), the accident in the Chernobyl 
nuclear power plant was a minor event compared with many other man-made 
catastrophes. In 1984, about 15,000 died from the eruption of a fertilizer 
factory in Bhopal in India; the collapse of a Chinese dam on the Banqiao 
river in 1975 caused some 230,000 fatalities. Counted per electricity units 
produced, which is the only practical comparison, fatalities in Chernobyl 
were lower than from most other energy sources: three times lower than 
oil-fired power stations, 13 times lower than liquefied gas, and 15 times 
lower than hydroelectric stations. But the political, economic, social and 
psychological impact of Chernobyl was enormous. Let us have a look at what 
happened, starting with my personal experience.

About 9 a.m. on Monday 28 April 1986 at the entrance to my institute in 
Warsaw I was greeted by a colleague saying: "Look, at 07:00h we received a 
telex from a monitoring station in northern Poland saying that the 
radioactivity of air there is 550,000 times higher than a day before. A 
similar increase I found in the air filter from the station in our backyard, 
and the pavement here is highly radioactive".

This was a terrible shock. It is curious that all my attention was 
concentrated on this enormous rise of "total beta activity" used to detect 
radioactivity, although I knew that the actual dose rate of external 
radiation penetrating our bodies was only three times higher than the day 
before and was similar to the average natural radiation dose which we all 
receive from the ground and cosmic radiation. This "Chernobyl" dose was more 
than 100 times lower than the natural radiation level in some other areas of 
the world, where no adverse health effects among inhabitants have ever been 
observed.

But in 1986 the impact of a dramatic increase in atmospheric radioactivity 
dominated the thinking of me and everybody else. This state of mind led to 
immediate consequences. First there were various hectic actions, such as ad 
hoc setting of different limits for radiation in food, water etc. These 
limits varied between countries by a factor of many thousands, reflecting 
the emotional state of decision-makers and political and mercenary factors. 
For example, Sweden allowed for 30 times more radioactivity in imported 
vegetables than in domestic ones and Israel allowed less radioactivity in 
food from Eastern than from Western Europe. The limit of cesium-137 
concentration in vegetables imposed in the Philippines was 8,600 times lower 
than in the more pragmatic United Kingdom.

Most of these restrictions were meaningless from the point of view of human 
health but their costs were enormous. As an example, Norwegian authorities 
introduced a limit for cesium-137 concentration in reindeer meat and game 
that was about 200 times lower than the natural dose in some regions of 
Norway. The costs of this false protection climbed to over US$51 million.

Other countries were no better. Professor Klaus Becker from the German 
Institute for Standards estimated recently that this kind of practice, 
together with its consequences for nuclear industry, meant that the costs of 
the Chernobyl accident in Western Europe probably exceed US$100 billion.

The most nonsensical action, however, was the evacuation of 336,000 people 
from the contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union, where the 
radiation dose from Chernobyl fallout was about twice the natural dose. 
Later, the officially acceptable limit was set below the natural level and 
was five times lower than radiation at Grand Central Station in New York. 
"Contaminated regions" were defined, using a level of radioactive cesium-137 
in the ground ten times lower than the level of natural radioactive matter 
in the soil. The evacuation caused great harm to the populations of Belarus, 
Russia and Ukraine. It led to mass psychosomatic disturbances, great 
economic losses and traumatic social consequences. According to Academician 
Leonid A. Ilyin, the leading Russian authority on radiation protection, the 
mass relocation was implemented by the Soviet government under the pressure 
of populists, ecologists and self-appointed "specialists", against the 
advice of the best Soviet scientists.

Besides the 28 fatalities among rescue workers and the employees of the 
power station due to extremely high doses of radiation, and three immediate 
deaths due to other reasons (the UN's Chernobyl Forum gives "less than 50" 
by adding in some later deaths from causes not related to radiation, such as 
lung tuberculosis, fat thrombosis, car accident, suicide etc. In fact, the 
mortality rate of survivors of the acute radiation sickness, at 1.09%, was 
much lower than the mortality rates for the whole population of Belarus of 
1.4%, Russia's 1.38%, and Ukraine's 1.65%), the only real adverse health 
consequence of the Chernobyl catastrophe among about five million people 
living in the contaminated regions is the epidemic of psychosomatic 
diseases. These diseases were not due to irradiation with Chernobyl fallout 
but were caused by "radiophobia", an irrational fear of radiation, 
aggravated by wrong administrative decisions. These decisions made several 
million people believe that they are "victims of Chernobyl", although the 
average dose they receive from Chernobyl radiation is only about one third 
of the average dose from Nature. This was the main factor behind the 
economic losses caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe, estimated to have 
reached US$148 billion by 2000 for the Ukraine, and to reach US$235 billion 
by 2016 for Belarus.

Psychological factors, and neglect of radiological protection in the 
curriculum of medical students, led to some 100,000 to 200,000 wanted 
pregnancies aborted soon after the accident in Western Europe, where 
physicians wrongly advised patients that Chernobyl radiation posed a health 
risk to unborn children.

In 2000 the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 
Radiation (UNSCEAR), the most authoritative body in these matters, and in 
2006 also the UN Chernobyl Forum, stated that, except for thyroid cancers, 
in the highly contaminated areas no increase in the incidence of solid 
cancers and leukemia was observed.

As for the thyroid cancers, I believe that the increased discovery is due to 
a screening effect. In normal populations there is a very high incidence of 
"occult" thyroid cancers (with no clinical symptoms), which is up to 28% in 
Japan and 35% in Finland, and a hundred to a thousand times higher than the 
incidence of "Chernobyl" cancers. After the accident more than 90% of 
children in contaminated areas started to be tested for thyroid cancers 
every year. It is obvious that such vast screening resulted in finding the 
normally undetected occult cancers.

What is really surprising, however, is that data collected by UNSCEAR and 
the Forum show 15% to 30% fewer cancer deaths among the Chernobyl emergency 
workers and about 5% lower solid cancer incidence among the people in the 
Bryansk district (the most contaminated in Russia) in comparison with the 
general population. In most irradiated group of these people (mean dose of 
40 mSv) the deficit of cancer incidence was 17%. Nor did the incidence of 
hereditary disorders increase. These epidemiological data should be used as 
a proper basis for realistic projection of the future health of millions of 
people officially labeled "victims of Chernobyl", rather than an assumption 
(LNT) on linear no-threshold relationship between irradiation and medical 
effect. This assumption tells that even near zero radiation dose can lead no 
cancer death and hereditary disorders. LNT assumption was used by Chernobyl 
Forum to estimate 4000 to 9336 future cancer deaths among people who 
received low radiation doses, lower than lifetime natural doses in many 
regions of the world. Greenpeace had less hesitations and in its report of 
April 2006 calculated six million cancer deaths due to Chernobyl event. Dr. 
Lauriston Taylor, the late president of the U.S. National Council on 
Radiological Protection and Measurements deemed such practice to be "a 
deeply immoral use of our scientific heritage".

UNSCEAR's sober conclusion is that the people living in "contaminated 
regions of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine "need not live in fear of serious 
health consequences", and forecasts that "generally positive prospects for 
the future health of most individuals should prevail." In centuries to come, 
the catastrophe will be remembered as a proof that nuclear power is a safe 
means of energy production.

-------------------------
Zbigniew Jaworowski MD PhD DSc is a Professor Emeritus of the Central 
Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw and former Chairman of the 
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 
(UNSCEAR)
-------------------------------------------- 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Zbigniew Jaworowski
To: Ludwig E. Feinendegen ; Marjorie Hecht ; Sergiey Igumnov ; Leonid A. 
Ilyin ; Andre Prof. Maisseu ; Donald T. Oakley dom ; Oakley, Donald T ; 
Peiser, Benny ; Myron Pollycove ; Prof.Dr.Klaus.Becker ; Per Wethe ; Maurice 
Tubiana ; Gunnar Walinder ; Sergey Rovny ; Ted Rockwell ; Jerry Cuttler ; 
Jim Muckerheide ; Muckerheide, James ; Muckerheide
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:18 AM
Subject: Fw:

Dear Friends,

IPN asked me to write an op-ed on Chernobyl, which they hoped to place in a 
few leading western journals. I sent them the text in February, they posed 
an embargo on disseminating the draft, and they finished editing it only few 
days ago, too late. You may use it as you like.
Best wishes,
Zbigniew