[ RadSafe ] Belarus Repopulating Chernobyl

[Edmond Baratta]

The US Food and Drug Administration does not allow for the dilution of 
contaminated milk or other products.  I would have to agree with the Swedish 
authorities.  It may seem wasteful, but it is for the protection of the 
population.

Ed Baratta

edmond0033 at comcast.net

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Maury Siskel" <maurysis at peoplepc.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 1:45 PM
To: "Health Physics Mailing List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Belarus Repopulating Chernobyl

> I wish these two articles by Zbig Jaworowski were more easily available to 
> all Radsafers. The scientific findings are truly impressive. A small 
> portion follows.
> Best,
> Maury&Dog  [MaurySiskel mairysis at peoplepc.com]
>
> ========First article========
> NUCLEAR UPDATE.  Belarus Repopulating Chernobyl Exclusion Zone by Zbigniew 
> Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.
>
> "... In practice, the recommendations suggested removal of all the 
> restrictions that had been imposed. Most important among them was that the 
> relocated individuals should  be allowed to return to their old 
> settlements.
>
> This last recommendation was fulfilled by the government of Belarus, which 
> should be commended for its courage in standing up to the Chernobyl 
> hysteria, that has been cultivated for years by Greenpeace and other 
> Greens. We come back to normalcy".
>
> =========== begin second article===========
> Observations on Chernobyl After 25 Years of Radiophobia
> by Zbigniew Jaworowski,
>
> [opening paragraphs]
> "Ten days after two steam and hydrogen explosions blew up the Chernobyl 
> nuclear reactor, the fire that melted its core died out spontaneously. But 
> the drama of this catastrophe still flourishes, nourished by politics, 
> authorities, media, and interest groups of ecologists, charitable 
> organizations, and scientists. It lives in the collective memory of the 
> world and propagates real health, social, and economic harm to millions of 
> people in Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine. It is exploited in attempts to 
> strangle the development of atomic energy, the cleanest, safest, and 
> practically inexhaustible means to meet the worlds energy needs. The 
> world's uranium resources alone will suffice for the next 470,000 years 
> (IAEA 2008).
>
> Chernobyl was indeed an historic event; it is the only nuclear power 
> station disaster that ever resulted in an occupational death toll, albeit 
> a comparatively small one. A vast environmental dispersion of 
> radioactivity occurred that did not cause any scientifically confirmed 
> fatalities in the general population. The worst harm to the population was 
> caused not by radiation, and not to flesh, but to minds.
>
> The Costly Folly of LNT
> A classic example of wastefully applying the LNT principle to the 
> Chernobyl emergency was provided by Swedish radiation protection 
> authorities. When the farmers near Stockholm discovered that the Chernobyl 
> accident had contaminated their cows' milk with cesium-137, above the 
> limit of 300 Bq per liter imposed by authorities, they wrote the 
> authorities to ask if their milk could be diluted with uncontaminated milk 
> from other regions, to bring it below the limit. This would be done by 
> mixing 1 liter of contaminated milk with 10 liters of clean milk. To the 
> farmers' surprise and disappointment, the answer was
> "no," and the milk was then to be discarded. This was a strange ruling 
> since it has always been possible to reduce pollutants to safer levels by 
> dilution. We do this for other pollutants in foodstuffs, and we dilute 
> fumes from fireplaces or ovens with atmospheric air in the same way that 
> nature dilutes volcanic emissions or forest fire fumes. The Swedish 
> authorities explained that even though the individual risk could be 
> reduced by diluting the milk, this would, at the same time, increase the 
> number of consumers. Thus, the risk would remain the same, but now spread 
> over a larger population (Walinder 1995).
>
> Remove the Chernobyl Restrictions!
> It is reassuring, however, that 16 years after the Chernobyl
> catastrophe, another group, composed of four U.N. organizations -- the 
> United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Health Organization 
> (WHO), the U.N. International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the 
> U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affaires (UNOCHA)--dared 
> to state in its 2002 report, based on UNSCEAR studies, that a great part 
> of the billions of dollars used to mitigate the consequences of the 
> Chernobyl accident was spent incorrectly. The dollars spent in these 
> efforts did not improve, but actually worsened, a deteriorating situation 
> for 7 million socalled "victims of Chernobyl" and solidified the 
> psychological effects of the catastrophe and the wrong decisions of the 
> authorities.
> Although ridiculous, this was a faithful application of the International 
> Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations, based on the LNT 
> assumption and its offspring, the concept of "collective dose"; that is, 
> reaching terrifyingly large numbers of man-sieverts by multiplying tiny, 
> innocuous individual radiation doses by a large number of exposed people.
>
> [ending paras]
> Would fulfilling the recommendations of the United Nations
> Development Programme (UNDP) 2000 report again result in a political 
> catharsis and perhaps induce violent reactions? Probably not in Russia, 
> where a more rational approach to Chernobyl prevails. But the political 
> classes of Belarus and Ukraine have for years demonstrated a much more 
> emotional approach. When the UNSCEAR 2000a report, documenting the low 
> incidence of serious health hazards resulting from the Chernobyl accident, 
> was presented to the U.N. General Assembly, the Belarus and Ukraine 
> delegations lodged a fulminating protest. This set the stage for the 
> Chernobyl Forum in 2002, and helped to focus its agenda.
>
> Today, the Chernobyl rumble and emotions are beginning to settle down. In 
> the centuries to come, the catastrophe will be remembered as a proof that 
> nuclear power is a safe means of energy production. It even might change 
> the thinking of the International Commission on Radiological Protection
> ==========end second article===========
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>