[ RadSafe ] Belarus Repopulating Chernobyl

Mon Nov 15 17:21:48 CST 2010

There may indeed be situations where diluting the radioactive
contaminant in non-contaminated food-stuffs is preferable to starvation.
Better to survive and "risk" some small chance of a stochastic effect in
the future rather than die of malnutrition. As for returning to a
contaminated residence to live, there is evidence that low levels of
contamination are not immediately hazardous. Again, return of
individuals to their residences may result in some stochastic risk; but
that risk might be an acceptable alternative to losing one's home and
property. These might be situations left to local authorities. Here in
the states, food-stuffs are more plentiful and as such, regulatory
organizations are much, much, more conservative and the practice of such
dilution is not allowed. Returning to radioactively contaminated
residences has only been dealt with through the mechanism of exercises
and preparedness measures. (LNT is adopted because it is easier to
regulate around a straight line...).

My two cents worth.

John Dixon

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Maury Siskel
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 4:46 PM
To: Health Physics Mailing List
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