[ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Radiation-caused deaths from Chernobyl nuclear accident

[Steven Dapra]

June 27

         Twenty-five thousand of those 100,000 women will die of 
cancer no matter what they do (or don't do).  Let's say the 170 are 
all in the group of 25,000.  Some arithmetic gets us 0.68% have an 
increased chance of dying from cancer.  Could any epidemiological 
study sift out such a small percentage and say, "Yes, definitely, you 
died of cancer caused by radionuclides from a forest fire near Chernobyl."?

         This article was in the June 24 issue of SciAm.  Does anyone 
here subscribe?  Look at the June 24 issue and see if SciAm offers 
some rationale for publishing Little's article.

         The article has 11 comments.  One of them pointedly scoffs 
at LNT and recommends that readers do a Google search for 
Jaworowski's 2010 article on Chernobyl.

Steven Dapra


At 10:54 AM 6/27/2013, you wrote:
>I am embarrassed for Scientific American that they published such a
>poorly written article.  I get the strong feeling that the author didn't
>actually understand radioactivity and associated risk.
>
>"Women in their 20s living just outside the zone face the highest risk
>from exposure to radioactive smoke, the 2011 study found: 170 in 100,000
>would have an increased chance of dying of cancer."  So the other 99,830
>would not have an increased chance of dying of cancer?  Or are the
>chances of dying from cancer for that group increased by 170 per
>100,000, given certain assumptions?  Such sloppy wording would be OK in
>an anti-nuke news letter, but I expect better from Scientific American.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 6:13 PM
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: [New post] Radiation-caused deaths from
>Chernobyl nuclear accident
>
>June 26
>
>          This link is to the first page of the Scientific American
>article:
>
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=at-chernobyl-radioactiv
>e-danger-lurks-in-the-trees
>
>          Links within the article will take you to the subsequent pages.
>
>          The article was written by Jane Braxton Little of The Daily
>Climate.  Here's the link to TDC's page about itself:
>
>http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/about
>
>          Link to Braxton's biography:
>
>http://www.janebraxtonlittle.com/who-i-am/
>
>          Her resume:
>
>http://www.janebraxtonlittle.com/resume/
>
>          She's an English major with a BA, and has a MA from Harvard in
>Japanese cultural history.  This qualifies her to write about Chernobyl
>--- well, doesn't it??
>
>Steven Dapra
>
>
>At 06:33 AM 6/26/2013, you wrote:
> >This is in Scientific American - they used to be known for being
> >accurate reporters of science and not of fiction.
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ---------- New post on nuclear-news
> >
> >Radiation-caused deaths from Chernobyl nuclear accident
> >
> >by Christina MacPherson
> >
> >Scientific American: Up to 1 million eventual deaths estimated from
> >Chernobyl exposure - Sweden, Finland, others concerned about risk of
> >forest fires near disaster area
> >http://enenews.com/scientific-american-1-million-eventual-deaths-estima
> >ted-chernobyl-exposure-sweden-finland-other-european-countries-concerne
> >d-about-risk-forest-fires-disaster-area
> >
> >Title: At Chernobyl, Radioactive Danger Lurks in the Trees
> >Source: Scientific American
> >Author:  Jane Braxton Little and The Daily Climate
> >Date: June 24, 2013
> >
> >At Chernobyl, Radioactive Danger Lurks in the Trees
> >
> >For 26 years, forests around Chernobyl have been absorbing radioactive
> >elements but a fire would send them skyward again - a concern as
> >summers grow longer, hotter and drier [...]
> >
> >[...] scientists at several institutions in Europe and North America
> >analyzed a worst-case scenario: A very hot fire that burns for five
> >days, consumes everything in its path, and sends the smoke 60 miles
> >south to Kiev. A separate worst-case study is underway looking at the
> >risks for Sweden, Finland and other European countries heavily impacted
>
> >by the 1986 explosion.
> >
> >Women in their 20s living just outside the zone face the highest risk
> >from exposure to radioactive smoke, the 2011 study found: 170 in
> >100,000 would have an increased chance of dying of cancer. Among men
> >farther away in Kiev, 18 in 100,000 20-year-olds would be at increased
> >risk of dying of cancer. [No mention of those under 20, who are at much
>
> >greater risk] These estimates pale in comparison to those from the 1986
>
> >Chernobyl explosion, which predict between 4,000 and over a million
> >eventual deaths from radiation exposure. [...] See also: 3 million
> >children require treatment because of Chernobyl, many will die
> >prematurely -U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2000
> >
> >Christina MacPherson | June 26, 2013 at 12:08 pm | Categories: EUROPE,
> >health, radiation | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-dHT
> >
> >http://nuclear-news.net/2013/06/26/radiation-caused-deaths-from-chernob
> >yl-nuclear-accident/