[ RadSafe ] Franz's question on psychological/psychiatric research on anti-nuclear activists

Dan McCarn hotgreenchile at gmail.com
Thu Aug 6 02:45:33 CDT 2015

Hi Peter & Franz:

In all fairness to Franz, there was work to determine the health outcomes
of many of the Chernobyl survivors aside from cancer. St. Petersburg State
Institute of Technology wrote a study years ago on health outcomes, but the
paper was squashed, especially by the media. The comparison was for people
who remained near the exclusion zone and those that were relocated. The
relocated group was most severely impacted, usually by media. I've not been
able to get a copy of the paper in spite of promises by my old Russian
boss, with whom I've lost contact.

Among other things, it listed 5 significant outcomes, far greater than
1) Suicide
2) Drug / alcohol abuse
3) Diabetes
4) Heart Disease
5) Stroke

This same list seems to describe other populations under a state of
extended emotional stress not associated with "nuclear" events.

So, sorry Franz, I wish I did have a copy of that paper. Perhaps some
"analogues" to a disaster such as the tsunami in the Indian Ocean might
have been studied.

Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Peter Crane <kinderhook46 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Maybe the reason that no one has picked up on this question, Franz, is out
> of politeness, so as not to have to say directly that this is an idea with
> little to recommend it. The world is full of people with non-mainstream or
> eccentric ideas on other scientific subjects, such as that vaccines cause
> autism, that HIV does not cause AIDS, that global warming is beneficial,
> that evolution is a hoax, that the earth is 6000 years old, etc., etc. So
> why focus exclusively on the supposed mental health problems of the
> anti-nuclear activists? Why not the others too? I would respectfully
> suggest that the best way to win scientific and policy debates is not to
> try to paint your adversaries as mentally ill, but to explain, in civil and
> reasoned terms, why their views, and I stress the word "views," are in
> error.
> -- Peter Crane, Seattle
> NRC Counsel for Special Projects (retired)
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the RadSafe mailing list