Re: Alleged Deadly toll of Chernobyl

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Hi Ron, Group,

This message is rather disturbing:

"Ron L. Kathren" wrote:
> 
> Mr. Cohen --
> 
> You raised a very good question, and, in hopefully not too long winded
> scientific style, I'd like to take a crack at responding.  The thirty or so
> immediate deaths are indisputable, but the 15,000 claimed additional deaths
> are based on assumptions with regard to radiation doses incurred by that
> particular subpopulation and the risk of cancer induction per unit exposure
> to ionizing radiation, as well as the size of the subpopulation.  Different
> assumptions can produce vastly different estimates.

True.

The clearest recent well-known statement is the Sep.. '99 Physics
Today article, "Radiation Risk and Ethics," by Zbigniew Jaworowski,
Head of Poland's Central Laboratory for Radiation Protection, and
Professor Emeritus, also Member and former Chairman of the UNSCEAR
(and fighting the battle to maintain any scientific integrity in that
body also, esp. now being overtaken Abel Gonzalez and national rad
protection orgs/agencies, instead of independent competent
scientists/biologists). See:
http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1999/jaworowski/NR99aa01.htm

Other, earlier, sources on Chernobyl effects are at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Data_Docs/1-2/5/2/1/12521list.html

There are a number of more recent papers in the literature that are
not yet on the web site, but I can send refs or "extracts" as Word
attachments for those interested.

> Although many like to claim that we know more about the effects of ionizing
> radiation that any other insult, in actual fact the dose-response
> relationship is not well known at the low dose end (and I will define low
> dose here as < 100 mGy (10 rad) and, not surprising, differs for various end
> points or specific cancers.  

Not true. As is well-known, extensive data sources refute this
explicitly; plus knowledge of comparisons of rad exposure refute this,
as presented by Zbigniew Jaworowski above, along with many others. 

>By multiplying an average dose estimated to
> have been incurred in a given population by the estimated risk per unit dose
> and the size of the population, one gets a sort of theoretical number of
> deaths from cancer that will occur over a period of time, usually taken as
> 50 or 70 years.  For any specific radiogenic cancer, one can obtain from the
> peer reviewed literature a rather wide choice of risk coefficients.  Thus, I
> can manipulate the size of the estimated numbers of [theoretical] deaths
> simply by appropriate selection of a risk coefficient from the scientific
> literature as well as by the size of the population chosen or by the
> estimated dose to that population.  

Right. These are precisely the methods/results ICRP/NCRP et al
promulgate for DOE and the rad protection agencies.

<snip>
 
> The whole question of low level radiation induction of cancer is a very
> complex one, with many unknowns.  

Not if you consider the fundamental levels of knowledge and the direct
evidence in biology and medicine, vs. the rad protection "literature,"
like the IARC report, Canadian Fluoroscopy Study, Shipyard Study,
Gilbert, Wing, Stewart, etc. etc. etc., along with misrepresenting the
significance of using cells in culture to promulgated straight lines
absent whole biological responses to radiation doses, to misrepresent
the potential for adverse health effects, as done by/for ICRP/NCRP et al.

>For safety and regulatory purposes, the
> relationship is simplified by assuming what is known as the linear
> nonthreshold response or LNT, 

Not true. If the LNT were true, millions of people with moderate to
high natural (to 10 cGy/yr), occupational (10s of cGy), and/or medical
doses (10s to 1000s of cGy) would have to have significant adverse
effects.  Except for some quite high doses, e.g., Thorotrast,
therapeutic medical applications, etc., they do not (discounting a
handful of poor studies with ambiguous and contradicted results -
starting with Alice Stewart and childhood cancer from in utero
exposures).  

>which I personally believe to be a wise choice
> as it likely errs on the side of safety. 

It does not provide "safety," it kills people. Nor does it "err."  It
achieves its intent: To extract $100s billions from the gullible
public for its supporters, for no public health and safety benefits,
since the limits are far within the 'noise' levels of natural
radioactivity (e.g., Jaworowski again - in what is a more apt title:
"Radiation Risk and [Lack of] Ethics" above - Zbigniew, since I'm
'blaming so much of this on you I'm adding you as a cc:!?  :-)

To achieve this objective, to presume the LNT must suppress the
application of LDR to stimulate immune functions, enzymatic repair,
and removal of damaged cells - therefore, to directly CAUSE millions
of cancers and deaths that could otherwise be eliminated.

[Note: While Katie Couric's husband was dying of advanced colon
cancer, with debilitating chemo and high-dose radiation, Prof.
Sakamoto, also with advanced colon cancer, after removal of 3 of his
large tumors, applied low-dose radiation (LDR) immunotherapy.
Following demonstrable enhancement of his immune system/functions,
based on his regular protocol (10 - 15 cGy exposures), his distal
lesions and metastases were eliminated. He did another series after
about 10 months "just in case."  He's now the picture of health (April
in Tokyo and Oct. in Ottawa) compared to our meetings in 1996
(Washington) and '97 (Denver) when he was ill but undiagnosed. 

Also note: Sakamoto's first LDR colon cancer patient, about 1987!, was
sent to him as too advanced for treatment, only for palliative
treatment by wide-area abdominal high-dose x-rays to kill pain until
death, he's a radiation oncologist. But after LDR treatment, based on
proven effectiveness in animals, she lived for a couple of years,
cancer free, but died of colon damage from the high-dose radiation;
and an autopsy found NO cancer in her abdomen, not even cancer cells
locally or distally, including lungs, etc.! ICRP/NCRP and other
national rad protection orgs have acted to prevent funding of research
for such results, and act to suppress consideration of such evidence
of the health benefits of LDR.]

>The LNT response assumes that the
> risk of developing a fatal cancer is directly proportional to the dose, and
> that any dose, no matter how small, carries with it a proportionate risk
> (hence no threshold).  We know that the LNT does not hold for many cancer
> endpoints, most notably for the dial painters, none of whom developed
> osteogenic sarcoma at doses to the bone below 10 Gy (1000 rad).  

Plus nasal carcinomas. But not other cancers from significant
associated doses to other than bone and nasal cavities, except a small
increase in breast cancer (in US and UK data), considering also
extensive external exposure in dial painting studios. And except for
the very high dose mortality from necrosis due to high levels of
ingestion in the early years, the radium-exposed population has been
shown to outlive other working women from the '10s - '40s.

Which is why DOE killed the program, starting in 1983, following the
1981 Int'l Conf on Radium and Internal Alpha Emitters in Lake Geneva
Wisc, reported in the HPJ Supplement 1, 1983 - following which other
DOE-funded groups seem to have been 'well-trained' in suppressing
evidence that contradicts the LNT. E.g., the DOE radon program, that
indicated radon dose-response might not be linear, went too far -
killed dead!  

>Data for
> other cancers is equivocal, and often confused by an apparent beneficial
> effect (hormesis) at low doses.  

By ignoring 100s of experiments, and human data, that show LDR
preventing and eliminating cancers, especially distal lesions and
metastases in many patients, and enhancing the treatment of infection,
inflammation (including arthritis, rheumatism, etc. etc.), healing
wounds, etc.

<snip>
 
> Hopefully the above has served to answer your question at least in part.

In very small part!  :-)

> Rather than take a lot of time of  going back and forth with questions and
> answers via e-mail and hopefully to provide you with a fuller discussion and
> to avoid flame wars, I offer to continue this dialogue with you on an open,
> honest, one-on-one basis.  

But, Mr. Cohen, perhaps you would also want to actually consider the
low-level radiation health effects data. And confirm the ICRP/NCRP et
al, and the "DOE experience," that actively suppresses that data that
clearly refute the LNT. Ron can explain that experience also.

Perhaps if you have cancer some day, and you are 'threatened' with the
debilitating effects of chemo and high-dose radiation, you may want to
consider the data that shows that cancers are successfully treated by
the stimulation of your immune response by low-dose radiation - even
though the rad protectionists don't want you to know!?  Think about
it: When the anti-nuclear group "succeed," who gets the money?

You can see other examples of sources from the competent, independent,
scientists/analysts, from the peer-reviewed science literature, at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Data_Docs/  

See also the "Conclusions:" Section from many independent scientists at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Data_Docs/1-9/19list.html

and some general papers at:
http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Docs/

The historical basis of the intent to suppress the data, going back to
the 1930s, is beginning to be told; see, e.g.,. the Calabrese and
Baldwin papers, with Abstracts and BELLE urls, recently sent to the
list - let me know if anyone needs them again.  

The brief list of examples of the papers from the literature that
demonstrate the stimulatory response and prevention/elimination of
cancer and other diseases by LDR treatment can also be sent.

Since there are only a handful of ICRP/NCRP "science leaders" in the
world that know the science and act to suppress it, and there are
millions of unnecessary cancer deaths and diseases, each person who
acts to suppress the data can claim thousands of deaths all their own,
just to keep the public conned to keep the cash flowing for the
radiation protection "programs" - not to mention billions of people
potentially affected by world conflict over oil and gas, and
environmental degradation, to include your own grandchildren? 
Congratulations!) 

>So if you have further questions, feel free to
> contact me directly by e-mail at:  rkathren@tricity.WSU.edu.  I will then
> provide you with my telephone number and will be at your disposal should you
> choose to call.
>
> Ronald L. Kathren
> Professor Emeritus
> College of Pharmacy
> Washington State University
> rkathren@tricity.WSU.edu


Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
Radiation, Science, and Health
==============================

Norman & Karen Cohen wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Without starting a big flame war, please, please
> 
> Can I have some comments from you all as to whether you think the 15,000
> killed number
> is reasonable or not, and how some of you can defend the much lower
> numbers I've seen in your postings.
> 
> Clearly, I'm an anti-nuke power activist, but I also believe in dialogue
> and listening.
> 
> Peace
> Norm Cohen
> Coordinator, UNPLUG Salem Campaign
> 
> --
> Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr
> Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8537 or 609-601-8583 (8583: fax, answer
> machine) UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE:  http://www.unplugsalem.org/  COALITION
> FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE:  http://members.bellatlantic.net/~norco/
> ICQ# 54268619; The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace
> Action.
> “We have two lives, the one we’re given, and the other one we make”
> (Mary Chapin Carpenter)
> “Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights...Get up, stand up, don’t
> give up the fight!” (Bob Marley)
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> April, 2000
> Deadly toll of Chernobyl
> 
> One of Chernobyl's nuclear reactors is still in operation
> 
> About 15,000 people were killed and 50,000 left handicapped in the emergency
> clean-up after the Chernobyl nuclear accident, according to a group
> representing those who worked in the relief operations.
> The number of invalids caused by the radiation has multiplied twelvefold
> since 1991, says Viacheslav Grishin, president of the Chernobyl League.
> 
> The Chernobyl plant was the scene of the world's worst civilian nuclear
> accident in April 1986 - when its number four reactor exploded, sending a
> radioactive cloud across much of Europe.
> 
> Chernobyl toll
> 30 killed immediately
> 15,000 relief workers killed
> 50,000 relief workers invalid
> 5 million exposed to radiation
> 52,000 fled the area around Chernobyl
> The exact number of dead has never been given, but it is estimated that five
> million people were exposed to radiation in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
> 
> About 30 people were killed immediately and thousands were evacuated from the
> region.
> 
> Ageing faster
> 
> Ukraine's Health Ministry estimates that 3.5 million people, over a third of
> them children, have suffered illness as a result of the contamination, and
> the incidence of some cancers is 10 times the national average.
> 
> First Deputy Health Minister Olga Bobylyova said: "The health of people
> affected by the Chernobyl accident is getting worse and worse every year.
> 
> "We are very disturbed by these data."
> 
> Ms Bobylyova told a news conference that the death rate among workers exposed
> to radiation while cleaning up Chernobyl has been rising.
> 
> She said that the death rate among the "liquidators" - as the group is known
> - was higher than among other people apparently because they are ageing
> faster.
> 
> Ms Bobylyova said most of the deaths were caused by poor blood circulation,
> cancer, respiratory and digestive diseases and traumas.
> 
> She noted that thyroid cancer cases have increased 10 times in Ukraine in
> general since the accident.
> 
> One of Chernobyl's four nuclear reactors is still in operation.
> 
> 
> Nuclear Information and Resource Service
> OECD Nuclear Energy Agency: Chernobyl ten years on
> Virtual Nuclear Tourist: Chernobyl
> Chernobyl photographs
> 
> The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
> 
> 
> Links to other Europe stories are at the foot of the page.
> 
>  ========================================================
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let ENN.com be your pathway to the environment!  ENN is your
> destination for the latest information on our planet.  Join
> thousands of others each day in discussing, researching, and
> answering the questions that affect us all.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2752/2/_/488116/_/956435147/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> DOEWatch List ----A Magnum-Opus Project ---  The real Natl. Sec. Directive
> Subscribe online: http://www.onelist.com
> -based near the cryptic named  X-10 [god and ten commandments] and Y-12 [yahweh and disciples] nuke weapons plants of the nuclear tabernacle of Oak Ridge.
> 
> "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky
> That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one...
> I am become Death, The shatterer of Worlds."
> -Oppenheimer July 16, 45 at Trinity from 5,000 year old Bhagavad-Gita
> 
> "We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world.  It may be the fire destruction prophesized in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.  Anyway we think we have found the way to cause the disintegration of the atom."
>  -Quote from Truman's diary July 25, 45 after Pottsdam and the "baby was born" and grew into "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" and the hydrogen bomb delivered by bomber named  "Dave's Dream."  Enola Gay's pilot, after Hiroshima,  enters "My God' in the log.
> 
> "The Doctor of the future will give No Medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease."
> -Attributed to Thomas Alva Edison
> 
> "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"
> -George Orwell
> 
> DOEWatch page:    http://members.aol.com/doewatch
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html