Re: Chernobyl remembered - article

[muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

 From: maury <maury@webtexas.com>



> Hi Jim, my recollection without tracking it down again was about 30 fatalities

> as a direct immediate result of the explosion and then about 70 more (mainly)

> among the cleanup and remediation workers. I thought the source is UNSCEAR

> 2000. The same source gave about 1800 cases of thyroid cancer -- none fatal as

> of a year ago, all treatable, and confined principally to those who were

> babies and very young children at the time. Thus I "latched onto" 30-70-1800

> numbers. Even at this, I think the human animal continues to acquit itself

> rather well. And it is gratifying that there was no worldwide feeding frenzy

> this year on the Chernobyl anniversary.



UNSCEAR 2000, para. 312: "Cardis et al. [C2] analysed cancer incidence in

1993 and 1994 among male recovery operation workers who worked within the

30-km zone of the reactor during 1986 and 1987. The observed numbers of

cancers were obtained from the national cancer registry in Belarus and from

the Chernobyl registries in the Russian Federation and Ukraine. In total, 46

leukaemia cases were reported in the three countries in the two-year period

(Table 65), and non-significant increases were observed in Belarus and in

the Russian Federation. In Ukraine, a significant increase was reported (28

cases observed, 8 cases expected) [C2]. It is most likely that the increase

reflects the effect of increased surveillance of the recovery operation

workers and under-registration of cases in the general population, since no

systematic centralized cancer registration existed in the three countries at

the time of the accident (see Section IV.A.1 and IV.C.2)."



314. In contrast to their findings for the above-mentioned cohort of

recovery operation workers, the same investigators [I29] did not find an

increased risk of leukaemia related to ionizing radiation in a case-control

setting. From 1986 to 1993, 48 cases of leukaemia were identified through

the Russian National Registry and 34 of these patients (10 cases were

diagnosed as chronic lymphatic leukaemia) were selected for the case-control

study. The same registry was used when four controls were chosen for each

case, matched on age and region of residence at diagnosis. For cases

occurring among those who were working in 1986 and 1987, controls had to

have worked during the same period, which is a questionable approach, since

dose is highly dependent on the period of work in the Chernobyl area. The

mean dose for the cases was 115 mGy compared with 142 mGy for controls. No

association was found between leukaemia risk and radiation.



317. Shantyr et al. [S31] examined 8,745Russian recovery operation workers

involved in operations from 1986 to 1990. Dosimetry records were available

for 75% of the workers, and the doses generally fell in the range 0
250 mSv.

Although cancer incidence increased, particularly 4
10 years after the

accident, no evidence of a systematic dose-response relationship was found,

and it was suggested that the aging of the cohort influenced the findings.

Tukov and Dzagoeva [T11] observed no increased risk of haematological

diseases, including acute forms of leukaemia, in a careful study of Russian

recovery operation workers and workers from the nuclear industry.



318. Osechinsky et al. [O6] studied the standardized incidence rates of

leukaemia and lymphoma in the general population of the Bryansk region of

the Russian Federation for the period 1979-1993 on the basis of an ad hoc

registry of haematological diseases established after the Chernobyl

accident. The results were not adjusted for age, and the rates in the six

most contaminated districts (more than 37 kBqm2 of 137Cs deposition density)

did not exceed the rates in the rest of the region or in Bryansk city, where

the highest rates were observed. Comparisons of crude incidence rates before

and after the accident (1979-1985 and 1986-1993) showed a significant

increase in the incidence of all leukaemia and non- Hodgkin¹s lymphoma, but

this was mainly due to increases in the older age groups in rural areas. The

incidence of childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin¹s lymphoma was not

significantly different in the six most contaminated areas from the

incidence in the rest of the region.



Several pages recapitulating studies of leukemia among the workers and

population follow, ending with:



331. Summary. Although leukaemia has been found to be one of the early

carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiation with a latency period of not more

than 2-3 years [U4], no increased risk of leukaemia related to ionizing

radiation has been found among recovery operation workers or in residents of

contaminated areas. Numerous reports have compared incidence and mortality

data from the registers described in Chapter IV with national rates not

taking the differences in reporting into consideration. A case-control study

would diminish this bias, and a recent paper by Ivanov et al. [I29] failed

to show an increased risk of leukaemia related to ionizing radiation in 48

cases of leukaemia in recovery operation workers identified through the

Russian National Registry.



The next section is other solid tumors.



342. Summary. The occurrence of solid tumours other than thyroid cancers in

workers or in residents of contaminated areas have not so far been observed.

The weaknesses in the scientific studies, the uncertainties in the dose

estimates, the latency period of around 10 years and the protracted nature

of the exposures probably explain why no radiation-associated cancers have

been noticed so far. Some increase in incidence of solid tumours might have

been anticipated in the more highly exposed recovery operation workers.



Regards, Jim



> Norm, I'm sorry that you choose to burden yourself with the "thousands", but

> that is of course your choice. And I must add to you that I would not bother

> any more to see anything written by Dr. Bertell - she is completely beyond the

> pale in my opinion. Any of Robert Heinlein's works are far more useful and

> valuable.

> Cheers,

> Maury              maury@webtexas.com

> ===================================

> muckerheide wrote:

> 

>> From: maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>

>> 

>>> At least so far this is the first propagation of this 15 to 30 thousand

>>> deaths

>>> fairy tale that I have noted for the 16th anniversary of Chernobyl. Here is

>>> a

>> 

>> Maury, Where do you find 100?  I expect deaths in high-dose cleanup workers,

>> but no sound estimates. Follow-up of hospitalizations for ARS (acute rad

>> syndrome - about 207? I'd have to look it up at the moment) didn't show

>> excess deaths, but some could perhaps be attributed. Non-ARS high-dose group

>> has some leukemia deaths, but not significant, though actual cases may show

>> highest doses that may be attributable).

>> Thanks.

>> Regards, Jim

>> 

>>> gratuitous unattributed claim of thousands more having perished. Surely

>>> it would be interesting to learn exactly how this "estimate" was made and by

>>> whom? Norm, can you shed any light on this? You posted the article on

>>> Radsafe

>>> as well as on Salem and Know Nukes - do you personally afford this claim

> 

> --------------------------------

> It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to

> a fair trial.                                Charles M. Province

> 

> 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/