Re: UKRAINE CHERNOBYL AFTERMATH NEWS ON INTERNET (fwd)

["Dale E. Boyce" <dale@radpro.uchicago.edu>]

The Chicago Tribune ran an article Sunday about how bad the
aftermath of Chernobyl "_really_" was.  It is sad to see the
press glom onto anything sensational about Chernobyl without
questioning the validity.  It is also sad that it is impossible to
do anything to try to protect the public safety without being sensational.

To paraphrase a quote from the Trib "the area around _____ is still
radioactive enough to require a warning sign".  I am pretty sure the
dose rate is not high enough to require posting, but is posted as a
warning in the interest of the public.  If it were not posted, the
article probably would have gone something like, "even though the
area is still measurably radioactive, the area is not posted as part
of the expert cover up".

What are the facts about health effects around Chenobyl?  Are any
of the reports about excess cancer , especial childhood thyroid
disease valid?  What is the incidence of childhood thyroid disease normally?
Is there any dietary reason for thyroid disease in the vicinity of
Chernobyl?  Is the increase (if any) in thyroid disease reporting
a result of the fact that it is being looked for now and wasn't before?
Before I was hearing about benign thyroid nodules, now the press is talking
like it is all cancer.  

How about it, are any radsafers up on the reality of post Chernobyl
health effects?

Dale