Re: UKRAINE CHERNOBYL AFTERMATH NEWS ON INTERNET (fwd)

[paul pater <ppater@mail.sdsu.edu>]

At 12:13 PM 4/23/96 -0500, Dale E. Boyce wrote:
>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
>
>
>