???Chernobyl Health Effects; Dosimetry

["James G. Barnes" <mail15077@pop.net>]

Good afternoon, folks.

I have a question regarding the sickness/death rates associated with the 
"liquidators" who have been working on site at Chernobyl to stabilize the plant.

It seems we are all assuming that 25 R (the dose limit that another respondent 
quoted as being the maximum allowable dose to the workers) won't cause any 
significant (if ANY) biological effect.  But several months ago, I saw a PBS 
special on Chernobyl that strongly implied that the workers were not wearing 
their dosimetry properly in order to keep their "official" doses low.  By doing 
this, they could continue in their jobs (getting much more "unofficially" 
exposed to levels far higher than the official limit), and could keep earning 
the relatively good pay and benefits.  If my memory serves, doses of several 
hundred rem were implied, and tacitly confirmed by workers being interviewed.

So the talk of "no effect" makes me a bit uncomfortable.  Granted, if one has 
confidence in the amount of dose an individual received, one can draw 
reasonable conclusions regarding effect.  But in this specific case, I'm very 
reluctant to walk very far down the "no effect" road because I can't say I have 
a lot of faith in the dosimetry.  If the workers weren't wearing dosimetry (or 
scamming the results so the readings were falsely low), and if the dosimetry 
program was highly suspect (which is certainly a logical conclusion one could 
draw from the PBS special) then we don't KNOW how much dose these workers got, 
and the effects may be real.  

That being as it may, what would one do in order to get a feel for the levels 
these workers actually received?  Are genetic damage tests sophisticated enough 
now to detect the effect of acute doses received several years prior?

The other concern I have on this issue involves the general state of the 
Russian environment.  From what I've heard (and it could be rumor and 
innuendo), the Russian environment is heavily loaded with hazardous wastes, 
pesticides (nasty stuff: DDT, etc.), and all sorts of other pollutants.  Has 
any epidemiology started addressing the possibility that chemical burdens, in 
conjunction with radiation, may be causing these effects?

I will be interested in the responses.


Jim Barnes, CHP
RSO
Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell Aerospace