Re: Bulgaria

["Franz Schoenhofer" <schoenho@via.at>]

Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 Wien
AUSTRIA
Tel./Fax: +43-1-4955308
Mobiltel.: +43-664-3380333
e-mail: schoenho@via.at

----------
> Von: Radoslav P Radev <rado@uclink2.berkeley.edu>
> An: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Betreff: Re: Bulgaria
> Datum: Mittwoch, 12. November 1997 23:52
> 
> 
> It seems that similar or even higher rate of cancer as a result of the
> Chernobil nuclear plant accident should be observed in Romania and
> Southern Ukraine since the radioactive cloud passed these countries first
> before reaching Bulgaria.  It is unusual that the radioactive cloud would
> drop in Bulgaria bypassing Romania with its high Carpatian mountains.
> One should expect similar rates of cancer due to Chernobil in the
> neighboring countries (Macedonia, Serbia, Greece, European part of
> Turkey) because Bulgaria is a small country and the distances to the
> neighbors are small.
> 
> Another consideration is that (as far as I remember) the winds were
> blowing towards north-northwest (Belarus, Baltic states, Sweden, Finland)
> in the first days of the accident. What about increased cancer risks in
> those countries in comparison with Bulgaria?  Of course, the pathways of
> radioisotope deposition may differ from country to country.
> 
> Radoslav Radev
> rado@uclink2.berkeley.edu
> 
Radoslav,

First of all we have heard and read all kind of horror stories about the
enhanced cancer rates in various European countries after the Chernobyl
accident and I can assure you that  except for the Ukraine and Bjelorussia
this is not verified and therefore with a high probability not true. If one
knows the environmental, nutritial and health conditions in countries like
Bulgaria, one would not be surprised by a large rate of diseases, health
problems and also cancer. Most cancers can be cured effectively, if there
is a good network of healthcare and medical treatment - which is not
available in for instance Bulgaria. 

Secondly I respectfully disagree which your reasoning. Fallout is not a
matter of distance from a given source. Its amount deposited depends for
instance on the wind direction, the velocity, the size of the aerosols and
most important of all from rainfall, which washes the aerosols out from the
air. The phenomenon is well known, that the amount deposited after the
Chernobyl accident may vary within 50 m by a factor of three, within a
kilometer by a factor of ten. Deposition was extremely ununiform even
within a small political unit like a province or a county, not to talk
about a country. Sweden had locally high fallout - where it rained during
the passage of radioactive clouds - but most of it was deposited on snow,
which still existed in some parts and was washed off rather easily. There
was no grass yet in these areas, therefore cows did not graze and therefore
milk was little contaminated. In my country Austria, cows grazed already
and therefore milk was highly contaminated as well as lettuce, spinach and
other leafy vegetables, which were directly contaminated by fall out. The
dose and associated theoretical health effects depend mostly on the amount
of radionuclides ingested or inhaled.

Another question is the reliability of data and the number of data
available. Since my country was contaminated to the same extend as Bulgaria
is said to have been one should expect according to this horror story, that
a similar rise in cancer cases can be observed. This is   n o t   the case.
I think one can take this as a proof that the news on the cancer cases in
Bulgaria are - a horror story!

Franz