UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths

[struggle4progress]

Atomic agency says toll will not exceed 4,000
· Doctors 'overwhelmed' by cancers and mutations

John Vidal, environment editor
Saturday March 25, 2006
The Guardian

United Nations nuclear and health watchdogs have ignored evidence of deaths, cancers, mutations and other conditions after the Chernobyl accident, leading scientists and doctors have claimed in the run-up to the nuclear disaster's 20th anniversary next month.

In a series of reports about to be published, they will suggest that at least 30,000 people are expected to die of cancers linked directly to severe radiation exposure in 1986 and up to 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the world's worst environmental catastrophe. <snip>

In the Rivne region of Ukraine, 310 miles west of Chernobyl, doctors say they are coming across an unusual rate of cancers and mutations. "In the 30 hospitals of our region we find that up to 30% of people who were in highly radiated areas have physical disorders, including heart and blood diseases, cancers and respiratory diseases. Nearly one in three of all the newborn babies have deformities, mostly internal," said Alexander Vewremchuk, of the Special Hospital for the Radiological Protection of the Population in Vilne.

Figures on the health effects of Chernobyl have always been disputed. Soviet authorities covered up many of the details at the time. The largest radiation doses were received by the 600,000 people involved in the clean-up, many drawn from army conscripts all over the Soviet Union. <snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1739394,00.html

[phantom power]

1. "In the 30 hospitals of our region..."

"In the 30 hospitals of our region we find that up to 30% of people who were in highly radiated areas have physical disorders, including heart and blood diseases, cancers and respiratory diseases."

Last I read, 1/3 people in America are diagnosed with cancer at some point in their life. So, that's 30% right there. Is this really above background probability?

[struggle4progress]

2. Are you confusing "1/3 will get" with "1/3 have"?

[phantom power]

3. Could be. Not the same thing.

Although if you add up all the various diseases they mention, it makes me wonder what the background probability really is. Age demographics would be helpful. Measuring a 30% rate of cancer and heart disease for a group of 20-year-olds means something different than for a group of 60-year-olds.

[JohnWxy]

4. With that kind of a rate I'd say the prognosis isn't too good for those

who aren't presenting symptoms yet. They still have decades to go. 30% among 20 yr olds - what will it be when they are in their 40's - 60%, higher??

[phantom power]

6. My point was, we don't know the age demographics.

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Agreed, it's tricky to join the dots.

According to my envelope, I'd expect 2 million Ukrainians to have died from cancer in the last 20 years anyway: Without knowing if the half-million mentioned were 20 or 60, you can't really draw much conclusion from this.

Hopefully the reports themselves will go into a bit more detail: We'll have to keep an eye out for them.

[JohnWxy]

9. MOre demographics - reading actual Guardian article - "infant mortality"

"We have found that infant mortality increased 20% to 30% because of chronic exposure to radiation after the accident. All this information has been ignored by the IAEA and WHO. We sent it to them in March last year and again in June. They've not said why they haven't accepted it."

Evgenia Stepanova, of the Ukrainian government's Scientific Centre for Radiation Medicine, said: "We're overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukaemias and genetic mutations that are not recorded in the WHO data and which were practically unknown 20 years ago."

-- yes, this statement doesn't specify ages but "overwhelmed by thyroid cancers, leukaemias and genetic mutations"

and "which were practically unknown 20 years ago." seems to indicate a very significant increase in the rate of these diseases.


Or am I off base here?

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Not wildly off base...

It's more credible that Urquart's ramblings, but suprising that the WHO would fail to notice this sort of increase: The problem with reports on Chernobyl is, that there has been so much bullshit floating around I'm automatically skeptical of anything: If this paper is properly reviewed and backed up by evidence, I won't dismiss it out of hand.

Personally, I'm in wait-and-see mode.

[JohnWxy]

8. How about these demographics - newborns with deformities 1 in 3

Nearly one in three of all the newborn babies have deformities, mostly internal," said Alexander Vewremchuk, of the Special Hospital for the Radiological Protection of the Population in Vilne.

[JohnWxy]

5. With that kind of a rate I'd say the prognosis isn't too good

for those who aren't presenting symptoms yet. They still have decades to go. 30% among 20 yr olds - what will it be when they are in their 40's - 60%, higher??

[hunter]

10. Poverty, alcoholism, drugs, smoking, STD's are increasing.

Those things are proven to be deadly, especially as they are relateded to infant mortality.

Hyperbole and unsubstantiated facts are not helpful.

Studies don't "suggest" anything, people without substantial statistics "suggest" things.

It might be that the adverse health effects of Chernobyl are worse than they now appear. But this newspaper article doesn't convince me, it only tells me that someone has done a study that isn't quite solid enough to do anything more than "suggest" that this is so.

[NNadir]

12. Um, um, um...

How could you say that?

I note that everyone in Europe will die, and everyone who dies will do so after Chernobyl. This is certainly no coincidence.

[Nihil]

13. Oh no!

You don't mean to say that everyone who was in Europe at the time
of the Chernobyl event will eventually *die*?!

I guess that's buggered my chances of living forever ...
(but as Freddie said, "Who wants to ..."?)