Chernobyl

[wolram]

This is an article from 2000, does any one know what effects the accident caused are evident now?

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/060700.html

[Astronuc]

IAEA page on Chernobyl and it's legacy.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/

[mgb_phys]

There is a bbc interview with Mary Mycio an enviromental campaigner who wrote a book abiout wildlife thriving inside the 'dead' zone
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/02/2006_13_wed.shtml

[Borek]

From the Chernobyl's Legacy report:

Childhood thyroid cancer caused by radioactive iodine fallout is one of the main health accident were particularly high in those who were children at the time and drank milk with high levels of radioactive iodine. By 2002, more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases had been diagnosed in this group, and it is most likely that a large fraction of these thyroid cancers is attributable to radioiodine intake.

Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations. There was, however, an increase in psychological problems among the affected population, compounded economic depression that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union.

So far, epidemiological studies of residents of contaminated areas in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine have not provided clear and convincing evidence for a radiation-induced increase in general population mortality, and in particular, for fatalities caused by leukaemia, solid cancers (other than thyroid cancer), and non-cancer diseases.

As I read it in general deaths that can be attributed to the Chernobyl radiation are below statistical noise.

[Andre]

Sure enough there is quite some controversy about the effects of Chernobyl:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article563041.ece

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/greenpeace-new-study-reveals-d

But I'd really like to highly recommend this superb article:

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dmo2/Chesser%20Baker%2006%20Chernobyl.pdf

The most important lesson:

Lesson 5: Scientists must have a single agenda: the truth.

and from the conclusion:

Scientists often find themselves in unpopular and uncomfortable positions. That’s just part
of the job when you have to report the truth. A scientist’s conclusions help to guide public policy, write regulations and develop new technologies.

The results of good science are simply too important to be swayed by emotional appeals.
Unfortunately, poor science often gets great publicity, especially if it stirs controversy
or implies that governments are recklessly endangering the lives of their citizens. In the long
run, poor science will beget poor policy.

[Borek]

In my own dictionary greenpeace and fearmonger are almost synonyms.

[vanesch]

Sure enough there is quite some controversy about the effects of Chernobyl:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article563041.ece

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/greenpeace-new-study-reveals-d

But I'd really like to highly recommend this superb article:

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dmo2/Chesser%20Baker%2006%20Chernobyl.pdf

The most important lesson:



Brilliant. Mmmm. This seems to be applicable somewhere else too, no ? :approve::wink:

[Andre]

Right, basically everywhere but in some areas more than others. Who said "knowledge is power" was wrong. sensation and emotion are power.