Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,359
- 1,830
I know one cannot confirm cancer deaths due to increased radiation long term, but to be fair, we have to assume some people in the area had to have gotten a healthy dose due to the radioactive graphite smoke, as well as cancers in people in the response teams and the operating staff.
I know you cant 100% link it, but in Chernobyl's case I would give it a strong possibility.
Do We Know The Chernobyl Death Toll? | newmatilda.com
A number of studies apply that basic methodology based on collective radiation doses and risk estimates and come up with results varying from 9000 to 93,000 deaths. While that tenfold difference seems significant, it is explained by the differing approaches and assumptions used in the various studies. For example, whether or not they consider radiation exposure across Europe or just in the most heavily contaminated countries of Eastern Europe. (And of course that tenfold difference is peanuts compared to the many orders of magnitude separating Monbiots 43 and Caldicotts 985,000.)
Monbiot says he asked Helen Caldicott for sources about the Chernobyl death toll. Here are some of the most important studies which he didnt mention in his article. Firstly, reports by the UN Chernobyl Forum (pdf) and the World Health Organisation in 2005-06 estimated up to 4000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations and an additional 5,000 deaths among populations exposed to lower doses in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
A study by Elizabeth Cardis and her colleagues published in 2006 in the International Journal of Cancer estimates 16,000 deaths. Research published in 2006 by UK radiation scientists Ian Fairlie and David Sumner estimated 30,000 to 60,000 deaths. And finally, a 2006 report commissioned by Greenpeace estimates a death toll of about 93,000.
So where do Monbiot and Caldicott fit in the context of these scientific studies of the Chernobyl death toll? They dont fit anywhere at all. Caldicott relies on a Russian report titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Suffice it here to note that the study uses a loose methodology to arrive at an unlikely conclusion.
Monbiot sides with the marginal scientists in arguing that low-level radiation is harmless. He cites a report from the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) to claim that the "official death toll" from Chernobyl is 43. But the UNSCEAR report made no effort to assess the effects of widespread low-level radiation exposure. Specifically, the report states:
"The Committee has decided not to use models to project absolute numbers of effects in populations exposed to low radiation doses from the Chernobyl accident, because of unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions. It should be stressed that the approach outlined in no way contradicts the application of the LNT model for the purposes of radiation protection, where a cautious approach is conventionally and consciously applied."
Did you seriously waste your time typing All that speculative Nonsense? What a sad boring life you must have. Id give you bad rep but im not as bored as you.
I thought these guys were the "science first" crowd? And then they post paragraph after paragraph of speculative nonsense.