Chernobyl Toll Controversy

welsh

Junkmaster
Apparently Greenpeace is challenging estimates on the numbers lost at Chernobyl-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4917526.stm

Greenpeace rejects Chernobyl toll
The health effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine 20 years ago have been grossly under-estimated, says an environmental charity.
Official UN figures predicted up to 9,000 Chernobyl-related cancer deaths.

But Greenpeace says in a report released on Tuesday that recent studies estimate that the actual number of such deaths will be 93,000.

Stressing that there is a problem with diagnosis, it adds that other illnesses could take the toll to 200,000.

"Our problem is that there is no accepted methodology to calculate the numbers of people who might have died from such diseases," Greenpeace campaigner Jan van de Putte told Reuters news agency.

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

"The only methodology that is accepted is for calculating fatal cancers."

The explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in April 1986 was the world's worst nuclear accident.

It spread a cloud of radioactive particles across a huge swathe of Europe.

Several million people still live in contaminated areas.

Disputed figures

The UN figure - of between 4,000 and 9,000 extra cancer deaths - came from a report released last October by the UN-led Chernobyl Forum.

HOW MANY DIED?
Acute Radiation Sickness (ARS) deaths in 1986: 28
ARS patients who died later: 19 (some from other causes)
Others who died during explosion: 2
Child thyroid cancer deaths (1992-2002): 15 (UN figure)
Predicted extra cancer deaths: from 4,000 (UN) to 93,000 (Greenpeace)
Estimated deaths from non-cancer causes 1990-2004: 107,000 (Greenpeace)
Dozens killed in accidents building sarcophagus (according to an engineer)

In the report, the World Health Organization dramatically lowered the estimated Chernobyl death toll, suggesting confusion had been caused over the accident's impact.

Many emergency and recovery workers, the report suggested, had died since 1986 from natural causes which could not be attributed to radiation exposure.

But in its report, Greenpeace suggests there will be 270,000 cases of cancer alone attributable to Chernobyl fallout, and that 93,000 of these will probably be fatal.

Blake Lee-Harwood, campaigns director at Greenpeace, told the BBC that cancer was likely to be the cause of less than half of the final fatalities.

"We're also looking at intestinal problems, heart and circulation problems, respiratory problems, endocrine problems, and particularly effects on the immune system," he told the BBC's World Today programme.

Child victims

Mr Lee-Harwood cited technical reasons for the discrepancy.

However, he also alleged that the nuclear industry had a "vested interest in playing down Chernobyl because it's an embarrassment to them".

Doctor Oxana Lozova, who works at a children's hospital in Rivne district, 300km (190 miles) west of Chernobyl, said many generations appeared to be affected.

"I think the fallout from Chernobyl has affected the immunity of those who were young children at the time of the disaster," she told the BBC's Moscow correspondent, Damian Grammaticas.

"We now have to deal with people who are a lot weaker than their fathers and grandfathers were.

"They're falling ill at an age when they really should still be quite fit."

'Apples and oranges'

The WHO said comparing the Chernobyl Forum and Greenpeace reports was like "comparing apples and oranges" when it spoke to the BBC News website.

A tendency to attribute all health problems to exposure to radiation have led local residents to assume that Chernobyl-related fatalities were much higher
Chernobyl Forum report, September 2005

"The Greenpeace report is looking at all of Europe, whereas our report looks at only the most affected areas of the three most affected countries," said WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl.

"The WHO felt it had recourse to the best national and international scientific evidence and studies when it came up with its estimates of [up to] 9,000 excess deaths for the most affected areas. We feel they're very sound."

Mr Hartl rejected accusations of bias toward the nuclear industry in the report.

"We acting as [neither] an apologist or an attacker of the nuclear industry," he said.

The original report found more than 600,000 people received high levels of exposure, including reactor staff, emergency and recovery personnel and residents of the nearby areas.

See video on article as cited above-

Also -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4918742.stm

Audio on line-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/outlook.shtml
 
Well, you know, according to the French government, the wind and clouds carrying fallout from Chernobyl stopped at France's borders ...

Who's laughing now at the Maginot line ?
 
[Rusty Chopper said:
]Every two years all the nuclear plants of the world together produce the same effect on the environment, as one Chernobyl.

Is that supposed to make me feel better about Chernobyl?
 
Ruski please.

How would properly working plants compare to one blowing up, exposing reactor cores and releasing tons of heavily radioactive smoke and subsequently, fallout into the whole of Europe?

What is 'the nuclear plants of the world together'? Their combined effect? Their combined effect of what pray? Their combined radioactive smoke output? :roll:

Seems you've been spoon-fed propaganda shitski again.
 
Celluloid said:
Well, you know, according to the French government, the wind and clouds carrying fallout from Chernobyl stopped at France's borders ...

Who's laughing now at the Maginot line ?

:rofl: ,
The Vault Dweller
 
I saw on tv long ago on the chernobyl babies and they were heavily mutated. One kid had really short legs and super long arms and was severly disfigured all around and it was really freaking me out that nuclear radiation can do that kind of shit to people... I had to stop watching it for peace of mind.

Most those kids die within like 5 yrs, and i presume there were quite a few of them.
 
My theory is that the calamity was minimally a familiarising cover up by the communists, in fact many nuclear reactors were situated throughout Europe hidden by the CCCP, for without some external means the union would have found it a barrier to produce sufficient power output to run such a successful military campaign. All facts point to hidden nuclear reactors, there is only limited evidence to actually suggest it was Chernobyl that melted what if there was a secret external generator below the site? What if the cover up was a lie by the eastern governments and for all this time the collapse of global capitalism via future lack of power will be blamed on capitalists by evil Russian communists who staged Chernobyl. It seems fishy to me.
 
From the BBC- GOrby weighs in-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4918940.stm

Gorbachev weighs Chernobyl legacy

Former leader Mikhail Gorbachev admits some mistakes were made
Mikhail Gorbachev had been Soviet leader for only 13 months when the Chernobyl nuclear accident happened. He describes how the authorities responded and reflects on the lessons from the disaster.

I received a call at 0500 on 26 April 1986, informing me that a major accident, followed by a fire, had just occurred in the fourth block of the Chernobyl nuclear power station, but that the reactor was still intact.

In those early hours, until the evening of 26 April, we had not yet realised that the reactor had actually exploded and that there had been a huge discharge of radioactive materials into the atmosphere.

Nobody had any idea that we were facing a major nuclear disaster.

Naturally, we can regret, today, after the fact, that we did not grasp everything more quickly.

[At the time], I was astounded: how was such a thing possible? Nuclear scientists had always assured the country's leadership that our nuclear reactors were completely safe.

'Not panicking'

Immediately after the accident, the management of the station gave the order to flood the reactor with water, because they were not aware that the reactor had exploded and there was nothing left to extinguish.

Finally, the pool under the reactor and some underground locations were filled up with water.

Scientists were afraid that if the hot mass of nuclear fuel and graphite were to rupture the bottom of the reactor's tank and fall into radioactive water, this would create the conditions for a further nuclear explosion.

We were not panicking... but we urgently needed to pump out this water. This was completed at the beginning of May. In this way, such an explosion, however slight its probability, was effectively prevented.

There were other threats that needed to be eliminated with the utmost urgency.

In the beginning even the top experts did not realise the gravity of the situation

Firstly, there remained the danger that the mass at the heart of the reactor would rupture its tank and even blast through the foundations of the building housing the reactor, so coming into contact with the soil and leading to a major contamination of groundwater.

We also had to prevent the radioactive waste and debris from around the plant from contaminating the waters of the Dnieper and Desna rivers. This required operations on a massive scale...

But, of course, our main concern was to evacuate the population from the most contaminated areas.

On 27 April we performed an exemplary operation: in just three hours the entire population of Pripyat, located very close to the power station, was evacuated.

And in the early days of May, we evacuated everybody living within a 30km radius of the power station, in dozens of localities: a total of 116,000 people.

Told the truth?

Quite simply, in the beginning even the top experts did not realise the gravity of the situation.

I confess that we were afraid of panic - you can imagine for yourselves the consequences of a terrible panic in a town of several million inhabitants

We needed several weeks to obtain precise evaluations and to draw up maps of the contamination.

Certainly, I will not exclude the possibility that certain functionaries, who were afraid of being accused of not having taken the correct measures, had a tendency to embellish their reports.

But, for the most part, I believe that I was kept informed in good faith by my representatives.

We did not cancel the May Day parades [in Kiev and Minsk] because we still did not have information on the full extent of the disaster.

I confess that we were afraid of panic - you can imagine for yourselves the consequences of a terrible panic in a town of several million inhabitants. I admit that it was a grave mistake.

We published the first information on the accident on 28 April, in Pravda, but to speak to the people, I needed a more substantial and precise analysis. That is why I waited almost three weeks before speaking on television.

Correct response?

Nowadays, experts think that our fears over the possible contamination of groundwater were exaggerated, and that it was not worth the trouble of installing a "cushion" [concrete slab] underneath the reactor.

Today, mankind faces a challenge so huge that, by comparison, the Cold War appears like an incongruous vestige from the past

The construction of the sarcophagus, all the measures for aquatic protection, most of the measures aimed at decontamination - these were good decisions, even though some of the deactivation did ultimately prove to be superfluous.

We decontaminated areas which were later evacuated. Nobody knew, for instance, that Pripyat, that beautiful modern city, would find itself forever uninhabitable.

At first, scientists thought that the population of Pripyat would be able to return to the city around the end of May or beginning of June.

People left leaving their fridges full of food, without even unplugging them, since they expected to return quickly.

Environmental cost

The explosion at Chernobyl showed that we are capable of contaminating the planet for the long term, and of leaving a terrible legacy for future generations.

Today, mankind faces a challenge so huge that, by comparison, the Cold War appears like an incongruous vestige from the past.

Chernobyl clearly demonstrated that each disaster is unique and that no country can be prepared for every eventuality.

That is why we must deploy the maximum amount of effort to prevent disasters.

One must not compromise on nuclear safety. The social, ecological and economic consequences of these kind of disasters are much too heavy in every sense of the word.

We can therefore see what enormous responsibility is placed not only on politicians, but on scientists, engineers and designers - their mistakes could cost the life and health of millions of people.

The victims of Chernobyl continue to suffer both physically and mentally. It is our moral duty to help them while continuing to limit the ecological consequences of this disaster.

Mikhail Gorbachev was interviewed by Green Cross International, a non-governmental organisation he founded in the wake of Chernobyl. A fuller version is appearing in the latest issue of the Optimist magazine.
 
You have to understand that both UN and Greenpeace have motives
for estimating death toll.

Greenpeace wants to stop the use of nuclear power plants (which is just plain unrealistic)

UN is wanting to help the countries who are paying massive amounts of money to victims of the accident.

While Greenpeace's numbers are proably closer to the truth in my opinion, there goals as a group tamper them.

You got to remember that in the first 4 years after the accident the Soviets were still in coverup mode.

You can't blame the Ukraine for wanting to move past this event.
Therefore the UN numbers will proably be considered fact by them and others.

The only fact is this:
We may never know the exact number of people that were affected by Chernobyl.

http://chernobyl20.ytmnd.com/
 
There were too many deaths caused by Chernobyl, directly and indirectly.

Across Europe, women had miscarriages due to fallout and radiation, a few people I know had this misery struck upon them. And they were in England at the time, mind you. Call it a coincidence, but I stand by the fact that the fallout from Chernobyl travelled and caused these miscarriages.

I was watching 60 minutes a few weeks ago, on Chernobyl and it's affect on the people, and it was just horrific.

There were small children, about 20 of them, with severe mental and physical disabilities sitting in a room for 10 hours a day. Their parents had obviously died as a direct result of Chernobyl.

It's horrific at any angle you look at it.
 
Back
Top