Ukraine against nuclear weapons but needs atomic power

[Kshasty]

The Chernobyl tragedy led Ukraine to abandon its nuclear arsenal, but the country needs nuclear power as its main energy source, Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych said on Monday.

Ukraine witnessed one of the world's worst man-made disasters at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on April 26, 1986 when a plume of radioactive fallout was released into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area, including the western Soviet Union and most of Europe.

"Ukraine was the first to feel and realize the danger originated from the peaceful use of atomic energy and it was, perhaps, one of the reasons for our country to voluntary give up its nuclear weapons," Viktor Yanukovych said in a statement marking the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.

Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20100426/158750171.html

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Because Ukraine is Coal Country

The disaster at Chernobyl killed about 60 people outright, has led to about 1000 cases of thyroid cancer (several fatal), and is expected to bring premature death to between 2000 and 25,000 people.

However, the death toll from the products of coal combustion are estimated at a bare minimum of 500,000 per year. Not all in Ukraine, mind you, but Ukraine gets more than its share, mainly from mining and energy.

There are also several fatal coal mining accidents in Ukraine each year. Usually, only one or two miners die in an accident, but some mines are major killers, like the Zasyadko mine, which killed 101 miners on November 18, 2007, with a total of 296 since May of 1999.

I'm sure Yanukovych is well aware of all that -- and knows the difference between nuclear bombs and nuclear energy.

--d!

[kristopher]

2. Spinning 212,000 to 245,000+ deaths on behalf of nuclear power industry? How kind of you.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[Statistical]

3. Weak. Those numbers aren't recognized by any international body.

Chernobyl resulted in roughly 50 direct deaths and 5000 indirect deaths.

[kristopher]

4. Really? How the devil do you KNOW that?

As you can see from the abstract this study was done AFTER the other studies.

It is far more comprehensive than the other studies.

It is published in an EXTREMELY well regarded peer reviewed journal.

The researchers are top tier.

What evidence do you have other than the results of prior, inferior studies, that this "is not recognized by any international body"?

What evidence do you have that all "international bodies" have rejected the findings of this study?

[FBaggins]

5. Simple.

If any international body HAD recognized these dramatically exagerated numbers...

...YOU would have posted it here over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

:rofl:

[Merchant Marine]

6. He's got a point there...

[joshcryer]

10. Haha

:rofl:

[Statistical]

8. because no international body has REVISED or UPDATED the Chernobyl damage assesment.

If you go to UNSCEAR, World Health Organization, IAEA all of them reference more realistic studies (50 + 5000). None of them even make a reference to this as a credible alternate theory.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf

Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident
20 Years Later a UN Report Provides Definitive Answers and Ways to Repair Lives A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded. As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004. The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, “Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts,” just released by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history. The Forum is made up of 8 UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the World Bank, as well as the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

100 scientists and 20 years of research. While Russia may lie about it the govt of Belarus certainly has no reason to do so. Neither does the research time and the dozens of intergovernmental agencies.

I will trust World Health Organization. They aren't particularly "pro-nuke". They have no reason to lie or minimize the effect. There is no reason to doubt the results of their extensive studiy.

Direct Deaths: 47
Indirect Deaths: 4000

Lastly peer reviewed doesn't mean what you think it does. There are peer reviewed reports on alternate explanations of rising global temperatures including theories on sunspot activity. Just because something is peer reviewed it doesn't make it infallible.

[joshcryer]

11. Also, just because a journal posts something doesn't mean it's legitimate.

There are journals which accept denialist reports and deniers call it "peer reviewed" all the damn time. A lot of the reports we've been reading? From startup journals with no significant web of trust. You need long tested journals with lots of back citations if you want to have a trustworthy source.

The person you are responding to has no problem referencing third rate journals, similar to those who would deny AGW.

[kristopher]

12. So your evidence of "not accepting" the 12/2009 paper is because they haven't changed their website?

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard... since your last absurdity. If a very, very weak appeal to authority is all you have, you don't have very much.

The Institute for Scientific Information ranks the Annals in the top 2% of sources cited in the scientific literature.

Overview

The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences is one of the oldest scientific journals in the United States and among the most cited of multidisciplinary scientific serials. Continuously published since 1823, the Annals is the premier publication of the Academy, offering the proceedings of conferences sponsored by the NYAS as well as those of other scientific organizations.New ideas are frequently unveiled at conferences, and the proceedings literature, even when speculative, can provide both a window on the research activity of the moment and important insights into the future direction of research. With 32 volumes published annually by Wiley-Blackwell, the Annals provides multidisciplinary perspectives on research of current scientific interest with far-reaching implications for the wider scientific community and society at large. The Annals' scope, although primarily focused on biomedicals areas, extends into fields as diverse as astronomy, psychology, anthropology, and philosophy. Each publication assembles the best thinking of key contributors for a comprehensive treatment of a field of investigation at a time when emerging developments offer the promise of new insight. These volumes stimulate new ways to think about science by providing a neutral forum for discourse -- within and across many institutions and fields. The Institute for Scientific Information ranks the Annals in the top 2% of sources cited in the scientific literature. The Annals' impact and immediacy factors have increased steadily in the last seven years, as has its ranking within the category of multidisciplinary journals. Another measure of a journal's effectiveness is its 'shelf life' (or cited half-life, measured by citation rate over several years); the Annals cited half-life is comparable to that of a primary source research journal.

Aims and Scope

Published on behalf of the New York Academy of Sciences, the Annals provide multidisciplinary perspectives on research of current scientific interest with far-reaching implications for the wider scientific community and society at large. Scope, although concentrated on biological and medical sciences, extends into fields as diverse as astronomy, psychology, anthropology and philosophy. Each publication assembles the best thinking of key contributors to a field of investigation at a time when emerging developments offer the promise of new insight. These volumes stimulate new ways to think about science by providing a neutral forum for discourse—within and across many institutions and fields.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
Volume 1181, December 2009
335 Pages

This is a collection of papers translated from the Russian with some revised and updated contributions. Written by leading authorities from Eastern Europe, the volume outlines the history of the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Although there has been discussion of the impact of nuclear accidents and Chernobyl in particular, never before has there been a comprehensive presentation of all the available information concerning the health and environmental effects of the low dose radioactive contaminants, especially those emitted from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Official discussions from the International Atomic Energy Agency and associated United Nations' agencies (e.g. the Chernobyl Forum reports) have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings reported in the Eastern European scientific literature and consequently have erred by not including these assessments.

[Statistical]

13. Once again peer reviewed doesn't mean what you think it does.

There are peer reviewed studies that say global warming is mandmade.
It does mean the journal or even the people doing the review believe in that premise.

There can even be conflicting reports in the SAME peer reviewed publication.

The WHO study involved 20 years and hundreds of scientists. It is THE definitive work on the subject.

Your claim that just because in the entire planet of 7 billion people a SINGLE paper has a conflicting opinion it must be true is silly on face value.

By that "logic" the IPCC paper can never be trusted. They don't respond to every single climate-skeptic. There are climate-denier papers in peer reviewed journals so I guess you also invalidate all the work of the IPCC right?

OF course not. You simply invalidate the work of thousands of scientists at WHO because you don't like the outcome of their work.

[FBaggins]

14. What?

"Peer reviewed" doesn't mean that it's settled science?

:rofl:

[Dogmudgeon]

9. " ... on behalf of nuclear power industry ... "

Conspiracy theorists have a forum all to themselves. It's the "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125">September 11 Forum" -- but any conspiratorially-minded DUer can participate there.

You should feel right at home.

We can discuss your crocodile tear problem at a later date.

--d!

[NNadir]

7. All nuclear power states are nuclear weapons states: Consider Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland.

How they haven't blown us all to bits escapes me.