Chernobyl - Disaster or Myth?

luckat

I popped in because I was interested to see how a panel of sceptics (skeptics?) would rationally discuss a question normally treated with more emotion than logic.

Came to the wrong place, I see.

williamgrogan

Your post is a bit vague. Who is being emotional? The Skeptics or the non-Skeptic?

PaulP

neuro-praxis:

You gave a list of dangerous substances released by the accident. Unfortunately for you this does not prove anything. Everything is dangerous if it's is the wrong place or in the wrong concentration. Air in the bloodstream is fatal. Drink too much water and you die from hyponatraemia.

In the end whether exposure to plutonium etc is dangerous depends on how much plutonium etcix involved. It's all a matter of numbers.

Another matter of numbers is whether the general population in the area is suffering from ill-health because of the accident. And the numbers do not suggest this, as williamgrogan has pointed out.

GuanYin

Originally posted by PaulP
Another matter of numbers is whether the general population in the area is suffering from ill-health because of the accident. And the numbers do not suggest this, as williamgrogan has pointed out.

That is incorrect.

The numbers WG pointed out look at "cancer" in comparison to other countries and reports in the general area.

You are talking about an area with:
A) A lower unspecified cancer rate than western Europe.
An area with poor amenities in health reporting.

Leukemia and rare radiation associated cancers are much higher in the "chernobyl effected" areas than one would normally expect.

Radioactive posioning of resources has meant a rise in "general disease" in the surrounding area.

Birth defects and radioaction associated wouldn't be seen til 2nd or 3rd generation anyway so it is impossible to dismiss or discount this (and poor science in thecas eof anyone who does). Another issue which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere is sterility. I wonder has anyone looked as there could well be a rise in infertility and sterility in the areas.

williamgrogan

neuro-praxis saud, "I never said thousands".

Sorry but I understood that you agreed with (i.e. would say Yes to) the statement, "Do you believe that 1,000's died or were made deformed as a result of Chernobyl?"

How did you vote?

How many do you think died?

PaulP

Syke:

How about some before and after numbers to justify your claim that "Leukemia and rare radiation associated cancers are much higher in the "chernobyl effected" areas than one would normally expect." ?

And "Birth defects ... wouldn't be seen til 2nd or 3rd generation anyway" is not what you meant I hope.

GuanYin

Originally posted by PaulP
Syke:

How about some before and after numbers to justify your claim that "Leukemia and rare radiation associated cancers are much higher in the "chernobyl effected" areas than one would normally expect." ?

*sigh*

Source World Health Stat Q. 1996;49(3-4):209-12.
Scientific results obtained within the WHO International Programme on the Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident (IPHECA) have confirmed the increase of thyroid cancer cases in children who were exposed to radiation due to the accident in 1986.

AND

Lancet Oncol. 2002 May;3(5):269-79.
The Chernobyl nuclear accident on 26th April, 1986, led to a massive release of radionuclides into the environment. Although vast areas of Europe were affected by Chernobyl-related ionising radiation, the accident had the greatest impact in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation. Epidemiological studies that have investigated the link between the Chernobyl accident and cancer have largely focused on malignant diseases in children, specifically thyroid cancer and leukaemia. There is good evidence to suggest that rates of thyroid cancer in children from the countries that were formally part of the Soviet Union have risen as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident. The findings for childhood leukaemia are less conclusive. Rates for this disease do not seem to have been significantly affected by the Chernobyl-related ionising radiation, but there is a larger risk of infant leukaemia in contaminated areas of Europe.

Thyroid cancer is the biggest increase, my bad..... Leukemia has increased, but unfortunately several factors such as biased reporting have fusged the figures. While there is a rise, it cannot be shown to be significant (by biasd reporting i mean that the sub populations examined were not independantly selected).

My earlier WHO links shows the Thyroid increase as a 10-fold one.

Source World Health Stat Q. World Health Stat Q. 1996;49(3-4):209-12.
Analysis indicates that there has been an increased incidence of all cancers, with thyroid cancer accounting for most of that change. When cancer incidence data from Belarus are compared to data from the U.S., there is a higher incidence of thyroid cancer and a slightly higher incidence of Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in Belarus

These cancers have increased marginally, the main problem here was, from a scientific point of view (and this is touched on in a Nature review (Nature magazine (UK), April, 1996)) people went in with loaded ideas about what the would find (they expected walking mutants) it wasn't the case, there was a marginaly increase in all areas but not the level they were expecting.

The balance then became 'stating that Nuclear power isn't as risky as we once thought' Vs. 'Stating that Belarus has majorly effected'. In reality both statements are true.

Source Radiat Environ Biophys. 1998 Apr;37(1):53-5.
Petridou et al. have reported an increase in infant leukemia in Greek children born between 1/7/86 and 31/12/87 and have linked this increase to in utero radiation exposure due to the Chernobyl accident

This is a major point. The nature of radiation spead means that incidents won't belimitedto Belarus. While the Chernobyl-centred reporting focuses on the locality, many sub-studies on the surrounding areas have found associated incidents.

Source World Health Stat Q. 1996;49(3-4):209-12.
Accident recovery workers ("liquidators") are an especially high-risk group and need further medical follow-up.

This is one area that doesn't make the stats, because obviously the investigation is loaded against a population risk-analysis.

Bull Soc Sci Med Grand Duche Luxemb. 1996;133(2):41-5
Adults demonstrate a significant increase of morbidity due to these Hematological malignancies after the Chernobyl disaster..

These are those radiation related cancers I mentioned.

Originally posted by PaulP
And "Birth defects ... wouldn't be seen til 2nd or 3rd generation anyway" is not what you meant I hope.

My english let me down again perhaps.

I've already said this in another post but....

Alot of radiation related cancers are a result of cumulative exposure. They may not cause any significant biological damage without 10-15 years exposure at which case lung cancers and heart diseases increase along with some indications of increased susceptability to brain tumours. Now, these would only really be manifesting in the population now, or perhaps with the next generation, who may in fact have an increased incidence or infertility, sterility or birth defects among progeny. The time to really start looking at birth defects is over the next 30 years, as any major effects will most likely be seen in this next generation and the generation after.

williamgrogan

I don't have time to go into Syke's post in detail now, but in my opening comments on this thread I said .........

They state that other than an increase in Thyroid disease, which killed one person, there has been no other negative health effect of the accident.

So I accept this death as one of the <40 that died. Still not a disaster.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I don't have time to go into Syke's post in detail now, but in my opening comments on this thread I said .........


So I accept this death as one of the <40 that died. Still not a disaster.

Sorry but a disease doesn't have to kill to have a significant effect on the lifestyle of a people.

Apart from the financial drain on family, state and healthcare service in treatment you have quality of life effected for all those involved.

This cancer will most likely reduce the life expectancy of all involved. Effectively you are denying it is an issue because noone died. A rather biased way of looking at things and strangely for you, a rather emotive way at looking at things too, from a purely logistical point of view it would be better to have to deal with 500 deaths than treatment of 5000 thyroid-cancer sufferers who will die prematurely.

Just as a point of information

Radiat Environ Biophys. 2000 Mar;39(1):25-31
The thyroid cancer incidence among the birth cohort considered in Belarus and for a period starting from the cessation of the available observation data (1 January 1997) and extending to 50 years after the Chernobyl accident has been estimated to be about 15,000 cases

PaulP

Syke:

I still do not see any numbers to make a judgement. Stating a 10-fold increase is not good enough. If there were one case per million per annum, then going up to 10 per million per annum is not much and is well within statistical variation.

And as you said health reporting pre-Chernobyl was not good so how can we rely on any figures comparing before and after?


So on the basic question of whether many people were killed or had major health effects because of the accident, the verdict has to be that it is unproven. Which means that claims of major health effects are not to be believed.

And when a scientific paper uses the word 'significant' in relation to statistics, the authors are using in its technical meaning so it's good form to provide us with the numbers in question so we can see for ourselves.

GuanYin

Originally posted by PaulP
Syke:

I still do not see any numbers to make a judgement. Stating a 10-fold increase is not good enough. If there were one case per million per annum, then going up to 10 per million per annum is not much and is well within statistical variation.

And as you said health reporting pre-Chernobyl was not good so how can we rely on any figures comparing before and after?


So on the basic question of whether many people were killed or had major health effects because of the accident, the verdict has to be that it is unproven. Which means that claims of major health effects are not to be believed.

And when a scientific paper uses the word 'significant' in relation to statistics, the authors are using in its technical meaning so it's good form to provide us with the numbers in question so we can see for ourselves.

I think you are just playing at semantics now to try and defend a very weak position.

"significant" does not have to be a statistically related term, especially when medical doctors are publishing, basically having read the paper I take it to mean that although there is a rise the poor data mining cannot conclusively prove that the trend has altered since 1986. However, the effect Chernobyl has had on countries further away, is statistical and this is a surprising contrast to the findings in Belarus.

The concervative estimate for Thyroid cancer is 15,000 malignant cases to develop by approx 2030. Although other researchers have put that figure at 100,000.

I went for the conservative figure mainly due to epidemiological approach in that paper but also given the audience, which is a prime example of the reason reporting bias exists - people who already have a pre-existing conviction of what the results "should" be.

I understand the reason for the skeptical stance. But the facts are reported above from unbiased sources. To say Chernobyl hasn't had a significant effect (here's a scientist using the word "statistical") is being absolutely ignorant of all the research that has been reported. The disaster may not have been as drastic as the media led peolle to believe, but that is the media's fault and does not lessen the medical and socio-economic effects on the people in the Belarus region. The disaster may not have been as bad as we expected it might be, but that is really due to bias on our parts and a pre-conceived notion based on poor facts.

It was however, a disaster. I have WHO figures somewhere in hard copy and if I ever get around to finding them I'll give you exact numbers. Offhand I reckon the estimate is around 100,000 Chernobyl-related serious medical disorders reported with probably double that in non-serious (by which i mean things like stress, malnutrition etc.) cases.

The axe being grinded here is probably a valid one, but I think it went well past objectivity in making the point and into (as per usual in this forum) a fanatical polar stance of those who believe there are 3 armed mutants roaming thehills of Belarus.

You can be right and still accept the facts guys.

PaulP

Syke : your comment that '"significant" does not have to be a statistically related term, especially when medical doctors are publishing' just shows you do not know what you are talking about. Have a look at this reference. Any scientific paper looking at statistics has to use the technical meaning of the phrase "significant" when describing its results. And that applies even when the authors are medical doctors. They are still using and talking statistics. And so are you in your whole argument. If you are unfamiliar with statistics then you are waffling. Sorry to sound malicious but this whole debate is not about ill-helath but rates of ill-health: in other words statistics.

You wrote: "The concervative estimate for Thyroid cancer is 15,000 malignant cases to develop by approx 2030. Although other researchers have put that figure at 100,000.". Fascinating but totally un-illiminating. How many would have happened anyway? And these are only estimates. And they are wildly at variance with each other. In no way is this evidence of current helath problems caused by the accident. To the alleviation of which we are being asked to contribute.

GuanYin

Originally posted by PaulP
Syke : your comment that '"significant" does not have to be a statistically related term, especially when medical doctors are publishing' just shows you do not know what you are talking about. Have a look at this reference. Any scientific paper looking at statistics has to use the technical meaning of the phrase "significant" when describing its results. And that applies even when the authors are medical doctors. They are still using and talking statistics. And so are you in your whole argument. If you are unfamiliar with statistics then you are waffling. Sorry to sound malicious but this whole debate is not about ill-helath but rates of ill-health: in other words statistics.

You wrote: "The concervative estimate for Thyroid cancer is 15,000 malignant cases to develop by approx 2030. Although other researchers have put that figure at 100,000.". Fascinating but totally un-illiminating. How many would have happened anyway? And these are only estimates. And they are wildly at variance with each other. In no way is this evidence of current helath problems caused by the accident. To the alleviation of which we are being asked to contribute.

Paul I'm a medical researcher with a "significant" number of publications.
I know exactly what I am talking about. Medical Doctors publications do not tend to be as scientifically worded as pre-clinical researchers, mainly due to the type of scientific training they receive.

Its all nice giving fancy links to web sites but in practice and reality its not the same.
I'm well aware of statistical relevence in publications and statistics.

Of course, if it makes you feel better, we can stay away of the facts of teh situationand conceed to teh armchair experts in this forum?

williamgrogan

A small aside…..

Why is there money being collected for “orphanages”? I don’t think there are any orphanages as such in Ireland anymore. The world is chock full of couples who would do anything to adopt a baby or child. Would the various “Chernobyl” charities be better off getting the orphanages to shut down and the children fostered? Why are there so many children in orphanages in Belarus. Are we not being led to believe that it is to do with Chernobyl?

As far as I can see the Government of Belarus is little better than under communism. One charity suspended aid relief because the Belarus government was “taxing” it and took $300,000 from the charity’s account.

Here’s an interesting excerpt from http://going.imb.org/vim/main/testimonies/testimonies47.asp (it’s a religious charity site so suspect but it throws up an interesting point)

In Belarus we learned that the country - not larger than the state of Kansas - has at least 600 orphanages with 33,000 children listed as orphans. Most likely 90 percent are called "social orphans" where their family has literally thrown them away. Alcoholism is a major problem there with vodka so cheap and easy to buy. They are taught that as long as you have a bottle of vodka to drink, bread to eat, and a place to sleep, you have all that you need. These people are oppressed and enslaved. It is nothing for them to throw their children out - just so more money can be saved for more drink or worse yet, to buy a new sofa. There is no such thing as family values for these people.

Is this the reason there are so many orphanages? Nothing to do with Chernobyl at all.

If you solve the wrong problem you solve nothing!

Here’s another excerpt from a forum on adoption from Belarus..

http://forums.adoption.com/f158,1.html

I have not completed my adoption but have done a lot of research. What I have found is that the children are usually comparable in coloring to Russian children. They often have blond or brown hair and light eyes. So far I haven't heard of any adoptees showing signs of FAE/FAS. It is very much frowned upon in Belarus to drink while pregnant. I can't of course say it never happens, but people who have traveled and completed adoptions rave that the orphanages are wonderful and the caregivers are truly caring. While they want financially, they make the best with what they have, and there seems to be no neglect. (this is juct in the testimonies I have seen personally)

From the same forum….

We are just starting the dossier preparation, but research indicates that long term effects from Chernobyl are not a problem for children being born today. You may want to do a Internet search or check on some of the Yahoo Message boards re: adoption from Belarus. They have info. in their files about Chernobyl and health risks.

What does the following tell us?

There has been some discussion lately on the Yahoo group list in regards to Chernobyl and the effect it had on the children in Belarus. While you can get a lot of disturbing information by doing a search on the internet, I just wanted to assure those of you thinking about adopting from Belarus, but nervous because of Chernobyl, that so far none of the children that have been brought to the United States from Belarus have had any health issues associated with Chernobyl. If any of you have specific concerns, please feel free to bring them up and I will do my best to get you the answers!

All the above are from a board (using the same software as this one) that caters for those wanting to adopt children.

PS

I'm a bit curious as to how Syke's jibe at me, I'm now an "armchair expert" has anything to do with my point?

Paul's points were perfectly valid. How can you quote statistics that vary from 15,000 to 100,000. If the uncertainty is that high they are useless.

williamgrogan

Dear Genius,

Birth defects and radioaction associated wouldn't be seen til 2nd or 3rd generation anyway

I don’t accept this applies to Belarus without further evidence.

If this was true, then would those living for many generations in the West of Ireland in areas of high Radon concentrations not be expected to be spouting multiple arms and legs at a fantastic rate after 100’s of generations of accumulative damage? The radioactivity level varies by 10 to 15 times even within counties in Ireland.

Yours truly,

William Grogan

Armchair expert and Science Fan Boy

PaulP

If you know exactly what you are talking about then you have to know that the use of the word "significant" to describe the results of a scientific paper dealing in statistics can only mean "statistically significant". No other use of the word carries any scientific weight when talking about statistical results. But it's worse than that. Research of the type you quote is statistical. Therefore there is no other legitimate way of using the word "significant" in these papers. Its misuse is tantamount to fraud.

The statement "Medical Doctors publications do not tend to be as scientifically worded as pre-clinical researchers, mainly due to the type of scientific training they receive" gives the game away. A paper analysing statistics can only have results that talk about the "statistical significance" of the statistics.


You want us to accept the papers you quote as good science even as you make excuses as to why they are not up to the required scientific standard.

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Dear Genius

This discussion has been very interesting of late. Please leave the sarcasm out of it.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I'm a bit curious as to how Syke's jibe at me, I'm now an "armchair expert" has anything to do with my point?

Paul's points were perfectly valid. How can you quote statistics that vary from 15,000 to 100,000. If the uncertainty is that high they are useless.

How is it a jibe at you?

Its not always about you ya know

I think the point that I've been quoting peer reviewed scientific journals while you gave us the "Nuclear Promotions Board" (well the nuclear energy agency, but much the same) and a Yahoo group discussion pretty much is case in point mind you.


Well you see thats the problem with predicting the future William, you can't do it with certainty. The current figure stands at 5000-6000 cases.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan

I don’t accept this applies to Belarus without further evidence.

So what? It doesnt change anything?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
If this was true, then would those living for many generations in the West of Ireland in areas of high Radon concentrations not be expected to be spouting multiple arms and legs at a fantastic rate after 100’s of generations of accumulative damage? The radioactivity level varies by 10 to 15 times even within counties in Ireland.

2500 Irish homes have been identified as at a dangerous level Radon (200 Bq/m3 ) and it seems that 1/50 people exposed continuously will develop lung cancer, depending on the length and strength of exposure.

It seems too that smokers exposed at this level have a greater than average risk and those in non-smoking environments (non-passive) are lower than average at this level.

What makes you think that Radon has the same effect as ionisation radiation?

GuanYin

Originally posted by PaulP
If you know exactly what you are talking about then you have to know that the use of the word "significant" to describe the results of a scientific paper dealing in statistics can only mean "statistically significant". No other use of the word carries any scientific weight when talking about statistical results. But it's worse than that. Research of the type you quote is statistical. Therefore there is no other legitimate way of using the word "significant" in these papers. Its misuse is tantamount to fraud.

Bacause they didn't mantion numbers or figures in that passage and if they were to try publich a paper stating that they had a statistically significant result without showing the figures the reviewer would laugh them out of it and throw the paper back in their faces.

However, significant can also be used descriptively, and this is an acceptable (if slightly misleading) practice in the more clinical based journals that you will find medical doctors tend towards as opposed to pre-clinical research doctors (ie. PhD's) who tend to go for a more detailed, if verbose style of paper. (an example would be "Gut" which is very clinically orientated in its sources and American Journal of Gastroenterology which is very pre-clinical).

I've been reading, publishing in and reviewing peer-reviewed scientific journals for about 7 years now and I'm pretty au fait with the different types, styles and terminologies used.

For instance, I can say, "there were no significant muscular atrophy as a result of the treatment" in a clinical journal. There are no stats to back this up, its observational. It doesn't mean that there was no atrophy, but in comparison to another group or to an expected result it may not be significant. They also tend to use "negligable" in the same way.

Originally posted by PaulP
The statement "Medical Doctors publications do not tend to be as scientifically worded as pre-clinical researchers, mainly due to the type of scientific training they receive" gives the game away. A paper analysing statistics can only have results that talk about the "statistical significance" of the statistics.


You want us to accept the papers you quote as good science even as you make excuses as to why they are not up to the required scientific standard.

Oh dear oh dear. I just said the language used by medical and pre-clinical journals differs greatly. Mainly due to the education bias of the author and audience. They are peer reviewed journals. If you prefer to stick to websites (Skeptics ones at that which are inherently biased) as your informations sources, so be it, I'm only trying to give a balanced view.

I'm not disagreeing with the jist of the argument you are making (that the general publci overestimated the effect), but merely saying you are not taking the facts into account and as such are just as bad (by saying "there was no effect). I've noticed the "skeptics" here seem to paint everything as black/white or either/or. Its a very poor way to look at the world, scientifically.

williamgrogan

Some statistics for Belarus and some other countries.

Of interest is that the Infant Mortality rate is quite good, worse than Poland but better than Lit. & Lat. and much better than Russia and Ukraine.

Amazing is the ratio of Doctors which is higher than the EU average. Is was looking for this to see could I find evidence to support Syke's point about under-reporting. I expected to find less doctors. If there are at least as many doctors as in the EU I cannot see how under reporting could exist and therefore the statistics for cancer rates would be valid.

GDP isn't bad either.

Vaccination rates are excellent.


........Infant Mortality........Life Exp (Male)

Belgium..........4.57...................74.97
Poland...........8.95...................69.77
Estonia.........12.03...................64.36
Belarus.........13.87...................62.54
Lithuania.......14.17...................63.78
Latvia..........14.59...................63.46
Romania.........18.40...................66.88
Russia..........19.51...................62.46
Ukraine.........20.87...................61.10
Bosnia..........22.70...................69.56
Brazil..........31.74...................67.16
Mongolia........57.16...................61.63
Kazakhstan......58.70...................58.16
Bangladesh......66.00...................61.46
Uzbekistan......71.51...................60.53
Angola.........193.00...................36.13

................GDP.....Military $/Head

Ukraine.........4541.67.........12.88
Latvia..........8695.65.........37.83
Belarus.........9000.00.........17.60
Russia.........12252.17........
Ireland........28500.00........175.00

Measels/Polio Vaccination.Rate..........98.2%.&.99.1%

................Doctors.

Belarus (1994)....4.43.per.1000...
Ireland...........2.30.per.1000....
EU................3.50.per.1000....

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Some statistics for Belarus and some other countries.

Of interest is that the Infant Mortality rate is quite good, worse than Poland but better than Lit. & Lat. and much better than Russia and Ukraine.

Amazing is the ratio of Doctors which is higher than the EU average. Is was looking for this to see could I find evidence to support Syke's point about under-reporting. I expected to find less doctors. If there are at least as many doctors as in the EU I cannot see how under reporting could exist and therefore the statistics for cancer rates would be valid.

GDP isn't bad either.

Vaccination rates are excellent.

As skeptics, I assume you have good abstract thinking and are able to make logical deductions.

Some questions for you to consider.

1. Is an infant mortality rate "better than Lit. & Lat. and much better than Russia and Ukraine" a good determinant and classable as "quite good"? For instance, if Ireland had an infant mortality rate marginally higher than those countries, would the population deem it acceptable?

2. Do you believe that Belarus has funded the excess doctors themselves?

3. Do you believe that the medical standards would be so high in Belarus without the foreign aide and post-chernobyl support received?

4. As such, do you believe that had Belarus recieved no support that the infant mortality rate would still be "quite good"?

The reporting issue isn't to do with numbers of Doctors, its to do with geography, bias of the reporters (many of the workers, such as NP's friends undoubtedly have emotional ties to the subject) cultural issues (think of which countries are lending support and what Belarus was politically) and so on.

The fact of the matter is, without our tax-payers money (at least those of us who actually pay tax). Belarus wiuld quite probably be much much father down that list.

Bosco

Originally posted by williamgrogan
If you read the Chernobyl fund raising web sites (which may exhibit a cult of the founder – 3 pictures of the founder on one home page) you see many statements that are obviously rubbish, “holidays provide respite to the children during the most dangerous time of the year for them to be in Belarus and Western Russia where the intense heat contributes to the spread of radioactive materials”, or this, “"For each child taken to Ireland they are "returned" two years of life”.

Please explain why you dismiss the above statements out of hand.

Could not a hot summer dry out contaminated soil and given a strong breeze cause it to take to the air to be inhaled by old and young alike? Could not a short break from these poisons at a vulnerable age not contribute to better health on reaching adulthood?

williamgrogan

2500 Irish homes have been identified as at a dangerous level Radon

Where did you get this figure? I think the figure is much higher than that.

Anyway we are discussing what a dangerous level is. Is this not at the crux of the matter? The jury is out as regards what a safe level of radiation is. Some say no level is safe and others that we can tolerate a level higher than the back ground level without an increase in deformities or cancer.

It think it is true to say that the dangers of radiation were exaggerated and if this is so far less people than suggested originally will die as a result of Chernobyl. One Thyroid related death is quite small from a “disaster”. I don’t even know if that death can be attributed to Chernobyl, as Paul said people get Thyroid disease anyway. If we knew who this person was and where he lived etc we might have a better idea. Syke mentioned over 50 years 15,000 cases of Thyroid disease, yet in this period 500,000 people will DIE in Belarus of cancers caused by smoking. Aidi Roche would save far more lives if she ran an anti-smoking campaign in Belarus, but that’s not part of her world view. A world view that led her to decide that the world was too bad a place for her to have children in, according to her own comments. I think it’s this nonsense that I object mostly to. She and others are using grossly exaggerated “stories” to push what is essentially a myth. The myth that Chernobyl killed and deformed thousands.

What makes you think that Radon has the same effect as ionisation radiation?

This is a funny question. It is radioactive! It emits ionising radiation.

Afaik, the lung cancer risk with Radon is a similar “quirk” to the Thyroid risk in so far as the Radon gas gathers in houses with no Radon trap or poor under floor ventilation and then gets into the lungs of the occupants and stays there because its much heavier than air. Those at risk can may getting far higher doses of radiation than those in “non dangerous” parts of the country.

Most of those that get Thyroid cancer will be permanently completely cured and your point about a lower life expectancy is probably incorrect.

No one would have got this disease if the communists had dished out the Iodine tablets that had stock pilled for this very event, therefore the culpability lies as much with the authorities as the reactor operators. The reactor operators had seen to it that in the event of a release of radiation that those most at risk, young children, would be protected but they weren’t.

Apart from the financial drain on family, state and healthcare service in treatment you have quality of life effected for all those involved.

The semi-totalitarian nature of the current Belarus government is a much bigger problem than any industrial accident.

williamgrogan

1. Is an infant mortality rate "better than Lit. & Lat. and much better than Russia and Ukraine" a good determinant and classable as "quite good"? For instance, if Ireland had an infant mortality rate marginally higher than those countries, would the population deem it acceptable?

Not relevant. I was pointing out that with a better rate than some of its neighbours those stats don’t indicate a major problem.

2. Do you believe that Belarus has funded the excess doctors themselves?

I do not have the stats that show the ratio between the Belarus government spending on health and external sources nor similar stats for other countries that receive outside assistance. Ireland was a net beneficiary of EU aid until recently.

3. Do you believe that the medical standards would be so high in Belarus without the foreign aide and post-chernobyl support received?

Again I don’t have figures. However if you are implying that they are higher than they would have been then that might help prove my contention that Belarus may actually have a better net health situation because of the exaggerations over Chernobyl.

4. As such, do you believe that had Belarus recieved no support that the infant mortality rate would still be "quite good"?

Again I don’t have any stats that would translate into numbers.

Certainly the 50 cent per Belarusian per year raised by the Chernobyl Children’s Charity can hardy have affected the above figures significantly. (I use the normal meaning here.)

The reporting issue isn't to do with numbers of Doctors, its to do with geography, bias of the reporters (many of the workers, such as NP's friends undoubtedly have emotional ties to the subject) cultural issues (think of which countries are lending support and what Belarus was politically) and so on.

Sorry, I’m not even remotely convinced by this argument. You cannot say, as you have, that there is an increase in cancers and deformities because there might be under-reporting in a country with a lower than average cancer rate.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Where did you get this figure? I think the figure is much higher than that.

Its not.
Its the published Dept Health/NDSC figure.

[sniped out waffle]

Originally posted by williamgrogan
This is a funny question. It is radioactive! It emits ionising radiation.

Afaik, the lung cancer risk with Radon is a similar “quirk” to the Thyroid risk in so far as the Radon gas gathers in houses with no Radon trap or poor under floor ventilation and then gets into the lungs of the occupants and stays there because its much heavier than air. Those at risk can may getting far higher doses of radiation than those in “non dangerous” parts of the country.

I could go into a lesson on the subject, but I've a feeling that we are all getting tired of my preachy posts correcting scientific facts on this forum just because someone goes "I don't believe that".

The risks and factors of both types of radiation are quite different. Most notably because one is naturally occuring and the other is not. Pharmacokinetic effect due to exposure and apoptotic mediation caused by both types differ greatly two (read up on bik, bcl2 family etc etc in radiation related apoptotic repression if you want to know more)

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Most of those that get Thyroid cancer will be permanently completely cured and your point about a lower life expectancy is probably incorrect.

Says who?
Can you show me facts, statistics and peer reviewed sources to show that this is nothing more than an uninformed opinion on your part?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
No one would have got this disease if the communists had dished out the Iodine tablets that had stock pilled for this very event, therefore the culpability lies as much with the authorities as the reactor operators. .

actually some research now suggests that these tablets probably wouldn't do much good anyway. Itsmainly due to, again pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics involved with the iodine tablets. Its a nice little diversionary tactic though. Sorry.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Again I don’t have figures. However if you are implying that they are higher than they would have been then that might help prove my contention that Belarus may actually have a better net health situation because of the exaggerations over Chernobyl.

Your refusal to make an educated guess at yes or no answeres speaks volumes WG.

As for the above point, I never contended the main point (in fact I've stated I agree withit several times), however your stance that "nothing disasterous happened" is simply overkill.

I'm not trying to prove it was as bad as reported, I'm sinply saying it was bad in itself for the factual merits.


Incidently, 50 cent un-taxed for medial supplies would contribute quite alot in taht area. Although I'm not sure what charity taxation is like, maybe you do?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Sorry, I’m not even remotely convinced by this argument. You cannot say, as you have, that there is an increase in cancers and deformities because there might be under-reporting in a country with a lower than average cancer rate.

Thats not what I am saying. I'm saying that there is an observed increase. This is a fact pointed out by journals. But because of poor reporting and un-trained epidemiologists who may be biased, the groups surveyed and population statistics are unreliable. That means its not possible to say that there is a direct significant link, or indeed if it is higher than estimated.

williamgrogan

Please explain why you dismiss the above statements out of hand.

I could be flippant and say that they are obviously very silly, but I won’t.

I do accept that roughly speaking heavy smokers live ~15 years less than non smokers but do you seriously think that a holiday to Ireland from Belarus “saves” two years of a child’s life? (Notice my posted quote from the Adoption board above where it was stated that not a single adopted child from Belarus in America had any illness caused by Chernobyl or where the children being born today are not affected by the accident.)

If you believe this why do you? People raising money for a charity cannot just make a statement like this. I have never come across any evidence from which one could prove such a statement.

How do you know its not 5 years or 5 minutes of their life saved? Your quoted statistic is nearly as bad as Sykes one on 15,000 or was it 100,000,000 Thyroid cancers? (Joke – down boy…..)

Would 2 holidays save 4 years, 4 save 8 years etc? How about a year here?

Very roughly, if a holiday here saved 2 years of a child’s life then I would expect that the life expectancy in Belarus would be about …

(let me see, 2 weeks holiday=2 years of life, therefore 50 weeks in B. = 100 years of dead so all the children in B. are dead for say 1,000 years (based on average child of 10 years), maybe divide by something?, eh, 2 because 2 weeks is as good as double because of the detox effect so 500 years dead, divide by something else, eh, Irish brown soda bread v Communist white sliced pan = 60 years))

…. zero!

Could not a hot summer dry out contaminated soil and given a strong breeze cause it to take to the air to be inhaled by old and young alike? Could not a short break from these poisons at a vulnerable age not contribute to better health on reaching adulthood?

If I went to Belarus during a hot summer would I get poisoned? If I came back and had a holiday would I be OK again? How about going on Booths chemists 5 day detox plan?

There is no evidence that the air or soil where people live is contributing significantly (either meaning) to their ill health. The biggest risk in the summer would almost certainly be cancer caused by exposure to the Sun.

I think the statement is 100% typical CAM scare mongering and is equivalent to the notion that we live in and consume toxic chemicals and need treatment, supplied of course by the con artist that draws your attention to the problem in the first place.

BTW, they were two statements I found the other day, I have heard & read far more stupid utterances over the years from the Chernobyl Charity businesses.

PaulP

Syke:

I still don't get it.


The question is not about illnesses, it's about rates of illnesses. And that is a matter of statistical analysis in the end, after questions about the validity of the raw numbers being analysed statistically have been settled.
So we are faced with two sets of statistics, one for illness rates pre-accident and one for the post-accident period. Whether the difference between the two rates for the same illness is significant is a matter of applying standard test(s) for statistical significance.
I cannot understand how you have a problem with this. I cannot understand why in this one question you think it is ok to throw out standard scientific methodology in favour of ad hoc, make-it-up-as-we-go flummery. Surely in the matter of human life and death, the most valuable thing we have, we should be using the best of everything we have?

You describe the results in these papers as significant but admit they are not statistically significant. So when you describe them as significant you are not speaking as a statistician and are therefore speaking outside your area of expertise. In which case you are expecting me to accept your authority in an area in which you are not an authority, which is a fairly basic logical fallacy.


And BTW you have yet to define "significant" as you are using it here.

PaulP

Re-reading my last post, it might come across as ferocious. If so apologies.