Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OKIsItJustMe

(21,875 posts)
28. World Nuclear Association: Health Impacts — Chernobyl Accident Appendix 2
Mon Jul 1, 2013, 11:44 AM
Jul 2013
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Appendices/Chernobyl-Accident---Appendix-2--Health-Impacts/
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Health Impacts[/font]
[font size=4]Chernobyl Accident Appendix 2[/font]
[font size=3]…

Regarding the emergency workers with doses lower than those causing ARS symptoms, the Expert Group report referred to studies carried out on 61,000 emergency Russian workers where a total of 4995 deaths from this group were recorded during 1991-1998. "The number of deaths in Russian emergency workers attributable to radiation caused by solid neoplasms and circulatory system diseases can be estimated to be about 116 and 100 cases respectively." Furthermore, "the number of leukaemia cases attributable to radiation in this cohort can be estimated to be about 30." Thus, 4.6% of the number of deaths in this group are attributable to radiation-induced diseases. (The estimated average external dose for this group was 107 mSv.) From this study, it could be possible to arrive at an estimate of the mortality rate attributable to Chernobyl radiation for the rest of the Russian emergency workers (192,000 persons), as well as for the Belarusian and Ukrainian emergency workers (74,000 and 291,000 persons, respectively). Such estimates, however, have not yet been made and would depend on several assumptions, including that the age, gender and dose distributions are similar in these groups.

The picture is even more unclear for the populations of the areas affected by the Chernobyl fallout. However, the report does link the accident to an increase in thyroid cancer in children: "During 1992-2000, in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, about 4000 cases of thyroid cancer were diagnosed in children and adolescents (0–18 years), of which about 3000 occurred in the age group of 0–14 years. For 1152 thyroid cancer patient cases diagnosed among Chernobyl children in Belarus during 1986-2002, the survival rate is 98.8%. Eight patients died due to progression of their thyroid cancer and six children died from other causes. One patient with thyroid cancer died in Russia." It is from this that several reports give a figure of around nine thyroid cancer deaths resulting from the accident. It should also be noted that other statistics quoted in the Expert Group report give the total number of thyroid cancer cases among those exposed under the age of 18 as over 4800, though this does not affect the general point that "a large proportion of the thyroid cancer fatalities can be attributed to radiation."

Regarding other effects, the Expert Group report states: "There is little peer-reviewed scientific evidence showing an increase above the spontaneous levels from cancer, leukaemia, or non-cancer mortality in populations of the areas affected by the Chernobyl fallout." It does point out a study that reports an annual death rate of 18.5 per 1000 persons for the population living in Ukrainian areas contaminated with radionuclides, compared with 16.5 per 1000 for the 50 million population of Ukraine. "The reason for the difference is not clear, and without specific knowledge of the age and sex distributions of the two populations, no conclusion can be drawn."

Current risk models are derived from studies of atomic bomb survivors, without adjustments for the protracted dose rates or allowances for differing background cancer incidence rates and demographics in the Chernobyl exposed populations. Based on these models, "a radiation related increase of total cancer morbidity and mortality above the spontaneous level by about 1-1.5% for the whole district and by about 4-6% in its most contaminated villages" can be estimated. The report continues: "The predicted lifetime excess cancer and leukaemia deaths for 200,000 liquidators, 135,000 evacuees from the 30 km zone, 270,000 residents of the SCZs ['strict control zones'] were 2200 for liquidators, 160 for evacuees, and 1600 among residents of the SCZs. This total, about 4000 deaths projected over the lifetimes of the some 600,000 persons most affected by the accident, is a small proportion of the total cancer deaths from all causes that can be expected to occur in this population. It must be stressed that this estimate is bounded by large uncertainties."

…[/font][/font]

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

people of chernobyl are anxiously awaiting the arrival of "cheap, low cost" nuclear nt msongs Jun 2013 #1
They didn't have to wait at all. wtmusic Jun 2013 #2
Gee, nuclear power for the hospitals Lugal Zaggesi Jun 2013 #4
Oh please...you and Helen Caldicott wtmusic Jun 2013 #6
Oh please...you and Glenn Beck Lugal Zaggesi Jun 2013 #7
Check this out - this dude grew up across the street from the reactor wtmusic Jun 2013 #8
He looks deformed, BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #26
Kiev, Ukraine, 20 April 2011 - Secretary-General's remarks at "25 Years after Chernobyl Catastrophe: OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #23
Thyroid cancer from Chernobyl has conclusively resulted in nine (9) deaths. wtmusic Jul 2013 #24
Let’s not pretend it was business as usual after the meltdown OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #25
Backpedal! Backpedal! wtmusic Jul 2013 #29
I’m not backpedalling in the least OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #33
Still waiting. nt wtmusic Jul 2013 #38
What are you waiting for? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #44
Nuclear is cleaner than renewables wtmusic Jul 2013 #46
And, if battery backup, or hydrogen backup were used? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #51
Honestly I don't know. wtmusic Jul 2013 #54
Do you own stock? BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #27
When antinukes don't have an argument, they resort to mindless hacks. wtmusic Jul 2013 #31
One last question. BlueToTheBone Jul 2013 #37
World Nuclear Association: Health Impacts — Chernobyl Accident Appendix 2 OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #28
Hilarious...you might want to "read" before you "cut and paste". wtmusic Jul 2013 #36
And there it is! Your tell! The smiley! OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #48
How many people have died from wind turbines falling over? wtmusic Jul 2013 #50
You like to pretend that nuclear power is absolutely safe OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #52
Really? Show me where I make that claim. nt wtmusic Jul 2013 #53
It’s all about your attitude OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #55
If they had depended on solar panels covered with snow to keep them warm wtmusic Jul 2013 #56
Non sequitur - I thought the topic was the safety of nuclear fission plants OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #57
And we should consider the design of Chernobyl as representative? wtmusic Jul 2013 #58
I suppose we should consider Chernobyl irrelevant… OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #59
For all practical purposes, it is. wtmusic Jul 2013 #60
So, let me see if I follow your argument OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #61
You and your straw men: please talk amongst yourselves. I'm bored. wtmusic Jul 2013 #63
I don’t need any straw men to keep me company OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #64
A couple of extra pair of underwear... kristopher Jul 2013 #65
People in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan Lugal Zaggesi Jun 2013 #3
Sorry - but you are being a sucker for anti-nukes that know Photoshop... PamW Jun 2013 #10
Chernobyl is the Hindenburg of the nuclear power industry PamW Jun 2013 #9
Whats illogical in all this madokie Jun 2013 #11
Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #13
Nuclear the cheapest option? Only if you lie. kristopher Jun 2013 #5
Just wondering... Did you actually believe any of that? FBaggins Jun 2013 #12
Sorry but that doesn't work. kristopher Jun 2013 #14
Nice attempt at deflection FBaggins Jun 2013 #15
It is manifestly obvious that wind is cheaper than nuclear. DLnyc Jun 2013 #16
You need to do some homework. wtmusic Jun 2013 #17
Well thank you for this information reinforcing my point. DLnyc Jun 2013 #18
Please. $50 billion in "nuclear subsidies" is either just bullshit wtmusic Jul 2013 #19
Back of napkin, early morning half assed asleep figures madokie Jul 2013 #20
A = pi r^2. You are basically correct. DLnyc Jul 2013 #21
And if more than half of the circle isn't over land? FBaggins Jul 2013 #22
Does that include the cost of transporting/storing spent rods? Auggie Jul 2013 #30
Soil contamination?! wtmusic Jul 2013 #32
Potential ... Auggie Jul 2013 #34
Can you guarantee the human race won't be extinct in 500 years? wtmusic Jul 2013 #35
Nuclear never cheaper once total life cycle including waste & decommission included on point Jul 2013 #39
The biggest uncertainty facing nuclear power is how many idiots Greenpeace can marshal wtmusic Jul 2013 #40
Really? Mopar151 Jul 2013 #41
All the disasters you name were from weapons production, wtmusic Jul 2013 #42
Show me the NPV for 100,000 yrs of waste protection and we can talk on point Jul 2013 #43
Ah, Greenpeace Idiotic Talking Point #1. wtmusic Jul 2013 #45
Nobody is falling for your pro nuclear propaganda. Plz move to Fukushima ok? on point Jul 2013 #47
Statistically it would be safer than living in parts of West Virginia wtmusic Jul 2013 #49
The Mass Yankee core is buried at Hanford Mopar151 Jul 2013 #62
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Is solar really four time...»Reply #28