6 ms·

I actually grew up (ages 4 - 17) near (<36miles) Chernobyl and my family still works on CHNPP. I now work at on of the top tech companies in Silicon Valley. I w

by option 11y ago

I actually grew up (ages 4 - 17) near (<36miles) Chernobyl and my family still works on CHNPP. I now work at on of the top tech companies in Silicon Valley. I would even question a <3% leukaemia bump for people who were not involved in cleanup efforts directly.

vasilipupkin 11y ago
From the link: Rates were 1.2 times higher after the accident compared to the pre-accident period among the population living in territories with a level of radioactive pollution exceeding 555 kBq per m2
- hga 11y ago
  We're talking about absolute numbers so small that we can't have much confidence in the cause (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.full http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.full): Between 1986 and 1996 a total of 21 cases of leukaemia were observed in Zhitomir occurring among children born during 1986. A total of eight cases were observed in the largely uncontaminated Poltava region.
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    yes, but we can bolster our confidence somewhat because we know radiation causes leukemia. it's not a statistical association, but causual
    - paulmd 11y ago
      It depends on the dosage. In medium to large doses that's certainly true, but it's not a settled question for low doses. The model that assumes that any radiation (no matter how little) causes damage is called the Linear No-Threshold model, and there's actually not a lot of scientific consensus on its validity. It's a conservative model, and thus it tends to get used out of an abundance of caution, but it's hard to quantify low-dose effects accurately. Since we're all exposed to a fair bit of radiation naturally, low doses don't represent much change in total radiation exposure. Average dosage to the public in the affected countries was about 9 millisieverts [1]. A CT scan is about 10 mSv. The average natural exposure is about 2.4 mSv per year in America, but in some places with high radon levels exposure can be up to 7 mSv/year. It's difficult to reach significance with small changes like that. [1] http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effects-chernobyl-accident.cfm http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effec...
      - mohawk 11y ago
        Please update your beliefs with this new data http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low-dose-radiation-1.17876 http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - nobullet 11y ago
    You should check cancer rate increased in Belarus, as Wikipedia states: ...Reports from Soviet and Western scientists indicate that Belarus received about 60% of the contamination that fell on the former Soviet Union...

by option 11y ago

vasilipupkin 11y ago

From the link: Rates were 1.2 times higher after the accident compared to the pre-accident period among the population living in territories with a level of radioactive pollution exceeding 555 kBq per m2

hga 11y ago
We're talking about absolute numbers so small that we can't have much confidence in the cause (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.full http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.full): Between 1986 and 1996 a total of 21 cases of leukaemia were observed in Zhitomir occurring among children born during 1986. A total of eight cases were observed in the largely uncontaminated Poltava region.
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  yes, but we can bolster our confidence somewhat because we know radiation causes leukemia. it's not a statistical association, but causual
  - paulmd 11y ago
    It depends on the dosage. In medium to large doses that's certainly true, but it's not a settled question for low doses. The model that assumes that any radiation (no matter how little) causes damage is called the Linear No-Threshold model, and there's actually not a lot of scientific consensus on its validity. It's a conservative model, and thus it tends to get used out of an abundance of caution, but it's hard to quantify low-dose effects accurately. Since we're all exposed to a fair bit of radiation naturally, low doses don't represent much change in total radiation exposure. Average dosage to the public in the affected countries was about 9 millisieverts [1]. A CT scan is about 10 mSv. The average natural exposure is about 2.4 mSv per year in America, but in some places with high radon levels exposure can be up to 7 mSv/year. It's difficult to reach significance with small changes like that. [1] http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effects-chernobyl-accident.cfm http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effec...
    - mohawk 11y ago
      Please update your beliefs with this new data http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low-dose-radiation-1.17876 http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- nobullet 11y ago
  You should check cancer rate increased in Belarus, as Wikipedia states: ...Reports from Soviet and Western scientists indicate that Belarus received about 60% of the contamination that fell on the former Soviet Union...