3 ms·

That is a lie. According to the WHO (https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FAQs_Chernobyl.pdf https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/cherno

That is a lie. According to the WHO (https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FAQs_Chernobyl.pdf https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FA...), a "large fraction" of 6000 thyroid cancer cases (to 2005), of which 15 were fatal, are attributable to radiation exposure. No other health impacts are supported by evidence. As such, the actual figure for deaths (at present, over 30 years since the incident) resulting from the Chernobyl incident is somewhere between zero and one per year. Even if it was thousands of deaths per year (which it is not), that would still be far below the number of deaths caused by burning coal.

trhway 8y ago
>As such, the actual figure for deaths (at present, over 30 years since the incident) resulting from the Chernobyl incident is somewhere between zero and one per year. and that can't be farther from the Belarus reality. For example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16506213 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16506213 " In addition, a significant 2-fold increase in risk was observed, during the period 1997-2001, in the most contaminated districts (average cumulative dose of 40.0 mSv or more) compared with the least contaminated districts" Breast cancer in general is the most frequent one - 1 in 8 women will get it over lifetime. Now double that. That is the reality of life in Gomel and Mogilev regions which took the brunt of the Chernobyl accident. Russia and Ukraine have the same cancer rates, while Belarus - same people, same habits/lifestyle/etc. - have 1.5x cancer rates of Russia/Ukraine resulting in about 15000/year extra cases and the majority of those extra cases are in the Gomel and Mogilev regions. The cancer mortality in Belarus is 30%-50%. Do the math. >According to the WHO (https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FA... https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FA...), a "large fraction" of 6000 thyroid cancer cases (to 2005), of which 15 were fatal, are attributable to radiation exposure. No other health impacts are supported by evidence. that is a lie. The minimally honest WHO report would at least added something like this: "There is a significant increase in cancer rates in the most contaminated districts. WHO sees no evidence connecting it to the contamination. Correlation is no causation. Pure random distribution. What are the chances!"

trhway 8y ago

>As such, the actual figure for deaths (at present, over 30 years since the incident) resulting from the Chernobyl incident is somewhere between zero and one per year. and that can't be farther from the Belarus reality. For example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16506213 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16506213 " In addition, a significant 2-fold increase in risk was observed, during the period 1997-2001, in the most contaminated districts (average cumulative dose of 40.0 mSv or more) compared with the least contaminated districts" Breast cancer in general is the most frequent one - 1 in 8 women will get it over lifetime. Now double that. That is the reality of life in Gomel and Mogilev regions which took the brunt of the Chernobyl accident. Russia and Ukraine have the same cancer rates, while Belarus - same people, same habits/lifestyle/etc. - have 1.5x cancer rates of Russia/Ukraine resulting in about 15000/year extra cases and the majority of those extra cases are in the Gomel and Mogilev regions. The cancer mortality in Belarus is 30%-50%. Do the math. >According to the WHO (https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FA... https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FA...), a "large fraction" of 6000 thyroid cancer cases (to 2005), of which 15 were fatal, are attributable to radiation exposure. No other health impacts are supported by evidence. that is a lie. The minimally honest WHO report would at least added something like this: "There is a significant increase in cancer rates in the most contaminated districts. WHO sees no evidence connecting it to the contamination. Correlation is no causation. Pure random distribution. What are the chances!"