3 ms·

> fringe group of anti-nuclear people said 93,000 without basis This is the line being pushed by pro-nuclear people every time this show comes up on social med

by iooi 7y ago

> fringe group of anti-nuclear people said 93,000 without basis This is the line being pushed by pro-nuclear people every time this show comes up on social media. Thankfully we have better sources than a random person's blog on Forbes! Let's take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... "an April 2006 special report in the peer-reviewed, scientific journal Nature detailed in response—the accuracy and precision of this United Nations-led joint group's projected death toll of 4,000 were immediately contested, with several of the very scientists, physicians, and biomedical consortia whose work the joint group had cited alleging publicly that the joint group had either misrepresented their work or interpreted it out of context" "By 2016, some Ukranian and Belarussian physicians charged with treating large numbers of former liquidators in the decades since the accident were calling for more comprehensive studies and urging that the IAEA's estimated toll of disaster-related deaths from long-latency diseases be revised upwards"

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Uh huh. From one of the guys who says 93,000: "Grodzinsky says low-dose radiation causes genomic instability, which induces mutations in affected cells that can only be detected after they have divided several times. The damage inflicted on the victim's DNA is then passed to their children, thus explaining the health problems suffered by liquidators' families." [1] This is without basis. Many studies have failed to find any real support for this kind of conclusion. For instance [2]. Many people in the area THINK more people must have died from Chernobyl. Problem is, there isn't strong evidence for it. Also from [1]: Not all experts from the region are critical of the Chernobyl Forum's findings. Viktor Opekunov, chairman of the atomic energy subcommittee of the Russian State Duma, told an interviewer earlier this month: “These are serious specialists who can be trusted and I consider that the conclusions made by the Chernobyl Forum reflect reality.” Members of the Forum's research team have defended its findings in the run up to the anniversary, saying it could not allow health effects to be attributed to Chernobyl without scientific evidence of a link. Yury Sayenko, a professor from the Institute of Sociology of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences, says he agreed with the report's finding that the mental health impact of the disaster was greatest of all. “There has been a cult of suffering around Chernobyl”, he says. “Our research show victims' subjective assessment of their circumstance is usually twice as bad as the reality. We need to help them recover their hopes for the future.” [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)68559-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... [2] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104294 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104294

by iooi 7y ago

acidburnNSA 7y ago

Uh huh. From one of the guys who says 93,000: "Grodzinsky says low-dose radiation causes genomic instability, which induces mutations in affected cells that can only be detected after they have divided several times. The damage inflicted on the victim's DNA is then passed to their children, thus explaining the health problems suffered by liquidators' families." [1] This is without basis. Many studies have failed to find any real support for this kind of conclusion. For instance [2]. Many people in the area THINK more people must have died from Chernobyl. Problem is, there isn't strong evidence for it. Also from [1]: Not all experts from the region are critical of the Chernobyl Forum's findings. Viktor Opekunov, chairman of the atomic energy subcommittee of the Russian State Duma, told an interviewer earlier this month: “These are serious specialists who can be trusted and I consider that the conclusions made by the Chernobyl Forum reflect reality.” Members of the Forum's research team have defended its findings in the run up to the anniversary, saying it could not allow health effects to be attributed to Chernobyl without scientific evidence of a link. Yury Sayenko, a professor from the Institute of Sociology of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences, says he agreed with the report's finding that the mental health impact of the disaster was greatest of all. “There has been a cult of suffering around Chernobyl”, he says. “Our research show victims' subjective assessment of their circumstance is usually twice as bad as the reality. We need to help them recover their hopes for the future.” [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)68559-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... [2] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104294 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104294