4 ms·

The idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how many

by veidr 16y ago

The idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how many died as a result, is frankly idiotic. We do not and never will have such data. This is a pernicious meme that frequently recurs on this board. Reject it. (The Fukushima disaster, on the other hand, has occurred in the open within the context of a reasonably free society, so it may provide us with data that proves useful for future nuclear accidents.)

fauigerzigerk 16y ago
I wouldn't take the absolute numbers seriously either. But I think, after so many investigations and 20 years worth of post soviet health statistics, we can reasonably assume that the effects were not as bad as initially feared. Also, your argument could be turned on its head. If there hadn't been the kind of secrecy and attempts to cover up what had happened, way fewer people would have been affected. That said, I'm not a big fan of nuclear because I don't like making commitments for thousands of years. A lot can happen in that timeframe. Wars, corrupt regimes, a collapse of our entire industrial society, etc.
Dove 16y ago
The idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how many died as a result, is frankly idiotic. We do not and never will have such data. Okay, I'm just going to set your claim against the introduction to the report (http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_D_Chernobyl_Report.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_...) referenced in the BBC article. There has been an unprecedented effort by the international community to assess the magnitude and characteristics of the health effects due to the radiation exposure resulting from the accident. As early as August 1986, a widely attended international gathering, the “Post-Accident Review Meeting”, was convened in Vienna. The resulting report of the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) contained a limited but essentially correct early account of the accident and its expected radiological consequences [I31]. In May 1988, the International Scientific Conference on the Medical Aspects of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant [I32] held in Kiev summarized the available information at the time and confirmed that some children had received high doses to the thyroid. In May 1989, scientists obtained a more comprehensive insight into the scale of the consequences of the accident at an ad hoc meeting convened at the time of the 38th session of UNSCEAR [G15, K25]. In October 1989, the former Soviet Union formally requested “an international experts’ assessment” and, as a result, the International Chernobyl Project (ICP) [I5] was launched in early 1990; its conclusions and recommendations were presented at an International Conference held in Vienna, 21–24 May 1991 [I5]. Many national and international initiatives7 followed aimed at developing a better understanding of the accident consequences and in assisting in their mitigation. The results of these initiatives were presented at the 1996 International Conference on One Decade After Chernobyl8 [I29]. There was a broad agreement on the extent and character of the consequences. ... The objective of the present annex is to provide an authoritative and definitive review of the health effects observed to date that are attributable to radiation exposure due to the accident and to clarify the potential risk projections, taking into account the levels, trends and patterns of radiation dose to the exposed populations. The Committee has evaluated the relevant new information that has become available since the 2000 Report, in order to determine whether the assumptions used previously to assess the radiological consequences are still valid. In addition, it recognized that some issues merited further scrutiny and that its work to provide the scientific basis for a better understanding of the radiation‑related health and environmental effects of the Chernobyl accident needed to continue. The information considered included the behaviour and trends of the long‑lived radionuclides in foodstuff and the environment in order to improve the estimates of exposure of relevant population groups, and the results of the latest follow‑up studies of the health of the exposed groups. The effects of radiation on plants and animals following the Chernobyl accident are discussed separately in annex E, “Effects of ionizing radiation on non‑human biota”. Other effects of the accident, in particular, distress and anxiety, and socio‑economic effects, were considered by the Chernobyl Forum [W5] but are outside the Committee’s remit. The Committee, in general, bases its assessments on reports appearing in peer‑reviewed scientific literature and on information submitted officially by Governments in response to its requests. However, the results of many of the studies related to the Chernobyl accident have been presented at scientific meetings without formal scientific peer review. The Committee decided that it would only make use of such information when it could judge that the results and the underlying work were scientifically and technically sound.
- veidr 16y ago
  Yes, that's right: Working from outside of the USSR, they convened a group and produced an admittedly limited account of the incident. Three years later, when the Soviet regime finally requested (limited) help, and they did their best. A decade later, they revisited the issue, and made the decision not to use the results from many other studies that had been attempted, because they weren't necessarily scientifically rigorous. That was probably right decision, and I find it entirely plausible that they did great work given the enormous limitations that they faced, but there is only so much you can do when the authoritarian regime standing in your way happens to finally disintegrate, years later.
- lispm 16y ago
  That sounds naive given the political environment.
lukeschlather 16y ago
While we can't make claims about totals, I think we can make some sweeping claims about relative harm. Namely, that taking Chernobyl in its proper context (one nuclear plant out of many) and even taking Fukishima to be an event of similar magnitude, nuclear power plants still present significant advantages over coal from a pain-and-hardship caused per watt-hour generated. No one's arguing that nuclear power is safe. However, I'd rather have the last unprocessable nuclear waste from a generation of reactors buried in a well-shielded container under my house than live downwind from a coal power plant. Ideally of course I would like neither, but the fact is millions of people live downwind from coal power plants, and that is a much bigger problem than Fukishima. That problem could be mitigated if as those coal plants die they are replaced with modern nuclear reactors. Yes, it will cause other problems, but these will be smaller when taken in aggregate. (Even if they are more dramatic when they happen.)
- Qz 16y ago
  Oops, misread your comment and downvoted. Apologies.

by veidr 16y ago

The idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how many died as a result, is frankly idiotic. We do not and never will have such data. This is a pernicious meme that frequently recurs on this board. Reject it. (The Fukushima disaster, on the other hand, has occurred in the open within the context of a reasonably free society, so it may provide us with data that proves useful for future nuclear accidents.)

fauigerzigerk 16y ago

I wouldn't take the absolute numbers seriously either. But I think, after so many investigations and 20 years worth of post soviet health statistics, we can reasonably assume that the effects were not as bad as initially feared. Also, your argument could be turned on its head. If there hadn't been the kind of secrecy and attempts to cover up what had happened, way fewer people would have been affected. That said, I'm not a big fan of nuclear because I don't like making commitments for thousands of years. A lot can happen in that timeframe. Wars, corrupt regimes, a collapse of our entire industrial society, etc.

Dove 16y ago

The idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how many died as a result, is frankly idiotic. We do not and never will have such data. Okay, I'm just going to set your claim against the introduction to the report (http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_D_Chernobyl_Report.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_...) referenced in the BBC article. There has been an unprecedented effort by the international community to assess the magnitude and characteristics of the health effects due to the radiation exposure resulting from the accident. As early as August 1986, a widely attended international gathering, the “Post-Accident Review Meeting”, was convened in Vienna. The resulting report of the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) contained a limited but essentially correct early account of the accident and its expected radiological consequences [I31]. In May 1988, the International Scientific Conference on the Medical Aspects of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant [I32] held in Kiev summarized the available information at the time and confirmed that some children had received high doses to the thyroid. In May 1989, scientists obtained a more comprehensive insight into the scale of the consequences of the accident at an ad hoc meeting convened at the time of the 38th session of UNSCEAR [G15, K25]. In October 1989, the former Soviet Union formally requested “an international experts’ assessment” and, as a result, the International Chernobyl Project (ICP) [I5] was launched in early 1990; its conclusions and recommendations were presented at an International Conference held in Vienna, 21–24 May 1991 [I5]. Many national and international initiatives7 followed aimed at developing a better understanding of the accident consequences and in assisting in their mitigation. The results of these initiatives were presented at the 1996 International Conference on One Decade After Chernobyl8 [I29]. There was a broad agreement on the extent and character of the consequences. ... The objective of the present annex is to provide an authoritative and definitive review of the health effects observed to date that are attributable to radiation exposure due to the accident and to clarify the potential risk projections, taking into account the levels, trends and patterns of radiation dose to the exposed populations. The Committee has evaluated the relevant new information that has become available since the 2000 Report, in order to determine whether the assumptions used previously to assess the radiological consequences are still valid. In addition, it recognized that some issues merited further scrutiny and that its work to provide the scientific basis for a better understanding of the radiation‑related health and environmental effects of the Chernobyl accident needed to continue. The information considered included the behaviour and trends of the long‑lived radionuclides in foodstuff and the environment in order to improve the estimates of exposure of relevant population groups, and the results of the latest follow‑up studies of the health of the exposed groups. The effects of radiation on plants and animals following the Chernobyl accident are discussed separately in annex E, “Effects of ionizing radiation on non‑human biota”. Other effects of the accident, in particular, distress and anxiety, and socio‑economic effects, were considered by the Chernobyl Forum [W5] but are outside the Committee’s remit. The Committee, in general, bases its assessments on reports appearing in peer‑reviewed scientific literature and on information submitted officially by Governments in response to its requests. However, the results of many of the studies related to the Chernobyl accident have been presented at scientific meetings without formal scientific peer review. The Committee decided that it would only make use of such information when it could judge that the results and the underlying work were scientifically and technically sound.

veidr 16y ago
Yes, that's right: Working from outside of the USSR, they convened a group and produced an admittedly limited account of the incident. Three years later, when the Soviet regime finally requested (limited) help, and they did their best. A decade later, they revisited the issue, and made the decision not to use the results from many other studies that had been attempted, because they weren't necessarily scientifically rigorous. That was probably right decision, and I find it entirely plausible that they did great work given the enormous limitations that they faced, but there is only so much you can do when the authoritarian regime standing in your way happens to finally disintegrate, years later.
lispm 16y ago
That sounds naive given the political environment.

lukeschlather 16y ago

While we can't make claims about totals, I think we can make some sweeping claims about relative harm. Namely, that taking Chernobyl in its proper context (one nuclear plant out of many) and even taking Fukishima to be an event of similar magnitude, nuclear power plants still present significant advantages over coal from a pain-and-hardship caused per watt-hour generated. No one's arguing that nuclear power is safe. However, I'd rather have the last unprocessable nuclear waste from a generation of reactors buried in a well-shielded container under my house than live downwind from a coal power plant. Ideally of course I would like neither, but the fact is millions of people live downwind from coal power plants, and that is a much bigger problem than Fukishima. That problem could be mitigated if as those coal plants die they are replaced with modern nuclear reactors. Yes, it will cause other problems, but these will be smaller when taken in aggregate. (Even if they are more dramatic when they happen.)

Qz 16y ago
Oops, misread your comment and downvoted. Apologies.