4 ms·

> The number of deaths due to Chernobyl is grossly underreported. Maybe, if you only take the 31 number, that one is indeed grossly underreported. But any othe

> The number of deaths due to Chernobyl is grossly underreported. Maybe, if you only take the 31 number, that one is indeed grossly underreported. But any other estimate (like the common 4000 number) is really a wild guess. The reason is not Soviet Union keeping secrets, but more fundamental, it's really really hard to give any meaningful estimate in a situation like this even with 100% transparency. > I'd be willing to argue that the Chernobyl accident caused (or at least precipitated) the fall of the Soviet union. In that case, it was a net win.

Retric 6y ago
That 4,000 is estimated based on just radiation to a small area and was never intended as any kind of a total. long-term death estimates range from up to 4,000 (per the 2005 and 2006 conclusions of a joint consortium of the United Nations) for the most exposed people of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, to 16,000 in total for all those exposed on the entire continent of Europe, with figures as high as 60,000 when including the relatively minor effects around the globe.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... What’s more concerning is limiting things to deaths as if that was the only form of harm. People can survive cancer, but not without economic, emotional, etc harm. Further, giant exclusion zones and ongoing mitigation efforts are extremely expensive.
- acidburnNSA 6y ago
  4,000 is based on a conservative linear-no threshold model across all irradiated populations [1]. [1] https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html The UNSCEAR is a UN group of scientists who study radiation, similar to the IPCC group studying climate. The fringe studies from Greenpeace and friends claiming more than 4000 deaths do not carry more weight than the UNSCEAR numbers.
  - gus_massa 6y ago
    Just to clarify what "conservative" means here. Oversimplifying, if you distribute the radiation that was released evenly in a group of 8000 persons, each one has a 50% chance of dying, so you expect to see 4000 deaths. If you distribute the same radiation evenly in a group of 80000 persons, each one has a 5% chance of dying, so you expect to see 4000 deaths. If you distribute the same radiation evenly in a group of 8000000 persons, each one has a 0.05% chance of dying, so you expect to see 4000 death. But in the 8000000 group the radiation level is too low and there is also normal background radiation, and other normal risk, so the real number is probably less than 4000 deaths. In a realistic scenario, some people get more radiation and some less radiation, but the nice part of the simplified model is that it always predict 4000 deaths. But this number is like an upper bound, the real number of deaths is probably less.
    - Retric 6y ago
      There is evidence that the linear no threshold model both over estimates and under estimates the increase in cancer deaths among humans. The disagreement stems in part from the extremely high rate of cancers and thus precancerous tissue among people which means than some tissue is unusually vulnerable. This is supported by skin cancer rates. The opposite conclusion is based on cellular responses to low level radiation exposure, which may provide protection from future exposure. If it was actually clear LNT was a bad model we would be using something else, but it’s not obvious which direction it should be updated. Presumably, the reality is some non linear effect relating to lifetime exposure for radiation and other cancer risks, but collecting accurate data is difficult.
  - Retric 6y ago
    It’s important to understand the context for what’s being said. “given the low doses received by the majority of exposed individuals, any increase in cancer incidence or mortality will be difficult to detect in epidemiological studies.” Detecting an increase in cancer deaths from a specific source when cancers represent 1 in 6 deaths worldwide is extremely difficult. If cancer killed 100 people per year then detecting an increase of ~X00 extra deaths per year would be much simpler. On the other hand try to isolate ~1 extra cancer death per 10,000 deaths is a pipe dream.

Retric 6y ago

That 4,000 is estimated based on just radiation to a small area and was never intended as any kind of a total. long-term death estimates range from up to 4,000 (per the 2005 and 2006 conclusions of a joint consortium of the United Nations) for the most exposed people of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, to 16,000 in total for all those exposed on the entire continent of Europe, with figures as high as 60,000 when including the relatively minor effects around the globe.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... What’s more concerning is limiting things to deaths as if that was the only form of harm. People can survive cancer, but not without economic, emotional, etc harm. Further, giant exclusion zones and ongoing mitigation efforts are extremely expensive.

acidburnNSA 6y ago
4,000 is based on a conservative linear-no threshold model across all irradiated populations [1]. [1] https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html The UNSCEAR is a UN group of scientists who study radiation, similar to the IPCC group studying climate. The fringe studies from Greenpeace and friends claiming more than 4000 deaths do not carry more weight than the UNSCEAR numbers.
- gus_massa 6y ago
  Just to clarify what "conservative" means here. Oversimplifying, if you distribute the radiation that was released evenly in a group of 8000 persons, each one has a 50% chance of dying, so you expect to see 4000 deaths. If you distribute the same radiation evenly in a group of 80000 persons, each one has a 5% chance of dying, so you expect to see 4000 deaths. If you distribute the same radiation evenly in a group of 8000000 persons, each one has a 0.05% chance of dying, so you expect to see 4000 death. But in the 8000000 group the radiation level is too low and there is also normal background radiation, and other normal risk, so the real number is probably less than 4000 deaths. In a realistic scenario, some people get more radiation and some less radiation, but the nice part of the simplified model is that it always predict 4000 deaths. But this number is like an upper bound, the real number of deaths is probably less.
  - Retric 6y ago
    There is evidence that the linear no threshold model both over estimates and under estimates the increase in cancer deaths among humans. The disagreement stems in part from the extremely high rate of cancers and thus precancerous tissue among people which means than some tissue is unusually vulnerable. This is supported by skin cancer rates. The opposite conclusion is based on cellular responses to low level radiation exposure, which may provide protection from future exposure. If it was actually clear LNT was a bad model we would be using something else, but it’s not obvious which direction it should be updated. Presumably, the reality is some non linear effect relating to lifetime exposure for radiation and other cancer risks, but collecting accurate data is difficult.
- Retric 6y ago
  It’s important to understand the context for what’s being said. “given the low doses received by the majority of exposed individuals, any increase in cancer incidence or mortality will be difficult to detect in epidemiological studies.” Detecting an increase in cancer deaths from a specific source when cancers represent 1 in 6 deaths worldwide is extremely difficult. If cancer killed 100 people per year then detecting an increase of ~X00 extra deaths per year would be much simpler. On the other hand try to isolate ~1 extra cancer death per 10,000 deaths is a pipe dream.