View Full Version : Chernobyl killed 4,000 people

Dark Helmet
2005-Sep-07, 09:18 AM
According to the Beebs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4216102.stm), the number of fatalities from radiation exposure directly caused by the chernobyl incident is 4,000. Placing it far lower than most other estimates of the death toll. This report is, so far, the only one to look at the direct results of the accident and resulting released radioactivity from it.

Just a few select quotes from it:

A tendency to attribute all health problems to exposure to radiation have led local residents to assume that Chernobyl-related fatalities were much higher

The report says there is "no convincing evidence" that there has been a rise in other cancers because of Chernobyl.

there was no evidence to show radiation exposure in the areas around Chernobyl had had any effect on fertility, pregnancy problems, stillbirths or the overall health of children.

Whose to bet that it wont be long before the anti-nuclear crowd is decrying this study as incorrect, and 'unfair'.

Captain Kidd
2005-Sep-07, 11:15 AM
The number of fatalities is 56.

4,000 is the number expected to be the total number of people to die directly from the effects.

Of course my prediction is that 100% of those living within 100 miles of Chernobyl at the time of the event will die.

The link I have in the Freedom for Fission (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=549515#post549515) thread breaks down who the 56 were.

Far cry from the "tens of thousands" doomsayers were saying. Not that 56 and an eventual 4,000 is good.

2005-Sep-07, 11:21 AM
Of course my prediction is that 100% of those living within 100 miles of Chernobyl at the time of the event will die.

Eventually? Or from the effects of Chernobyl?

Captain Kidd
2005-Sep-07, 11:56 AM
I was being tongue-in-cheek. Eventually the people living there will die unless the event caused some sort of immortality. It's like this stat: 100% of divorces begin with marriage. Presented the right way and you can make numbers show whatever you want.

However, I'm cynically expecting that when the people who lived around there start to die in larger numbers, from what looks like it'll be nothing more than just plain old age, they'll be held up as symbols of the eeeevilness of nuclear power.

Wayne Smith
2005-Sep-07, 01:31 PM
Thanks. I always suspected it was much lower. The hormesis models have always made a lot more sense than that old Linear No Threshold hypothesis.

There was no increase in cancer rates within 5 miles of 3 mile island and that was the worst in the west. No casualties. Chernobyl was a one off mistake and can be put down to sloppy safety protocols and a total disregard for the environment on the part of the Russians.

But it didn't stop them building plants did it. They are world leaders.

Dr Nigel
2005-Sep-07, 08:46 PM
The same story was reported in New Scientist, too.

Dark Helmet - cool avatar, but what's the Latin signature mean?

2005-Sep-07, 09:00 PM
yeah, they'll be noted as living to, on average, only 65... 7 years less than the world average. of course, it's still 7 years more than the russian male average, but that won't be noted by alarmists...