Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Consequences of Chernobyl

By KARL GROSSMAN | April 23, 2010

Monday is the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It comes as the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear government officials in the U.S. and other nations try to “revive” nuclear power. It also follows the just-released publication of a book, the most comprehensive study ever made, on the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment has just been published by the New York Academy of Sciences. It is authored by three noted scientists: Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long-involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based—on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports—some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died of cancer caused by the Chernobyl accident. That’s between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004.

More deaths, it projects, will follow.

The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency—still on its website – that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.

Comments Alice Slater, representative in New York of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: “The tragic news uncovered by the comprehensive new research that almost one million people died in the toxic aftermath of Chernobyl should be a wake-up call to people all over the world to petition their governments to put a halt to the current industry-driven ‘nuclear renaissance.’ Aided by a corrupt IAEA, the world has been subjected to a massive cover-up and deception about the true damages caused by Chernobyl.”

Further worsening the situation, she said, has been “the collusive agreement between the IAEA and the World Health Organization in which the WHO is precluded from publishing any research on radiation effects without consultation with the IAEA.” WHO, the public health arm of the UN, has supported the IAEA’s claim that 4,000 will die as a result of the accident.

“How fortunate,” said Ms. Slater, “that independent scientists have now revealed the horrific costs of the Chernobyl accident.”

The book also scores the position of the IAEA, set up through the UN in 1957 “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy,” and its 1959 agreement with WHO.  There is a “need to change,” it says, the IAEA-WHO pact. It has muzzled the WHO, providing for the “hiding” from the “public of any information…unwanted” by the nuclear industry.

“An important lesson from the Chernobyl experience is that experts and organizations tied to the nuclear industry have dismissed and ignored the consequences of the catastrophe,” it states.

The book details the spread of radioactive poisons following the explosion of Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear plant on April 26, 1986. These major releases only ended when the fire at the reactor was brought under control in mid-May. Emitted were “hundreds of millions of curies, a quantity hundreds of times larger than the fallout from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” The most extensive fall-out occurred in regions closest to the plant—in the Ukraine (the reactor was 60 miles from Kiev in Ukraine), Belarus and Russia.

However, there was fallout all over the world as the winds kept changing direction “so the radioactive emissions…covered an enormous territory.”

The radioactive poisons sent billowing from the plant into the air included Cesium-137, Plutonium, Iodine-131 and Strontium-90.

There is a breakdown by country, highlighted by maps, of where the radionuclides fell out.  Beyond Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, the countries included Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The radiological measurements show that some 10% of Chernobyl poisons “fell on Asia…Huge areas” of eastern Turkey and central China “were highly contaminated,” reports the book. Northwestern Japan was impacted, too.

Northern Africa was hit with “more than 5% of all Chernobyl releases.” The finding of  Cesium-137 and both Plutonium-239 and Plutonium-240 “in accumulated Nile River sediment is evidence of significant Chernobyl contamination,” it says. “Areas of North America were contaminated from the first, most powerful explosion, which lifted a cloud of radionuclides to a height of more than 10 km. Some 1% of all Chernobyl nuclides,” says the book, “fell on North America.”

There is an examination of genetic impacts with records reflecting an increase in “chromosomal aberrations” wherever there was fallout. This will continue through the “children of irradiated parents for as many as seven generations.” So “the genetic consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe will impact hundreds of millions of people.”

As to fatal cancer, the list of countries and consequences begins with Belarus. “For the period 1900-2000 cancer mortality in Belarus increased 40%,” it states, again based on medical data and illuminated by tables in the book. “The increase was a maximum in the most highly contaminated Gomel Province and lower in the less contaminated Brest and Mogilev provinces.” They include childhood cancers, thyroid cancer, leukemia and other cancers.

Considering health data of people in all nations impacted by the fallout, the “overall [cancer] mortality for the period from April 1986 to the end of 2004 from the Chernobyl catastrophe was estimated as 985,000 additional deaths.”

Further, “the concentrations” of some of the poisons, because they have radioactive half-lives ranging from 20,000 to 200,000 years, “will remain practically the same virtually forever.”

The book also examines the impact on plants and animals. ”Immediately after the catastrophe, the frequency of plant mutations in the contaminated territories increased sharply.”

There are photographs of some of these plant mutations. “Chernobyl irradiation has caused many structural anomalies and tumorlike changes in many plant species and has led to genetic disorders, sometimes continuing for many years,” it says. “Twenty-three years after the catastrophe it is still too early to know if the whole spectrum of plant radiogenic changes has been discerned. We are far from knowing all of the consequences for flora resulting from the catastrophe.”

As to animals, the book notes “serious increases in morbidity and mortality that bear striking resemblance to changes in the public health of humans—increasing tumor rates, immunodeficiencies, decreasing life expectancy…”

In one study it is found that “survival rates of barn swallows in the most contaminated sites near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant are close to zero. In areas of moderate contamination, annual survival is less than 25%.” Research is cited into ghastly abnormalities in barn swallows that do hatch: “two heads, two tails.”

“In 1986,” the book states, “the level of irradiation in plants and animals in Western Europe, North America, the Arctic, and eastern Asia were sometimes hundreds and even thousands of times above acceptable norms.”

In its final chapter, the book declares that the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear plant “was the worst technogenic accident in history.” And it examines “obstacles” to the reporting of the true consequences of Chernobyl with a special focus on “organizations associated with the nuclear industry” that “protect the industry first—not the public.” Here, the IAEA and WHO are charged.

The book ends by quoting U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s call in 1963 for an end of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.“The Chernobyl catastrophe,” it declares, “demonstrates that the nuclear industry’s willingness to risk the health of humanity and our environment with nuclear power plants will result, not only theoretically, but practically, in the same level of hazard as nuclear weapons.”

Dr. Sherman, speaking of the IAEA’s and WHO’s dealing with the impacts of Chernobyl, commented: “It’s like Dracula guarding the blood bank.” The 1959 agreement under which WHO “is not to be independent of the IAEA” but must clear any information it obtains on issues involving radioactivity with the IAEA has put “the two in bed together.”

Of her reflections on 14 months editing the book, she said: “Every single system that was studied—whether human or wolves or livestock or fish or trees or mushrooms or bacteria—all were changed, some of them irreversibly. The scope of the damage is stunning.”

In his foreword, Dr. Dimitro Grodzinsky, chairman of the Ukranian National Commission on Radiation Protection, writes about how “apologists of nuclear power” sought to hide the real impacts of the Chernobyl disaster from the time when the accident occurred. The book “provides the largest and most complete collection of data concerning the negative consequences of Chernobyl on the health of people and the environment…The main conclusion of the book is that it is impossible and wrong ‘to forget Chernobyl.’”

In the record of Big Lies, the claim of the IAEA-WHO that “only” 4,000 people will die as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe is among the biggest.

The Chernobyl accident is, as the new book documents, an ongoing global catastrophe.

And it is a clear call for no new nuclear power plants to be built and for the closing of the dangerous atomic machines now running—and a switch to safe energy technologies, now available, led by solar and wind energy, that will not leave nearly a million people dead from one disaster.

Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury. He is author of Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power, Power Crazy and The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program’s Nuclear Threat To Our Planet and writer and narrator of television programs among them Nukes In Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens (www.envirovideo.com).

April 23, 2010 - Posted by | Deception, Nuclear Power

12 Comments »

  1. Good article. I wonder how much of that would repeat itself after a nuke was dropped on Iran?

    Like

    Eric Vaughan's avatar Comment by Eric Vaughan | April 23, 2010 | Reply

  2. Regardless of anything else above: Chernobyl has very little to do with westren nuclear power plant construnction…

    In fact the accident cannot even be repeated in these.

    Comparing Harrisburg to nuclear plants of today is much more relevant.
    Fact is that pre Gwh nuclear power is one of the safest means to produce electricity.

    Windpower is better – albeit hareder to get the same effectiveness out of.

    Water is worse (yes it is – just look at Banqai with 160 000 dead) – and coal is of course a disaster.

    /K

    Like

    Klas2k's avatar Comment by Klas2k | April 26, 2010 | Reply

    • Klas,

      Your acceptance of fact seems limited. Coal has NOT killed millions.

      Your claim that nukes are safe is ludicrous. Ask anyone if they would prefer to live next to a nuke or a coal power plant.

      Wind power is inane. Please familiarize yourself with the facts:

      Toward a Better Understanding of Industrial Wind Technology

      https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/toward-a-better-understanding-of-industrial-wind-technology/

      Like

      aletho's avatar Comment by aletho | April 26, 2010 | Reply

      • Actually I would prefer not to live near any powerplant.
        Including wond power mills of course !

        Coal would be the last of my choices obviously though since these powerplants actually spew out a lot of nasty things into the air 24/7 in normal operation!
        And I do NOT talk about co2.
        Things like quicksilver will live on in the environment forever and assemble in the creatures high up in the food chain (humans) and cause a lot of damage!

        A nuclear powerplant (a nuke usually means a weapon by the way) doesnt emit anything in normal operation. And in case there is an accident despite all the redundandt safety systems in a pressurized water reactor, most western reactors have stone filters, filtering out more than 99% of the radioactive particles.
        But for such an accident to take place a lot have had to go wrong beforehand- and all emergency cooling systems, including the automated ones need to fail.

        Below are tow links investigating casualties for different types of energy plants:

        Click to access incidents.pdf

        Click to access nuclear_co2paper_update2006.pdf

        I agree with you when it comes to wind turbines. The give far to few Mw compared to the investemnt, and they are unreliable as well. Although as a complement and for small power use (such as a farm, small industry etc) they will probably work better in conjunction with power from a grid.

        /K

        Like

        Klas2k's avatar Comment by Klas2k | April 26, 2010 | Reply

    • BTW: The figures I have seen says that emission from coal power plants kills around 30000 per year – only from US coal power plants !
      This means at least in the 100 000 per year world wide.

      And that is from normal operation !
      /K

      Like

      Klas2k's avatar Comment by Klas2k | April 26, 2010 | Reply

      • So if one counts every octogenarian with any respiratory ailment as a victim of coal fired power plants one can arrive at such a number. Meanwhile the deaths of children from nuclear poison will continue for tens of thousands of generations.

        Dump the propaganda and think things through for yourself.

        Like

        aletho's avatar Comment by aletho | April 26, 2010 | Reply

        • Hang on here – who is using propaganda !?

          Lung cancer, and heart disease are one of the most common causes of death in the western world.
          Sure there are several reasons, but one of them are pollution.
          A lot of that pollution comes from burning fossil fuels – one of them coal !

          You do not for a moment think that the smoke billowing out of the chimneys from coal power plants is healthy – do you !?

          And on the other side: What does a nuclear power plant emmit ?
          Almost nothing !
          It is continously being measured !
          In one of swedens nuclear power plants, Forsmark, a natural reservation is right beside it – and animals life is thriving.
          The thing they worry the most about is that the heat in the cooling water may foster the animals to different habits than what should be natural to then in our climate.

          And I do not think that the waste from a nuclear power plant is healthy either.
          In fact the only two real problems with nuclear power as I see it, are the waste, and how to get the fuel in a safe and enviromentally healthy way (but the same of course goes for all mining including coal mining)

          BUT the nuclear waste is stable and very limited in volume. With 30 cubes as small as a sugarcube you can get a lifes worth of energy!

          When i debate nuclear power I usually find out that a lot of people are afraid just because inonizing radiation cannot be seen – as oposed to soot clouds.
          And that large doses can create gruelling damage.

          But if you just penetrate the primitive fear cat is that we are continously surrounded by radiation, in alpha, beta and gamma form.

          Radiation in itself are not harmful – it is the dose that counts. That is why everyone entering for instance nuclear powerplants wears a gauge.

          Although, in the plants I have visited the radiation is actually less than in a normal surrouding. This is of course since the background radioation is blocked within the plant.
          /K

          Like

          Klas2k's avatar Comment by Klas2k | April 26, 2010 | Reply

          • Klas,

            It seems so clever to point out that nukes emit “almost nothing” until one considers that one molecule can kill, not once but over and over again for eons.

            Nukes generate vast quantities of waste that will be impossible to contain in any meaningful manner. Check the dimensions of Yucca mountain and consider that it can’t hold half of US generated waste.

            Like

            aletho's avatar Comment by aletho | April 26, 2010 | Reply

            • One molecule can kill over and over again – true.
              But one molecule is not radioactive forever – it declines and transforms !
              Thet is the difference from for instance quicksilver – which do exist “forever”…

              And when it comes to containing wast – google OKLO.
              A natural reactor which contained the waste from a natural nuclear reactor for several million years ! Without any containers or copper capsules etc -and in the middel of “streaming” ground water

              /K

              Like

              Klas2k's avatar Comment by Klas2k | April 26, 2010 | Reply

            • one molecule can kill, not once but over and over again for eons.

              Hahahaha! Oh dear me, I’ve heard some ludicrous tales about the dangers of radioactivity before but this one beats them all. :)

              In short: you’re wrong. Very wrong. You don’t even grasp the most basic mechanism behind radioactivity.

              An atom emits radiation the moment it decays, that is to say it ceases to exist and is transformed into something else. This shoots your statement out of the water immediately.

              Further more, no it is not true that one atom can do enough damage to kill you. You aretalking about events that are so remotely unlikely that getting hit by a meteorite is more likely.

              If your statements had had any kind of bearing towards the truth, we’d all be dead by now from natural background radiation.

              I don’t know where the heck you got your “information”, but I suggest you find the moron that told you these tales, and smack him/her over the mouth for greatly decieving you and thus making you spout nonsense in a public debate.

              Like

              Michael Karnerfors's avatar Comment by Michael Karnerfors | April 26, 2010 | Reply

              • Michael,

                Please ingest some plutonium and leave us normal people alone.

                You can ingest as little as you like.

                Like

                aletho's avatar Comment by aletho | April 26, 2010 | Reply

                • Oh my! What an argument!! It ends all discussion!!!

                  I’ll make you a wager: I’ll eat 10 grams of plutonium-239, if you eat 10 grams of caffeine.

                  The result?

                  In 24 hours, I’ll pass the plutonium the normal route, while you’ll be dead from ventricular fibrillation (i.e. your heart goes berserk). Plutonium salts has less toxicity than caffeine, plus it’s next to chemically inert in the body. So if I ingest a sphere of plutonium salt, nothing will happen, but if you ingest that which is in every cup of tea and coffee in the world, you’ll die.

                  So take your scare stories about hos eeeeevil plutonium and radiation is, and stuff them. They are nonsense. Used nuclear fuel is small in volume and very easy to separate from the biosphere.

                  Oh… by the way: coal gives more uranium to the atmosphere per kWh produced than does nuclear power. Plus the mercury… cadmium…. well the whole cocktail of lovely heavy metals and other poisons that are in coal.

                  Like

                  Michael Karnerfors's avatar Comment by Michael Karnerfors | April 26, 2010 | Reply


Leave a reply to Klas2k Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.