Bjossi on 26/4/2007 at 15:42
It 'kind of' belongs here, the game is based on Chernobyl accident...
Rogue Keeper on 26/4/2007 at 15:58
Quote Posted by Stitch
No, I'm actually quite liking the game. It just seems disrespectful to move a Chernobyl memorial thread just because a computer game has recently been made about it.
Besides, the thread doesn't belong here.
Maybe yes, maybe not, I just don't want it to look like I am making Chernobyl memorial threads every year from habit. :erm:
However I find it curious that the release of the game has been well timed and it's enjoying success world-wide around the time of the accident's anniversary. I think the Ukrainian developers in essence took it as honor they could remind the tragedy to the slowly forgetting world - in their own way.
Well, this evening the game will have twice as special meaning for me. An odd bitter, almost metallic taste in my mouth, as they say.
Marecki on 27/4/2007 at 15:11
Quote Posted by BR796164
Plus hundreds to thousands of involuntary "cleaners" and thousands to tens of thousands of indirect long-term victims of the radioactive fallout. Consequences are still noticeable on youngest generations.
One word: bullshit... Psychological issues (which to a large degree may have been caused by rough and sudden evacuation rather than by the incident itself) aside, even the observed increase of the number of thyroid cancer cases does can't be linked directly to the incident (one theory is that the increase is a result of... more thorough examinations - i.e. the "seek and you shall find" effect), other possible ill effects are vague at best and quite a few of even the most strongly irradiated people are actually healthier than average. And those "tens of thousands" are a total load.
See <a href="http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html">http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html</a>, <a href="http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html">http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html</a> and many other resources on the subject, including some papers in scientific periodicals and of course the full text of the UNSCEAR report.
Rogue Keeper on 27/4/2007 at 15:29
That's a very profound addition into international controversy on this topic, and surely is very enlightening in jungle of studies with mutually antagonistic interpretations. Union Chernobyl - anti-atom wackos? You must be an agent of a vile nuclear lobby! :)
Quote:
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)
The April 2006 IPPNW report
According to an April 2006 report by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW), entitled "Health Effects of Chernobyl", more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected. The report projected tens of thousands dead among the liquidators. In Europe, it alleges that 10,000 deformities have been observed in newborns because of Chernobyl's radioactive discharge, with 5000 deaths among newborn children. They also claimed that several hundreds of thousands of the people who worked on the site after the accident are now sick because of radiation, and tens of thousands are dead.[31]
Other studies and claims
* The Ukrainian Health Minister claimed in 2006 that more than 2.4 million Ukrainians, including 428,000 children, suffer from health problems related to the catastrophe.[14] Psychological after-effects, as the 2006 UN report pointed out, have also had adverse effects on internally displaced persons.
* Another study alleged heightened mortality in Sweden.[32][33]
* According to the Union Chernobyl, the main organization of liquidators, 10% of the 600,000 liquidators are now dead, and 165,000 disabled.[34]
* One study reports increased levels of birth defects in Germany and Finland in the wake of the accident.[35]
* A report from the European Committee on Radiation Risk (a body sponsored by the European Green Party) claims that the World Health Organization, together with most other international and national health bodies, has marginalized or ignored, perhaps purposely, the terrible consequences of the Chernobyl fallout to protect the vested interests of the nuclear industry.[36]
* The Abstract of the April 2006 International Agency for Research on Cancer report Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident stated "It is unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates - other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions - that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident."[37][38] However, while undetectable, they estimate, based on the linear no threshold model of cancer effects, that 16,000 excess cancer deaths could be expected from the effects of the Chernobyl accident up to 2065. Their estimates have very wide 95% confidence intervals from 6,700 deaths to 38,000.[39]
* The application of the linear no threshold model to predict deaths from low levels of exposure to radiation was disputed in a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) "Horizon" documentary, broadcast on 13 July 2006. It offered statistical evidence to suggest that there is an exposure threshold of about 200 millisieverts, below which there is no increase in radiation-induced disease. Indeed it went further, reporting research from Professor Ron Chesser of Texas Tech University, which suggests that low exposures to radiation can have a protective effect. The program interviewed scientists who believe that the increase in thyroid cancer in the immediate area of the explosion had been over-recorded, and predicted that the estimates for widespread deaths in the long term would be proved wrong. It noted the view of the World Health Organization scientist Dr Mike Rapacholi that, whilst most cancers can take decades to manifest, leukemia manifests within a decade or so: none of the previously expected peak of leukemia deaths has been found, and none is now expected. Identifying the need to balance the "fear response" in the public's reaction to radiation, the program quoted Dr Peter Boyle, director of the IARC: "Tobacco smoking will cause several thousand times more cancers in the [European] population."[40]
* Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University (a lecturer in medical physics and particle physics) gave a talk on ionising radiation 24 Nov 2006 in which he gave an approximate figure of 81 cancer deaths from Chernobyl (excluding 28 cases from acute radiation exposure and the thyroid cancer deaths which he regards as "avoidable"). In a closely reasoned argument using statistics from therapeutic radiation, exposure to elevated natural radiation (the presence of radon gas in homes) and the diseases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors he demonstrated that the linear no-threshold model should not be applied to low-level exposure in humans, as it ignores the well-known natural repair mechanisms of the body.[41]
maxmon on 28/4/2007 at 14:36
Wow, that's disturbing.
Marecki on 29/4/2007 at 22:24
An interesting thing to do here is to find out who of the authors of those conflicting reports talked about the Chernobyl incident around the time it happened and who become involved later, then match the people with whether their statements are more positive or more negative... However, I'll leave that, along with the drawing of appropriate conclusions, as an exercise to the readers :angel:
Rogue Keeper on 30/4/2007 at 07:43
I can understand that numerous latter cases of cancer may be difficult to blame purely on Chernobyl, but you seem to be completely forgetting those thousands of liquidators who were ordered to clean the mess!
Quote:
According to the Union Chernobyl, the main organization of liquidators, 10% of the 600,000 liquidators are now dead, and 165,000 disabled.
In fact, your first post sounds remotely like secretive official Soviet propaganda back in 1986. "31 people dead, nothing serious, move along comrades. Praise Lenin and Atom!" That would be a spit in the face of those who were (largely involuntarily and eventually not even being properly informed about the danger) sent into the pit to remove dirt, evacuate civilians and build the sarcophagus to prevent the radiation to spread further.
Briareos H on 30/4/2007 at 08:14
You're on thin ice there BR. Beware the wrath of "teh scientist".
Marecki on 30/4/2007 at 13:27
Quote Posted by BR796164
I can understand that numerous latter cases of cancer may be difficult to blame purely on Chernobyl, but you seem to be completely forgetting those thousands of liquidators who were ordered to clean the mess!
Right now after some merely preliminary investigation, I can tell you that I have found it highly difficult to find an authoritative number of liquidators involved! Even the quoted Wikipedia article itself mentions two vastly different numbers and other sources available on-line (haven't looked into anything more tangible yet) go from 25 to almost 700 thousand people involved, each of them discussing the same four-year span. By the way, you do realise the power plant remained operational for many more years and there
were people manning it, apparently without significant deterioration of health - don't you?
As for the details - you've got me interested, so I'm checking with some experts. Will let you know as soon as I've heard from them.
Rogue Keeper on 30/4/2007 at 13:52
Quote Posted by Marecki
By the way, you do realise the power plant remained operational for many more years and there
were people manning it, apparently without significant deterioration of health - don't you?
The scientists, military and security forces who make research and guard the exclusion zone are allowed to work there for only limited periods. Of course they don't remain in the most contaminated areas for long, if they are visiting them at all.
Some civilians even lived long years in the Zone after the accident - with
significant deterioration of their health.
I have no information about the plant workers, but I assume they had access to uncontaminated food and water, and had limited shifts. I presume the control rooms of the remaining reactors are protected against leaking radiation from outside? And perhaps other strict measurements were made to protect the workers from radiation. In form of high retirement bonuses...
