by nuclearhistory

The information relating to the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster issued by authorities is diverse.

Nation State approved international organisations provide documents which often disagree with information presented by independent or NGO backed qualified scientists. Some scientists in universities in different places of the world produce their own findings and conclusions as well. Thus there is extremely high contrast between views and it is hard to see. The IAEA based conclusions are the most glaring of the collection of findings and conclusions. It might be right in all it reports. It might be incorrect. Either in the main or in detail. But just because it is the biggest and brightest is no guarantee that it is the most accurate.

In my exploration of the information I have come to my conclusions. These conclusions will be contested because I do not believe in radiation Hormesis and therefore I do not represent that view.

Here is a download of a TV program presented by the ABC which explores the consequences of the disaster. It is a pdf document of key frame stills of the half hour progam. Its about 26 mb., the smallest I could make it. Both the images and the subtitles are important.

I have witnessed the Maralinga Process. So I understand that official information, originally presented as fact, is sometimes, but not always, found out to be bullshit when careful gathering of evidence is eventually carried out. Such occurred, if you recall, when John Bannon and ARPANSA Scientists visited Maralinga decades after the bombs. This is public record. Sometimes it takes elected governments and their organs a number of decades to listen and appropriately respond to the people on issues government authorities dispute. (Agendas. Third Forces. Foriegn interference. These factors play a role in the ongoing Maralinga Process.) Simply because ARPANSA did an honest survey 2 decades after it was due, does not mean either that ARPANSA is a goody two shoes. It was very very very very very very slow.

So, when people in Ukraine and Belarus tell me, as they have, that they view the IAEA in the same way as many Americans viewed the AEC, I understand what they mean. I think. (There ARE issues here.)

To clarify the problem: The US AEC had the role of regulating nuclear industry, ensuring radiation safety in the USA and of conducting nuclear bomb tests.

At a certain juncture, the proportion of Americans who saw problems with that hegemony became so large that the a census (formed by both ordinary people and many scientists (but not all scientists.) was reached. As a result, things changed a little bit. (Prior to the tipping point, people who agitated for change were subject either sanction or to abuse as attempts were made to turn dissenters into pariahs by the AEC as it strove to maintain its authority over people.)

The AEC was abolished and in its place a new regulator was formed, called the NRC. The US DOE was also formed and its roles include the promotion of nuclear energy. Not that things are ever perfect. And reversals do occur. Perhaps its time America thought about a third compartment. Nuclear Medicine. Get that one out of the promotional arm as well. Medicine should not be a tool of industry.

Many people around the world, especially many living in areas affected by nuclear events which are subject to IAEA inspection in its safety (as opposed to its nuclear promotional) role are deeply distrusting of it. And these same people are deeply suspicious of the subordinate role the UN WHO has, by charter, to the UN IAEA.

To many uninvolved people the situation I have just crudely outlined will seem beyond belief. However, as a person who has watched the Maralinga Process, I see it as situation normal. I see it as the same thing, but on a planetary scale.

Rather than a former colony bringing the Motherland to account, empowered by the victims. (If the victims had not spoken up, Maralinga would still be a place subject to an international total lie. And unsafe to live in. This has been established in earlier posts. Some significant lies still remain to be revealed. SNAFU.)

I wonder how long people in other lands will have to speak up in the face of threat before authorities come clean. I am very lucky. If I lived in some lands, my government would simply pull my plug.

Pluto’s Land

A backup pdf of her site is here:
I made the pdf as the site is worthy of posterity. And just in case.

So far, the main opposition to this page will be coming from authoritarian regimes and the opponents of social work.

Let’s get some data.

On the Flinders University web release of July 2011, Pam Sykes states in relation to the Chernobyl disaster that : “There was an increase in thyroid tumours but weʼre not sure how much that related to the fact that everyone was screened for thyroid tumours, which wouldnʼt normally happen. ”

In relation to thyroid cancer, WHO states: “A large increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer has occurred among people who were young children and adolescents at the time of the accident and lived in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This was due to the high levels of radioactive iodine released from the Chernobyl reactor in the early days after the accident. Radioactive iodine was deposited in pastures eaten by cows who then concentrated it in their milk which was subsequently drunk by children. This was further exacerbated by a general iodine deficiency in the local diet causing more of the radioactive iodine to be accumulated in the thyroid…”


“In Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine nearly 5 000 cases of thyroid cancer have now been diagnosed to date among children who were aged up to 18 years at the time of the accident. While a large number of these cancers resulted from radiation following the accident, intense medical monitoring for thyroid disease among the affected population has also resulted in the detection of thyroid cancers at a sub-clinical level, and so contributed to the overall increase in thyroid cancer numbers. ”
Source: Health effects of the Chernobyl accident: an overview Fact sheet N° 303 April 2006,

5,000 cases of thyroid cancer represents a lot of suffering, a lot of medical treatment.
We are not told by either source -Sykes or WHO, in these instances, what the increase in thyroid cancer
due to the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster is.

Who concludes the publication’s section on Thyroid cancer with this statement: “It is expected that the increased incidence of thyroid cancer from Chernobyl will continue for many years, although the long-term magnitude of the risk is difficult to quantify.”

The question remains: By what amount did the incidence of Thyroid cancer in Ukraine and Belarus increase? Was it a little increase, a big increase or a very large increase?

Increased monitoring resulted in early detection – thus compressing in time detections which might otherwise have taken longer to be diagnosed, it is no reason to diminish the impact of the nuclear event in terms of human suffering. An accurate insight the actual impact of the event cannot be gained by either source. WHO states that the long term magnitude of the risk is difficult to quantify.

More cases will arise in the future as a result of the nuclear disaster. Obviously in people who were clear of the disease or pre disease state at the time of monitoring.

The figure of 5,000 will grow larger as the years go by, by how much, WHO does not know. And I still have to locate a source which gives an amount for the increased incidence of Thyroid cancer in Belarus and Ukraine.

I must look elsewhere for the information I need. However:

WHO counts the people and gives 5,000 as the number – expected to rise by a difficult to determine factor.

Sykes does not. So what is the point of her statement?

You see, I am just a layman looking for an answer. WHO gives a quanta, presents the problem in prediction, but Sykes is no help at all.

I have to go to alternate documents and probably, to different sources.

“The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl has produced the biggest group of cancers ever from a single incident, according to UK and US scientists.

Almost 2,000 cases of thyroid cancer have resulted from the reactor explosion at the Ukrainian power station 15 years ago. Researchers predict that the number of cancers is sure to rise further in years to come. ….Dr Elaine Ron, from the US National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, said: “The elevated risk of thyroid cancer appears to continue throughout life, but there is some indication that the risk may be highest 15 to 19 years after exposure.” BBC

This is getting more confusing as I go. Try again.

“In 2006, German Green Member of the European Parliament Rebecca Harms, commissioned two British scientists to write an alternate report (TORCH, The Other Report on Chernobyl) in response to the 2006 Chernobyl Forum report, which was prepared by over a hundred of experts of a number of UN agencies including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and other UN bodies, as well as the Governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.” Wikipedia.

Let’s see what this says:


AUTHORS_ Ian Fairlie, PhD, UK. David Sumner, DPhil, UK
AFTERWORD_ Prof. Angelina Nyagu, Ukraine

Let me say here that at the back of mind there is memory of the official Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee reports to the Australian people. All is well they said. The bombs are safe they said. It turns out they were keeping the bombs safe from public opinion. So I am disposed to an intelligent independent report. I have not read it yet. It’s 2am.

I have a nagging problem. What is your point Pam? If 2,000 people (the BBC figure) suffer thyroid cancer and the effects of thyroid removal as a treatment, with more to come (WHO), is that a proof that evacuation is useless? HOW MANY MORE CASES WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN BUT FOR THE EVACUATION???

The numbers I quote are probably too low, and the cancer type quite specific.

The numbers, though appearing concrete, are not the real issue. It is the lives of the individuals which count.

Dealing with the issue from a social perspective is fruitful. Let’s have a look at that. At least there is a narrative and the possibility of shared learning from the perspective of ordinary people.

REPORT AIR DATE: March 29, 2011
Revisiting Chernobyl: A Nuclear Disaster Site of Epic Proportions

GWEN IFILL: The nuclear crisis in Japan immediately brought back memories of the meltdown at Chernobyl, which still ranks as the world’s worst nuclear accident.
Nearly 25 years later, NewsHour science correspondent Miles O’Brien returned last week to see what life is like there now.
MILES O’BRIEN: For an infamous ghost town of epic proportions, Chernobyl sure is a busy place. Past the guards, through the gates, and into this time capsule of the life Soviet, you must first find your way to the exclusion zone office, where the phone does not stop ringing these days.
Marina Polyakova tells me it’s mostly reporters calling, wanting to visit since the meltdown at Fukushima.
What am I paying for here? What am I getting for 1,064?
WOMAN: That’s for the entrance.
MILES O’BRIEN: Paying the entrance fee, I remember many Ukrainians who would like to open the place to tourists, a macabre theme park, to be sure.
Do you think tourists would come here?
People can come to the area to see everything themselves and then make their own opinion, she told me, not on the basis of what journalists say about this place.
No offense taken, I guess. But what a difference 25 years can make.
ROBERT MACNEIL, former PBS anchor: Good evening.
In the news today, there was an accident at a Soviet nuclear plant, causing some casualties.
MILES O’BRIEN: Two days before the Soviet government announced the problem, reactor number four at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, 80 miles north of Kiev, blew up, spewing out more radioactivity than 100 Hiroshima bombs. With a cloud of fallout rapidly spreading north and west over Europe, there could be no state secrets. The Kremlin could not keep a lid on Chernobyl in every respect.
MAN: The results were alarming. Significantly higher than normal levels were recorded.
MILES O’BRIEN: About 30 workers and firefighters died in the first week, untold numbers in the 25 years since.
GENNADI MILINEVSKY, University of Kiev: Very important to have these devices.
MILES O’BRIEN: My guide inside the Chernobyl exclusion zone was physicist Gennadi Milinevsky of the University of Kiev.
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: It should be 12 microrems per hour.
MILES O’BRIEN: So, this is a little bit…
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: It’s a little — it’s twice more.
MILES O’BRIEN: This is two, almost three times more background radiation just right here.
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: Two more times right here more than the ground. But…
MILES O’BRIEN: So, should we be worried about that?
MILES O’BRIEN: Not that big a deal?
It’s not enough to cause harm within a short period of time.
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: For those who saved the world.
MILES O’BRIEN: We stopped by a monument to the firefighters who fought valiantly for 10 days to douse the nuclear inferno.
Are they heroes?
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: Yes, heroes. It’s — many of them received a dose not connected with — with life.
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: They died in one month.
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: Yes. They were sent to Moscow to special clinic for treatment. But they were — died.
MILES O’BRIEN: Helicopters finally smothered the fire with sand, clay, boron, lead, and liquid nitrogen. Eventually, 600,000 Soviet army conscripts were dispatched to Chernobyl to shovel the lethal mess back into the remnants of the reactor, so that it could be encased in steel and concrete.
VASYL KAVATSIUK, Chernobyl liquidator: Our job was to put the radioactive material back…
VASYL KAVATSIUK: … to the reactor, yes.
MILES O’BRIEN: I see. So, then — so they could cover it over?
VASYL KAVATSIUK: That’s exactly right.
MILES O’BRIEN: So you — you were in very close proximity to this stuff?
VASYL KAVATSIUK: Cannot be closer.
MILES O’BRIEN: They called them liquidators. And Vasyl Kavatsiuk was one of them. A demolition expert, he spent 37 days working at the wrecked reactor.
VASYL KAVATSIUK: If you think about that, you are getting more sick more than you’re supposed to be. You are just thinking I have to do this. This is my job. I have to finish this. I have to do this. Anybody — anyhow, somebody must do that.
MILES O’BRIEN: Until he collapsed and had to be medevaced to Moscow. His wife, Maria, gave birth to a girl, Marta, in 1987. Just shy of her second birthday, she died suddenly of leukemia. In 1989, they had another daughter, Maria. She too contracted leukemia, but survived.
Is there a lot of cancer in your family?
VASYL KAVATSIUK: Never had one.
MILES O’BRIEN: Is there any doubt in your mind that the leukemia your two daughters had, had something to do with Chernobyl?
VASYL KAVATSIUK: I have no doubt about that.
MILES O’BRIEN: There’s no doubt radiation causes cancer and genetic defects. The fast-moving subatomic particles plow into molecules with enough energy to knock lose electrons. The dinged molecules, called ions, can kill or damage cells. Enough of this will kill you quickly. Less damage can cause cancer or, if DNA is the target, create genetic mutations.
This is the town of Pripyat.
MILES O’BRIEN: Pripyat was just one of 150 towns and settlements evacuated after the accident. More than 300,000 people were displaced, while a few hundred stubborn holdouts remain on their land, people like Maria, who, at 75, says she is more worried about her cottage falling down than radiation.
Children are the most vulnerable to the effects of radiation. After the explosion, there was a big spike in birth defects and thyroid cancer, extremely rare among children. And researchers say there is also a significant drop in the intellect in the region.
At the dilapidated regional hospital closest to Chernobyl, the medical staff is convinced there is a direct link between chronic exposure to radiation and a whole assortment of diseases and deformities.
I asked Dr. Constantine Cheres if he is convinced people are more sick here because of the Chernobyl accident. “Of course,” he told me. “Of course they are more sick.”
But the Chernobyl Forum, a group of U.N. agencies focused on the accident, estimates only 4,000 people died as a result of the explosion and its aftermath. One of the four members, the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, issued a report contending: “There is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of cancers or leukemia due to radiation in the exposed populations. Neither is there any proof of any non-malignant disorders that are related to ionizing radiation. However, there were widespread psychological reactions to the accident, which were due to fear of the radiation, not the actual radiation doses.”
But Ukrainian scientist Maryna Naboka begs to differ. She told me people here get sick more often and they become more seriously sick. They receive little doses of radiation, but they do it on a day-to-day basis, and the second generation continues getting the radiation.
Radiation contamination is very stubborn. Gennadi Milinevsky took me to a place inside the exclusion zone, 30 kilometers, or 18 miles, around the plant, that is still heavily irradiated.
They call it the red forest because why?
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: They call it red forest because this is strong radiation. The leaves of trees became red.
It killed the trees.
The radiation killed pine trees in a 30-square kilometer, 11-square-mile swathe. As we hiked in, the Geiger counter got very excited.
All right, so now we’re more than — we’re at 400 times. Are we OK?
MILES O’BRIEN: Are we safe?
MILES O’BRIEN: All right. All right. Just checking. We just don’t want to stay here too long, do we?
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: Yes. If you put it on the ground…
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: … it became much…
MILES O’BRIEN: Oh, look at that, look at that, 5.5 half right there. That’s 500 times right there. This used to be pine trees as far as you can see.
MILES O’BRIEN: And the cesium came through here after the explosion. And that’s — and to this day is…
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: Yes, still over there.
MILES O’BRIEN: Are there animals that can live here, or not?
MILES O’BRIEN: Milinevsky’s colleague, Tim Mousseau, believes animals are the key to settling the debate over the long-term health effects of Chernobyl. He and his team have spent more than a decade studying birds in the Chernobyl region and beyond.
TIMOTHY MOUSSEAU, University of South Carolina: But it’s clear that this low-level contamination is — is probably more dangerous in the long run than — than having a single hot spot.
MILES O’BRIEN: In contaminated areas, there are half as many species and one-third number of birds you would expect. Their brains are smaller. Forty percent of male barn swallows have abnormal sperm. One in five have strange colored plumage that makes it hard to attract mates.
There are unusual beak deformities and large tumors that scientists have never seen before. What, if anything, can we extrapolate between that bird population, that population of barn swallows, and humans?
TIMOTHY MOUSSEAU: I would argue that, you know, we’re all — we’re all animals, and birds are actually more similar to us than dissimilar to us.
MILES O’BRIEN: Mousseau’s colleagues are also looking at Chernobyl’s grasshoppers. They frequently have asymmetrical wings, and fruit flies, which are easily impacted by radiation. Those found around Chernobyl have gray eyes, instead of red, and deformed wings.
Biologist Irina Koretsky studies the little bugs, in part because they only live about a month, meaning she can track genetic changes through many generations in short order. She worries about the sporadic funding for research that could lead to some definitive answers about the Chernobyl riddle.
She told me: “This is the worst thing that can happen. If there are gaps in the research for two or three years, we cannot have this full picture.”
At the remains of reactor number four, I saw the concrete and steel sarcophagus that was completed six months after the explosion.
Is it holding? Is it doing its job?
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: It’s not — not carefully doing this job, because there’s many holes inside and, still, in windy weather, we have some dust coming outside.
MILES O’BRIEN: Ukraine is asking the west for $800 million to pay for a new shelter over the old sarcophagus that would last 100 years. Beneath it is all is a molten witch’s brew of radioactive isotopes, including plutonium, with a half-life of 24,000 years, meaning, in 24,000 years, half of it will still be here, and 24,000 years later, half of that will still be here, and so on.
Do you think human beings are capable of keeping this thing safe for tens of thousands of years?
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: If he covers it, will try to keep it safe.
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: But this place, this area will be still not good for life.
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: Yes, forever, yes.
MILES O’BRIEN: And — and…
GENNADI MILINEVSKY: That is problem for all nuclear power plants. When we build new nuclear power, power plants, always, you create some headache for future generations.
MILES O’BRIEN: And something for our generation to consider as we weigh the pros and cons of nuclear power.

Only the people affected can truly speak of what has happened to them, and when they speak, they speak of their private lives. Speaking to outsiders is part of the cost of reporting. It is voluntary.

On the other hand, nuclear authorities are becoming increasingly authoritarian. In my opinion, as I sit, watching the world as best I can.

My view is this: Nuclear technology is old technology, it is emitting technology of a type nuclear authorities like to keep obscure. Each time there is a nuclear disaster, authorities talk of radiation and radioactive clouds. They introduce a source – a CT Scanner or an X ray machine – which cannot possibly be the source of the exposure. They are used as an analogy for the real source.

Radionuclides. Radioactive dust. radioisotopes. The things which are made in a nuclear reactor during the fission of uranium and plutonium. A spent fuel rod is not a flat battery. A uranium rod goes in and a spent rod comes out. The rod is no longer uranium alone. It is uranium and about 250 fission products, each far more radioactive per gram than the uranium. That is why Szilard named his chain reaction as he did.

An improved method for the transmutation of the chemical elements. 1934. A radio-poison machine.
It develops heat in the process.

The people of the world seem to be learning the realities of this old technology one country at a time.

Why do nuclear authorities use analogy when we are perfectly capable of understanding what a radionuclide is? The idea that reactors are non emitting is false. Even at the best of times.

A bomb is a bit different, but it makes the same stuff. Take a look at Taranaki. What was it that had to be removed to make it safer? Dozens of CT scanners or tons of radioactive dirt? Why was the dirt radioactive? Because mixed in with it were particles of plutonium. Are radioactive substance. It cannot be switched off like an X ray machine. And if internalised is a threat to health and life.

It is the presence of such emissions after a reactor accident which requires 1. evacuation 2. cleanup. If you can.

There are some who that the seas will rise and farmland become desert unless we build more nukes.

Is that true?

Are reactors the answer to climate change?


There is one final thing I must dispute within the July 2011 Flinders University proclamation which quotes Pam Sykes.

It is this: “the public panic in response to nuclear accidents such as that at Fukushima in Japan is the result of a general ignorance about radiation.” Sykes labels people and she does it to entire sections of populations. Those sections of the populations who disagree with her.

Just like Titterton et al did.

No thanks Pam. I don’t buy it.

And so…..