Scientific American: Up to 1 million eventual deaths estimated from Chernobyl exposure — Sweden, Finland, others concerned about risk of forest fires near disaster area

Published: June 25th, 2013 at 1:22 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
63 comments


Title: At Chernobyl, Radioactive Danger Lurks in the Trees
Source: Scientific American
Author:  Jane Braxton Little and The Daily Climate
Date: June 24, 2013

At Chernobyl, Radioactive Danger Lurks in the Trees

For 26 years, forests around Chernobyl have been absorbing radioactive elements but a fire would send them skyward again – a concern as summers grow longer, hotter and drier [...]

[...] scientists at several institutions in Europe and North America analyzed a worst-case scenario: A very hot fire that burns for five days, consumes everything in its path, and sends the smoke 60 miles south to Kiev. A separate worst-case study is underway looking at the risks for Sweden, Finland and other European countries heavily impacted by the 1986 explosion.

Women in their 20s living just outside the zone face the highest risk from exposure to radioactive smoke, the 2011 study found: 170 in 100,000 would have an increased chance of dying of cancer. Among men farther away in Kiev, 18 in 100,000 20-year-olds would be at increased risk of dying of cancer. [No mention of those under 20, who are at much greater risk] These estimates pale in comparison to those from the 1986 Chernobyl explosion, which predict between 4,000 and over a million eventual deaths from radiation exposure. [...]

See also: 3 million children require treatment because of Chernobyl, many will die prematurely -U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2000

Published: June 25th, 2013 at 1:22 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
63 comments

Related Posts

  1. 3 million children require treatment because of Chernobyl, many will die prematurely -U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2000 February 28, 2013
  2. Expert on BBC: Like setting off a nuclear bomb in Eastern Europe? Fire fears for dying radioactive tree plantations around Chernobyl July 20, 2012
  3. Russian Gov’t Radio: “The number of victims has reached one million people today” — Consequences of Chernobyl meltdown are endless and uncontrollable April 26, 2012
  4. More from PBS on Chernobyl: “The radiation killed pine trees in a 30-square kilometer” area (VIDEO) March 15, 2012
  5. Death toll estimate from Chernobyl now around 1.5 Million -Expert (VIDEO) December 22, 2012

63 comments to Scientific American: Up to 1 million eventual deaths estimated from Chernobyl exposure — Sweden, Finland, others concerned about risk of forest fires near disaster area

  • Jay

    Think again : there are two way to die from radiation 1) a lot of killed cells at the moment of irradiation ( fryed ) , and 2) by small quantities of radioactive particles lodged into the body .

    Now , while we understand the situation when the cell are killed in seconds or minutes from the intensity of radiation , what I invite Scientific American and other orgs , is to Ponder : in order to induce Cancer the cell Mutation must be such as not to kill the cell , but to turn it into a cancerous , living cell .

    OK , the ODDS to That happening are LOTTERY ODDS !!!

    It is well known that ( induced ) Mutations are 99.999 % DAMAGING and KILLING the cell . So when you have a lodged radioparticle damaging the neighboring cells it will kill them 99.999 % of the time instead of producing a WORKING , LIVABLE Mutation !!

    Now we understand why in 25 years the Chernobyl didn't produced tha number of cancers expected .

    Some one tell this to 'Scientific' American …


    Report comment

    • amberlight amberlight

      Wow, Jay, I had to read your comments over a few times to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting what you were trying to say. So, according to your logic, if I am exposed to radioactive particles over time I won't get cancer, but the cells in my body will die off piecemeal, because, as any fool knows, radionuclides only invade the body one at a time. Sorta like those kung fu movies where the opponents dance around on the perimeter waiting their turn to take on the hero who is handily defeating each one of them in turn.

      But you gotta watch out for that sneaky .001% of "workable, livable" mutations. If you live long enough you could wind up looking like Jeff Goldblum in "The Fly."


      Report comment

      • amberlight amberlight

        Oops. "their" logic. The SA web site didn't come up (flaky internet connection) so I haven't read the article. I assume they are offering data to downplay the cancer numbers so far, but are concerned about radionuclides being released by fire.


        Report comment

      • Trawling4Trolls

        This is good,

        "but the cells in my body will die off piecemeal, because, as any fool knows, radionuclides only invade the body one at a time. Sorta like those kung fu movies where the opponents dance around on the perimeter waiting their turn to take on the hero who is handily defeating each one .."

        :)


        Report comment

      • Jay

        @amberlight+ , it's not My logic , it's biology , check the books and blame Them , if you can .

        1) I denounce nuclear energy , must be stopped now , make a note of it for future reference .

        2) be aware of shills who use reverse-psycology : they claim that a million will die , Than 25 years later it didn't happened and now nobody trusts the anti-nuke movement , goal acomplished .

        … and keep the real target/enemy in the cross-hairs : Organized Crime and the 'Nuclear Clean-up' Golden Project .


        Report comment

    • Now we understand why in 25 years the Chernobyl didn't produced tha number of cancers expected .

      tell that to the mothers who misscarried and the people with respiratory ilness Jay!
      peace


      Report comment

      • Jay

        @arclight , Why leave the door open to be taken to task and produce the numbers ?

        Can you ?? No . I can't neither , but at least I read about how mutations occur to cause cancer . This is the subject , no ?

        How strontium can induce arithmia and possible heart attack/death is another subject . Don't smear me with something that I am not addressing here .

        And you can not argue down that radiation caused mutations produce Bad mutations that kill the cell 99.99 % of the time hence cancerous cell produced by brute gene buthcering by radiation is very rare .
        Let's agree with this Fact and move on , keeping up the fight against nuclear energy , we are on the same team .


        Report comment

        • Can you ?? No . I can't neither
          contact
          Tamara Krasitskava
          at
          Zemlyaki

          for their addresses, ages of death etc (you should do that better than wating time to ask me, i would be interested in the data though..

          i already asked
          A.Cameron (Belarus health worker from UK)
          who turns out to be a Fellow og the Imperial College London Uni. .. i suppose she prevaricates too?

          i met Tamara and many eastern europeans who have a different attitude to you.. and they seemed sincere.. who convinced you that your posits are right anyway?
          who are you?
          any way i am busy.. do your own research if you dont believe others..
          this is me..
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UjI_ho8Bpg


          Report comment

          • sorry if i come across a bit rough there Jay.. i hear you on your points.. and i will get those figures amd details when i have resettled.. In the netherlands most likely as i can apply for citizenship after a month.. press freedom and it is cheap.. peace


            Report comment

            • DisasterInterpretationDissorder DisasterInterpretationDissorder

              @arclight , i don't know if appropiate to ask , but is money a problem that we can help a litle ?


              Report comment

              • hi did
                many thanks for the offer but i have a small savings for relocation and i have also decided on my destination.. the netherlands.. i will have netherland citinship after a month (available to eu passport holders and i have some antinuke connections that might proove fruitful for work and housing etc.. been a busy but productive day! i could meet bnb for a danish and cofffee.. :) so things are looking up!
                thanks for your concern and this opportunity to update everyone on my "mid life" crisis :)
                peace


                Report comment

    • Chernobyl London meeting (27 April 2013) Speech by Tamara Krasitskava from Zemlyaki

      On Sunday the 27 April 2013 in a little room somewhere off Grays Inn road London, a meeting took place. In this meeting was Ms Tamara Krasitskava of the Ukrainian NGO “Zemlyaki”.

      In this meeting she quoted that only 40 percent of the evacuees that moved to Kiev after the disaster are alive today! And lets leave the statistics out of it for a moment and we find out of 44,000 evacuated to Kiev only 19,000 are left alive. None made it much passed 40 years old

      …..3.2 million with health effects and this includes 1 million children…

      T .Kraisitskava

      “….I was told to not talk of the results from Belarus as the UK public were not allowed to know the results we were finding!….”

      A.Cameron (Belarus health worker from UK)

      http://nuclear-news.net/2013/05/02/chernobyl-london-meeting-27-april-2013-speech-by-tamara-krasitskava-from-zemlyaki/

      they die of heart attacks.. under the radar so to speak.. outside statistical parameters.. uncared for… perfect psychopathy!

      Chernobyl Children International annual airlift – Served 22,500 children since 1986

      http://nuclear-news.net/2013/06/24/chernobyl-children-international-annual-airlift-served-22500-children-since-1986/

      but you cant believe the russians/ukrainians etc though eh? what do they know? that we dont??
      peace


      Report comment

    • We cannot rule out the possibility of an underlying increase in incidence for women aged above 50 years in Sweden after 1986. However, a 0.8% annual increase (as seen in Sweden before 1986) can explain only a small part of the 45% increase in Sweden in the age group 50-69 years. Furthermore, a 0.8% increase will cover only a small part of the 50% decline in the age group 70-74 years that Boer et al predicted.1

      http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7445/921

      a little link for you jay
      but in norway the stats are muddled i think as they are not giving the whole story.. ask any norwegian from the western coastline and you will be surprised at the age and prevelance of cancer.. same in ireland too BTW
      and if you dont think the irish can be as corrrupt as anyone else watch this..

      http://nuclear-news.net/2013/06/25/peter-fitzgerald-john-bowe-screwing-the-irish-government-and-the-irish-people/
      :)


      Report comment

    • Jebus Jebus

      He is touching upon the damaged cell "balance" that the body contends with and manages on a daily basis.
      I know this skirts around the hormesis theory, which is junk science, because no one knows where that balance lies in each individual life form.
      By balance, I mean the part he left out which is that the majority of damaged cells don't die with low level internal exposure. The majority are repaired and most continue on with being repaired by the second DNA copy and the balance works. It is when that balance is upset by being overwhelmed with damage or both DNA copies are damaged. Ever wonder why nature gave us two copies of DNA in each cell? What level of damage can your body repair? What is your threshold for cell or DNA damage?
      The other, very bad issue is the damaged cell that doesn't die and or trigger the repair mechanism. That cell might divide as damaged. And if the DNA is damaged, not repaired, and divides, it might just not stop dividing. That is Cancer.

      So the bottom line in the debunking of hormesis is that no one knows at what level of internal emitter activity overwhelms each organism. Your threshold is different than mine and we are so different from non human creatures. There is also the multiplication factor of a very young creature, plant, or human. The more cells dividing at any given time means that many more cells can be damaged into a runaway condition, cancer.


      Report comment

    • Some industries and civilizations are really GOOOOOOD at covering up genocide and deny that it ever happened. The lies are built into the history books, schools and colleges, as well as mass media TV. Care to see just ONE example?

      Columbus "discovered" America… yea right….

      So all of those millions of people living in a sustainable fashion and doing everything for seven future generations on the North American continent for 20,000 years before he came ashore were just visitors?

      Need another one?

      The nuclear industy started with secrets and lies, because it was war time. They have been doing it so long, and got so good at it, they are now living the lie and believe the lie.

      That is what happens…

      Pinochio, your nose is SOOOOOO long.

      Nuclear Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Weapons/Fuel
      http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/nuclear-accidents-around-world.html

      Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations And The 1% http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/corporations-art-and-science-of.html


      Report comment

    • It is not EVENTUAL deaths.. The 1 million have ALREADY died due to Chernobyl, so now the number is going up from there.

      Since Fuku was 3-100 times worse than Chernobyl if one considers MOX fuel, 3 out of control underground nuclear fires (coriums), 3 reactor melt throughs, 3 or more spent fuel pools drying out and catching fire MULTIPLE times, and one nuclear criticality explosion, plus ongoing leaks and emissions to the present day from groundwater, air, and other releases at the FUKU plant, what will the death toll be from FukU?

      Hmmmmmm?


      Report comment

    • Trawling4Trolls

      "Now we understand why in 25 years the Chernobyl didn't produced tha number of cancers expected ."

      And we also know why a detailed documentary of what life is REALLY like in Kiev would be the best of working material??


      Report comment

    • Jay

      It takes just ONE cancerous cell to start a Tumor , another biological fact to complement the first one I mentioned about radiation caused cancers .

      So people , how many of you did like me and write to the Governmnet Letters/e-mails of Complaint about Nuclear Energy ?


      Report comment

  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

    why do pronukers miss the obvious; poison is unhealthy.

    If an analysis said no cruise ships would sink in the next five years if they werent protected from corrosion, do you let them corrode?

    Death is the wrong metric. Health is the correct one. Just because sticking 100 pins in a person wont kill them doesnt mean its OK.

    "we accidently released millions of spiders in the nursing home, but a cohort study showed nobody died even though everyone had numerous spider bites, therefor we conclude its not harmful to have spiders in the home and those who complain are terrorists"

    "the radiation caused deformed moths and small brains in birds, but didnt kill anybody, so obviously the anti nuke fear mongers are simpletons and idiots for being concerned"


    Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    We have a manmade ghost and its invisible and its odorless and its tasteless.

    This ghost kills and maims all biological life.

    This ghost is currently used to kill biological cells.

    This manmade ghost does not currently promote life.

    We animals are all in trouble.

    We and our children are now being sacrificed.


    Report comment

  • weeman

    Sooner or later the forest will burn, the longer between fires the larger the fire load on floor of forest, any fire will quickly be put out, untill one day some day guaranteed the fire load on forest floor is huge and will erupt into a super fire, the only solution is to remove the fire load good luck.


    Report comment

  • Fears Russian wildfires could drive radioactive Chernobyl waste towards Moscow can be found on this link.. there seems to have been a health effect in the uk
    the fires are reported in august and respiratory admissions to ICU increased by 30 percent at watford hospital, london in september..

    All relevant info on this article

    UK – Shocking increase in respiratory problems due to Nuclear incidents from Fukushima and The Budapest Medical Isotope Inst.

    http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/23/uk-shocking-increase-in-respirtory-problems-due-to-nuclear-incidents-from-fukushima-and-the-budapest-medical-isotope-inst/

    peace to all here!
    saikado hantai!


    Report comment

  • Redpill

    Isn't it funny that the Scientific American article didn't actually mention 'a million' deaths. Weird huh…

    [Admin: Yes... very weird. Perhaps you should try learning about the 'Find' feature in your browser. For example, type control-F, then type 'million'. You will then notice the final sentence of the Scientific American excerpt above: "Estimates... from the 1986 Chernobyl explosion, which predict between 4,000 and over a million eventual deaths from radiation exposure" -- Hope that helps.]


    Report comment

  • Trawling4Trolls

    "The firefighters themselves are dedicated and hard working, Zibtsev added, but they don't have much professional training, protective suits or breathing apparatuses – standard equipment for American firefighters dealing with hazardous materials. "They're obviously not prepared for a major wildfire situation," he said."

    dedicated, hard working, untrained, ungeared, and lazy in clearing away fallen trees that obstruct?

    "the fire lanes designed to get them to a blaze quickly are untended, often blocked by fallen trees and brush." because the Ukraine govt. forbade them to clear. And they obey, kind of like the King's deer in Britain, Ukraine style? ok

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=at-chernobyl-radioactive-danger-lurks-in-the-trees


    Report comment

  • ftlt

    This is different and maybe important… The big science mags have been in the nuclear denier court up until now… Heavily influenced by the for hire nuclear scientists and the IAEA…

    Is this a sea change in the academic community???

    I wouldn't get too excited… They follow the money as much as anyone – the cloistered tonsured twits… Science is for sale!!!


    Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    We have recently created a world and a ongoing operating Zeitgeist.. that must be smoking way to much crack!

    Lets see.. if I pull out a gun and shoot somebody.. I can and/or will go to jail.

    But if I create a worldwide "Nuclear Radiation Contamination Ecological Disaster" that effects the health of many millions of humans and kills almost as many…

    I can get those same sick people negatively affected in the immediate area and downwind to pay for all the cleanup required with their government's by force mandatory public tax/insurance payments?

    While we the ones who caused the actual Nuclear Radiation Contamination accident remain free.

    Some of us even get big bonuses and then we simply return to our yachts and we plan our next Nuclear Power Plant? We all chuckle and say gee to bad about the accident… but man those people sure are dumb.

    It must be way to much crack or is it all those blue pills people are downing?

    Young female children standing outside grilling with their Dad in Nordic countries had no idea that in 15 years they might have both breasts removed because they were standing outside and thousands of miles away a Nuclear accident occurred and the released Nuclear fallout was passing over as they spent time with Daddy.
    http://www.cancer.fi/syoparekisteri/en/research/breast-cancer-in-areas-with-high/


    Report comment

  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

    anne, arclight and others always researching studies should keep a personal copy of all their posts so they can be coalesced in some form for practical use. So much effort is wasted on this forum because visitors will never see anything but the most recent stuff. AGreenRoad puts his work together for easier reference. Enenews would be more powerful if there was a short and concise list of info on these disasters, like amount of radiation released, probable ramifications, health effects, costs and projections.


    Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      TY, Code Shutdown. I've saved some info. But I'm always amazed when I research the same topic another time that I find new information. I'm not ready to start a website. I have one on pesticides, so I could add info.there in the future–I could take my name off that one. I have one on celltowers and cell phones, but it was on a university site, which no longer exists, but is on a disc somewhere here at home.

      Everything on this website is searchable by Google, but sometimes I have trouble finding some earlier posts on certain topics.

      I may do something in the future.


      Report comment

    • this website has been the basis of my research in nuclear-news.net and on my youtube arclight2011 videoblog
      nothing is going to waste.. though it is a mass of data AGR and many others use its data to prop up their research..

      it can be quite interesting doing random searches on enenews.. i sometimes give myself a half hour or so.. and usually find enough material for a collection of links to post..

      as anne says though it is good to save what you can to a disc and do new searches to get the new or hidden files/data .. and it screws with the nsa as they cant do anything about spontaneous posting :) lol!

      if you try planning and working on stuff they can interfere with computers uploads etc .. a rapid post is unstoppable nearly imo

      peace


      Report comment

  • Sickputer

    CS: I have yet to have the 800-pound gorilla (Google) fail me when I need a look at older posts (not just mine). Amazing data mining and retrieval. Enenews seach tool is not useful. I preferred the former policy of archiving individual user posts (long ago discontinued).

    Infoglut is an issue we all face. But I find it not a bad thing…just requires an agile mind to deal with the overload.


    Report comment

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      Fukushima is a huge event, and I direct people to ENEnews only to have them tell me they couldnt find relevant numbers, only headlines and a bunch of blogger comments. It takes a dedication to weed through searches of posts. No, nothing is wasted, but is it really REACHING the public, the visitors? No, for that, data needs to be coalesced and presented in easily digested form. No small task. To date, I have not convinced disbelievers. More often I feel its futile to broach the subject


      Report comment

    • The search tool on AGR works pretty well, in our experience. It will pull up the specific item within the group of articles.

      If one knows the exact title, a search on AGR will pull up the specific article and nothing else.


      Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Fukushima one
    Fukushima two
    Fukushima three.
    It's sad, but I am on my third DVD, of links, pdf's, videos, and data…

    Hopefully, my grandchildren will be able to look back someday…


    Report comment

    • Cisco Cisco

      You better carve your writings/research/etc. in stone, because there will be no power.

      If your grandkids are lucky or unlucky to be alive (your perspective as how you see this); their primary activity will be scavenging for food and shelter and not being eaten by the others who have survived.


      Report comment

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      Jebus, do you mean you are creating CDs full of info on Fukushima for dissemination? How do you get them out there?


      Report comment

  • voltscommissar

    That author in Scientific American ought to do a short course in epiemiological statistics 101. It's a fundamental error to express probability of the increased risk of death like that:

    "170 in 100,000 would have an increased chance of dying of cancer."

    ..is a meaningless statement. Scientific American editors should have immediately picked up on the nonsense and had it re-worded thusly:

    "[our research analysis shows that] for every 100,000 women downwind of the exclusion zone, an extra 170 of them WILL DIE from the direct carcinogenic effects of breathing in radioactive smoke from the worst case wildfire."

    …over and above what the cancer death rate per 100,000 already is.

    This is really basic stuff, surely I'm not the first person to notice?

    A good friend of mine married Lyuda, a Ukranian refugee from Kiev and Cherkassy, a qualified engineer, who — after Chernobyl but before emigrating — used to go mushroom picking in the hills west of Cherkassy. Some years ago she died a horrible death of recurrent disseminated ovarian cancer. Her sister who stayed in the Cherkassy region is dead from breast cancer. She leaves behind an ostensibly healthy daughter in Australia, now 12 years old but can we see the DNA damage????

    Belarus population, where the radiation pollution is even worse, is falling….. the Gomel region especially, where Yuri Bandashevsky did his biological research.


    Report comment

    • voltscommissar

      Will Lyuda's 12 y.o daughter be tracked by IAEA/WHO post-Chernobyl cancer studies? "not bloody likely", in fact impossible, because the rules of their psychopathic murderous game are to pretend that internal emitters don't count, and "let's fool the public into thinking that thyroid cancer from I-131 is the only cancer attributable to nuclear pollution"

      Repeat lies often enough and the sheeple will believe…


      Report comment

  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

    getting the message out… I am Bradley Manning, the little video, shows that entertainers, not leaders or statesman, work to get the message out

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFFkcCh-pCc&feature=player_embedded

    Now collate your data and get it off to Maggie Gyllenhaal or Micheal Moore or whoever


    Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Redpill…Found inside the Finnish Cancer Registry link above…

    "For a 25-year-old woman who received typical mantle-field radiation therapy for her Hodgkin's lymphoma, the risk of developing breast cancer by age 55 years is 29%, remarkably higher than the respective risk of a 25-year-old woman in the general population (about 3%). As a comparison, a 50-year-old woman who takes hormone replacement therapy for 10 years has a chance of about 8% of developing breast cancer over the next 30 years."

    Notice the term radiation found in the first sentence? 29% divided by 3% = 9.666 or that means…

    A 1000% potential increase for breast cancer after these radiation treatments and exposure!

    Follow radiation around in any form used anywhere in any fashion and you will find similar results.


    Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    AGreenRoad you are more than very wise, you are educated properly.

    Jay,
    This one is for you..the books are wrong.
    http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=24903


    Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    From above..
    300,000 people X 26 years=7,800,000 people dead from cancer since Chernobyl.

    How many Nuclear Bombs did Russia blow off in their cold war Nuclear Testing programs?

    Follow Radiation Contamination around anywhere in any form and you find like/similar results.

    The books are wrong and simply part of the newly created ongoing Fantasy Matrix.


    Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Always the truth is very entertaining even though its often simply ignored inside this newly created Nuclear Cabal Zeitgeist!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAszZG6GRY8
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U8CZAKSsNA


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.