Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

Last updated

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment cover.jpg
AuthorAlexey V. Yablokov
Vassily B. Nesterenko
Alexey V. Nesterenko
SeriesAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences, v. 1181.
Subject Chernobyl disaster
PublisherBlackwell Publishing
Publication date
2007
Published in English
2009
ISBN 978-1-57331-757-3
OCLC 456185565

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is a translation of a 2007 Russian publication by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko, edited by Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger, and originally published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009 in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences series. [1] [2]

Contents

The book was not peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences. [3] Five reviews were published in the academic press, with four of them considering the book severely flawed and contradictory, and one praising it while noting some shortcomings.

The book presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the Chernobyl disaster, and 2004 reflect 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released. The literature analysis draws on over 1,000 published titles and over 5,000 internet and printed publications, primarily in Slavic languages (i.e. not translated in English), discussing the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. However, reviewers noted that the sources given are difficult to verify due to the use of non-standard abbreviations and inadequate explanations, the ignoring of well respected Slavic-language peer reviewed work on the topic, and the use of non-peer reviewed sources such as mass media and internet publications.

The primary author, the biologist Alexey V. Yablokov, was a member of the Russian Academy of Science. Consulting editor, Janette Sherman, MD, has researched the health effects of nuclear radiation and illnesses such as cancer and birth defects.

Authors

The primary author, the late biologist Alexey V. Yablokov, was a member of the Russian Academy of Science, and was deputy chair of the commission of ecology of the USSR' Parliament (1989-1991), councillor on ecology and public health to the President of the Russian Federation (1991-1993) and chair of the state commission on dumping of radioactive wastes in seas surrounding the Russian Federation (1992-1993). [4] He is also a co-founder of Greenpeace Russia. [5] From 1977 to 1987, the late Prof. Vassily B. Nesterenko was the director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy at the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. The foreword of the book is authored by Dimitro M. Grodzinsky, chairman of the Ukrainian National Commission on Radiation Protection and chairman of the Department of General Biology at the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences. Consulting editor, Janette Sherman, MD, has a background in medicine and toxicology, with special reference to the health effects of nuclear radiation and illnesses such as cancer and birth defects. [6]

Themes

The book presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the Chernobyl disaster, and 2004 reflect 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released. The authors suggest that most of the deaths were in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, though others occurred worldwide throughout the many countries that were struck by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. [1] The literature analysis draws on over 1,000 published titles and over 5,000 internet and printed publications, primarily in Slavic languages (i.e. not translated in English), discussing the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The authors contend that those publications and papers were written by leading Eastern European authorities and have largely been downplayed or ignored by the IAEA and UNSCEAR. The claim was made, notwithstanding the fact that 13 of the authors of the Chernobyl Forum were from Ukraine, Russia or Belarus. [7] [8]

Reviews

The book was not peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences. [3] Five reviews were published in the academic press, with four of them considering the book severely flawed and contradictory, and one praising it while noting some shortcomings.

Positive

Expert reviews of the book were commissioned by the Oxford journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry. [9] The first, by Ian Fairlie, [10] generally endorses the book's conclusions. Fairlie, a radiation biologist, was a scientific secretary to UK Government’s Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters [11] and one of two authors of the TORCH report commissioned by the European Green Party. [12] He greets the book as a

... welcome addition to the literature in English. The New York Academy of Sciences [is] to be congratulated for publishing this volume. [...] In the opinion of the reviewer, this volume makes it clear that international nuclear agencies and some national authorities remain in denial about the scale of the health disasters in their countries due to Chernobyl's fallout. This is shown by their reluctance to acknowledge contamination and health outcomes data, their ascribing observed morbidity/mortality increases to non-radiation causes, and their refusal to devote resources to rehabilitation and disaster management.

Fairlie notes two shortcomings of the book: that it does not sufficiently investigate the large decrease in average male life spans throughout Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, in both contaminated and uncontaminated areas; and that it does not make enough effort to reconstruct estimated doses of contamination and discuss their implications for eastern and western Europe (though Fairlie agrees with the authors that studies should not be rejected for failing to contain dose estimates—a criterion commonly applied by western nuclear agencies such as the IAEA).

Yablokov (left) and Vassili Nesterenko (farthest right) protesting in front of the World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland in 2008. Alexei Yablokov, Rosa Goncharova, Vassili Nesterenko.jpg
Yablokov (left) and Vassili Nesterenko (farthest right) protesting in front of the World Health Organization (WHO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland in 2008.

Fairlie specifically concurs with Yablakov et al. on three points:

Negative

The second review (in the same volume of Radiation Protection Dosimetry), by Monty Charles, [13] is largely critical, noting several problems:

While Charles agrees with the importance of making eastern research more available in the west, he states that he cannot tell which of the publications referred to by the book would sustain critical peer-review in western scientific literature, and that verifying these sources would require considerable effort. Charles sees the book as representing one end of a spectrum of views, and believes that works from the entire spectrum must be critically evaluated in order to develop an informed opinion.

A third review by Mona Dreicer was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. [14] It was highly critical of the book's methodology:

... by discounting the widely accepted scientific method for associating cause and effect (while taking into account the uncertainties of dose assessment and measurement of impacts), the authors leave us with only with their assertion that the data in this volume "document the true scale of the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe."

The New York Academy of Sciences published a fourth review, by M. I. Balonov of Institute of Radiation Hygiene, St. Petersburg, Russia. The reviewer condemned the book for completely discounting dosimetry and radiation dose reconstruction, relying instead on inferior, simplistic methodologies, such as ecological and geographical techniques and tracking health indicators over time, which are known to give erroneous conclusions. He also noted the inexplicable selection of publications for analysis, which included media reports, websites of public organizations and even unidentified persons. At the same time, a lot of respected, peer-reviewed work from Russian-language authors was ignored. [15] [16] Balonov's review concludes that the value of the report is negative, because it has very little scientific merit while being highly misleading to the lay reader. It also characterized the estimate of nearly a million deaths as more in the realm of science fiction than science. [15]

A fifth review, by Sergei V. Jargin, was published in the journal Radiation and Environmental Biophysics which described Consequences as overestimating the health impacts and containing "poorly substantiated information". [17] One of Jargins comments was

"Prof. Yablokov cites mass media, commercial editions, websites of unclear affiliation and other non-professional publications, to substantiate his opinion. At the same time, international literature on the medical consequences of the Chernobyl accident is scarcely quoted and almost not discussed."

Jargin also states that Yablokov poorly translated the titles of journals and other information sources from Russian into English and used non standard abbreviations for Russian Journals which will hinder any attempts by a person who is attempting to locate and read the sources which Yablokov used.

A reply to the view made by Jargin by Yablokov and A. Nesterenko was also published in the same issue. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sievert</span> SI unit of equivalent dose of ionizing radiation

The sievert is a unit in the International System of Units (SI) intended to represent the stochastic health risk of ionizing radiation, which is defined as the probability of causing radiation-induced cancer and genetic damage. The sievert is important in dosimetry and radiation protection. It is named after Rolf Maximilian Sievert, a Swedish medical physicist renowned for work on radiation dose measurement and research into the biological effects of radiation.

Radiation dosimetry in the fields of health physics and radiation protection is the measurement, calculation and assessment of the ionizing radiation dose absorbed by an object, usually the human body. This applies both internally, due to ingested or inhaled radioactive substances, or externally due to irradiation by sources of radiation.

Radiation protection, also known as radiological protection, is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "The protection of people from harmful effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, and the means for achieving this". Exposure can be from a source of radiation external to the human body or due to internal irradiation caused by the ingestion of radioactive contamination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents</span> Severe disruptive events involving fissile or fusile materials

A nuclear and radiation accident is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility. Examples include lethal effects to individuals, large radioactivity release to the environment, reactor core melt." The prime example of a "major nuclear accident" is one in which a reactor core is damaged and significant amounts of radioactive isotopes are released, such as in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.

Equivalent dose is a dose quantity H representing the stochastic health effects of low levels of ionizing radiation on the human body which represents the probability of radiation-induced cancer and genetic damage. It is derived from the physical quantity absorbed dose, but also takes into account the biological effectiveness of the radiation, which is dependent on the radiation type and energy. In the SI system of units, the unit of measure is the sievert (Sv).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Radioactive contamination</span> Undesirable radioactive elements on surfaces or in gases, liquids, or solids

Radioactive contamination, also called radiological pollution, is the deposition of, or presence of radioactive substances on surfaces or within solids, liquids, or gases, where their presence is unintended or undesirable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Gofman</span> American scientist

John William Gofman was an American scientist and advocate. He was Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley.

Chernobyl is the name of a Ukrainian city, the location of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chernobyl disaster</span> 1986 nuclear accident in the Soviet Union

The Chernobyl disaster began on 26 April 1986 with the explosion of the No. 4 reactor of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, near the city of Pripyat in the north of the Ukrainian SSR, close to the border with the Byelorussian SSR, in the Soviet Union. It is one of only two nuclear energy accidents rated at seven—the maximum severity—on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the other being the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. The initial emergency response and subsequent mitigation efforts involved more than 500,000 personnel and cost an estimated 18 billion roubles—roughly US$68 billion in 2019, adjusted for inflation. It is considered the worst nuclear disaster in history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hot particle</span> Nuclear risk to human health

A hot particle is a microscopic piece of radioactive material that can become lodged in living tissue and deliver a concentrated dose of radiation to a small area. A generally accepted theory proposes that hot particles within the body are vastly more dangerous than external emitters delivering the same dose of radiation in a diffused manner. Other researchers claim that there is little or no difference in risk between internal and external emitters, maintaining that individuals will likely continue to accumulate radiation dose from internal sources even after being removed from the original hazard and properly decontaminated, regardless of the relative danger from an internally sourced radiation dose compared to an equivalent externally sourced radiation dose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Radiophobia</span> Fear of ionizing radiation

Radiophobia is a fear of ionizing radiation. Examples include health patients refusing X-rays because they believe the radiation will kill them, such as Steve Jobs and Bob Marley who both died after refusing radiation treatment for their cancer. Given that overdoses of radiation are harmful, even deadly it is reasonable to fear high doses of radiation. The term is also used to describe the opposition to the use of nuclear technology arising from concerns disproportionately greater than actual risks would merit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Effects of the Chernobyl disaster</span> Overview of the effects of the Chernobyl disaster

The 1986 Chernobyl disaster triggered the release of radioactive contamination into the atmosphere in the form of both particulate and gaseous radioisotopes. As of 2022, it was the world's largest known release of radioactivity into the environment.

Radiobiology is a field of clinical and basic medical sciences that involves the study of the effects of ionizing radiation on living things, in particular health effects of radiation. Ionizing radiation is generally harmful and potentially lethal to living things but can have health benefits in radiation therapy for the treatment of cancer and thyrotoxicosis. Its most common impact is the induction of cancer with a latent period of years or decades after exposure. High doses can cause visually dramatic radiation burns, and/or rapid fatality through acute radiation syndrome. Controlled doses are used for medical imaging and radiotherapy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roentgen (unit)</span> Measurement of radiation exposure

The roentgen or röntgen is a legacy unit of measurement for the exposure of X-rays and gamma rays, and is defined as the electric charge freed by such radiation in a specified volume of air divided by the mass of that air . In 1928, it was adopted as the first international measurement quantity for ionizing radiation to be defined for radiation protection, as it was then the most easily replicated method of measuring air ionization by using ion chambers. It is named after the German physicist Wilhelm Röntgen, who discovered X-rays and was awarded the first Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery.

The Chernobyl disaster, considered the worst nuclear disaster in history, occurred on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, then part of the Soviet Union, now in Ukraine. From 1986 onward, the total death toll of the disaster has lacked consensus; as peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet and other sources have noted, it remains contested. There is consensus that a total of approximately 30 people died from immediate blast trauma and acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in the seconds to months after the disaster, respectively, with 60 in total in the decades since, inclusive of later radiation induced cancer. However, there is considerable debate concerning the accurate number of projected deaths that have yet to occur due to the disaster's long-term health effects; long-term death estimates range from up to 4,000 for the most exposed people of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, to 16,000 cases in total for all those exposed on the entire continent of Europe, with figures as high as 60,000 when including the relatively minor effects around the globe. Such numbers are based on the heavily contested linear no-threshold model.

The committed dose in radiological protection is a measure of the stochastic health risk due to an intake of radioactive material into the human body. Stochastic in this context is defined as the probability of cancer induction and genetic damage, due to low levels of radiation. The SI unit of measure is the sievert.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Madan M. Rehani</span>

Madan M. Rehani is an Indian-born medical physicist.

Ian Fairlie is a U.K. based Canadian consultant on radiation in the environment and former member of the three person secretariat to Britain’s Committee Examining the Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE). He is a radiation biologist who has focused on the radiological hazards of nuclear fuel and he has studied radioactive releases at nuclear facilities since before the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

This article uses Chernobyl as a case study of nuclear fallout effects on an ecosystem.

References

  1. 1 2 "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 August 2013. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
  2. "Statement on Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences volume entitled "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment"". New York Academy of Sciences. 28 April 2010. Archived from the original on 9 May 2018. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
  3. 1 2 Braaten, Douglas (5 November 2013). "Public Letter: A Report on Chernobyl". The New York Times . Archived from the original on 9 November 2013. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
  4. "CHERNOBYLCONGRESS.ORG | Speakers". www.chernobylcongress.org. Archived from the original on 6 May 2013. Retrieved 6 August 2013.
  5. "Center for Safe Energy". Earth Island Journal. Archived from the original on 20 May 2020. Retrieved 21 March 2020.
  6. "Janette Sherman | About the Author". Archived from the original on 26 April 2016. Retrieved 7 June 2016.
  7. Burton Bennett; Michael Repacholi; Zhanat Carr, eds. (2006). Health effects of the Chernobyl accident and special health care programmes (PDF) (Report). Geneva: World Health Organization. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 June 2020. Retrieved 21 March 2020.
  8. "Details". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 August 2013. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
  9. Charles, Monty (1 September 2010). "Chernobyl: consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment". Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 141 (1): 101–104. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq185 via academic.oup.com.
  10. Fairlie, Ian (2010). "Chernobyl: Consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment" (PDF). Radiation Protection Dosimetry. Oxford Journals. 141 (1): 97–101. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq180. PMC   2974725 . Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 September 2011. Retrieved 18 April 2011.
  11. "News - CERRIE - Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters". Archived from the original on 17 August 2013. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
  12. "Torch: THE OTHER REPORT ON CHERNOBYL". www.chernobylreport.org. Archived from the original on 9 October 2019. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
  13. Charles, Monty (2010). "Chernobyl: consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment (2010)" (PDF). Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 141 (1): 101–104. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq185. PMC   2974725 . Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 September 2011. Retrieved 18 April 2011.
  14. Dreicer, Mona (2010). "Book Review: Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment". Environmental Health Perspectives. 118: a500. doi:10.1289/ehp.118-a500. S2CID   52858809.
  15. 1 2 M. I. Balonov (28 April 2010). "Review of Volume 1181". New York Academy of Sciences. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 August 2013. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
  16. Note also Balonov, M. I. (2012). "On protecting the inexperienced reader from Chernobyl myths". Journal of Radiological Protection . 32 (2): 181–9. Bibcode:2012JRP....32..181B. doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/32/2/181 . PMID   22569279. S2CID   24138083.
    "[Yablokov, et al] suggested a departure from analytical epidemiological studies in favour of ecological ones. This erroneous approach resulted in […] a clear exaggeration of radiation-induced health effects."
  17. Jargin, Sergei V. (2010). "Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published". Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. SpringerLink. 49 (4): 743–745. doi:10.1007/s00411-010-0313-1. PMID   20640449. S2CID   40800641.
  18. Yablokov, Alexey; Nesterenko, Alexey (2010). "Reply to letter by Jargin on "overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published"". Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. SpringerLink. 49 (4): 747–748. doi:10.1007/s00411-010-0314-0. S2CID   95438562.