1. At the end of their statement, the New York Academy of Sciences said:
    The Academy is committed to publishing content deemed scientifically valid by the general scientific community, from whom the Academy carefully monitors feedback.
    At the end of it all, this last statement says that by publishing Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, the NYAC stands by it, even if The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific opinions about the Annals Chernobyl volume, are their own. That is, the work may be so much opinion or views, but the NYAC agrees with it. Shame on them.
    My opinion of the NYAC will change when they issue a clear denunciation of the work.

  2. Rod, just FYI.
    The main author of that book “Chernobyl: Consequences…” is Dr. Yablokov. Here in Russia his is well known as a fierce critic of all that contains “nuclear” in its name. His last creations are full of that rubbish like hundreds million of nuclear victims, NPPs as causes of all destructive hurricanes (no jokes!), small dose effects, etc.
    But! The problem is that Dr. Yablokov was a real scientist, he is a corresponding member of Russian Academy of Science. He had been awarded a long ago as a ocean biologist or something like that, and this title is a lifelong. So now he is aged enough for the real science, but not for his anti-nuclear crusade.
    And his high sci title works for him and opens the door in media and publishing houses. This fact could also affect NYAS + influence of American anti-nuclear activists as well.
    I have read a number of anti-nuclear brochures by Dr. Yablokov that are full of distortions and pervert facts. That was nothing more than anti-nuclear propaganda but pretended to be a real researches. Probably this time NYAS has been deceived)

  3. Note that the New York Academy of Sciences is a membership group. The only qualification is that you pay $108 per year to join. It is not a Academy like the National Academy of Sciences.

  4. Rod, I appreciate your thorough treatment of this bogus report. It’s been hard to find a decent critique of it anywhere.

  5. So now that you know how safe it is, you guys will be sending your children and grandchildren to Chernobyl for summer camp, right?
    On a more serious note, we do all agree that ionizing radiation causes aneuploidy, yes? Thus your claim is that there’s some significant exposure threshold for each individual before measurable health effects can be generated? And the issue in dispute is the value that attaches to that threshold?

  6. @Danny – no, I do not agree that ionizing radiation at the levels we are discussing here causes aneuploidy. The long term studies of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims have shown that there are few, if any measurable genetic consequences from radiation doses below a much higher threshold than you would get from even a severe nuclear power plant accident unless you were inside the containment building.
    I would be quite happy to spend some summers wandering through the lush wildlife preserve that was formed when the Soviets forcibly removed people after Chernobyl. It would be fun to spend those summers with my children and grandchildren – except for the fact that they might prefer more of the creature comforts that human society can provide.
    I highly recommend that you find a copy of “Wormwood Forest” by Mary Mycio. It will give you a different perspective on the long term effects of even burning up a good portion of a nuclear reactor core and dumping that across a wide swath of territory. I do not recommend that action with any kind of regularity, but there are worse things happening every year because we are burning 6 billion tons of coal each year and dumping 30 billion tons of CO2 – along with many millions of tons worth of more noxious combustion byproducts – into our shared atmosphere.
    Radiation is a natural part of our environment. It always has been. Humans and all other life on Earth evolved in the presence of radioactivity. It is absurd to believe that we have not developed some repair mechanisms and other adaptations.

  7. Like Danny, I’d be more critical about what I read in your article: the agreement between the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) signed in 1959 forbids the WHO to inform about the ionizing radiations effects on humans without the approval of IAEA. And the IAEA is only a representative of the nuclear establishment, generating arguable report too when it comes to the effects of radioactive contamination (e.g. Chris Busby, The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation Protection Purposes, Green Audit, Aberystwyth, 2010).
    Nuclear yes, but please no misleading information: we can discuss the death figures either way, but the fact is that radiation levels of 10 billion Ci like we had at Tchernobyl (200 times higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki) did cause aneuploidy.

    1. @Oliver – you apparently have an agenda. You are also quite confused about the units with which radiation levels are measured. Curies are a unit of decays per second, that unit says nothing about the radiation level at a particular time or place. It also does not say if the decays are high energy gammas, high energy alphas, low energy betas, or any other specific combination. 10 curies of tritium that is not ingested by anyone poses no health risk at all. 10 curies of radium that is placed inside human lungs can cause a large number of negative health effects.
      There is a reason that the rules put the IAEA in the driver’s seat with regard to providing information to the public about the effects of ionizing radiation; it is the organization that has the health and science expertise to provide that information. You can say that the organization is “captured” by the industry, but that is about like saying that the ASME is “captured” by the steel industry. It just happens that the people who are experts in a field and know the science and engineering generally tend to work in that field for their professional careers.

    2. Whenever someone brings up the WHO/IAEA “agreement,” that should be a red flag that you’re dealing with the equivalent of a 9/11 Truther.
      Notice that Oliver’s entire argument begins with a conspiracy theory and ends with a fundamental misunderstanding about how radiation works. In other words, would somebody please get this person a tin-foil hat before he hurts himself.
      Getting back to reality, epidemiological studies focusing on the most contaminated regions affected have managed to confirm a causal relationship only between the observed increased risk of thyroid cancer and exposure to the Chernobyl fallout among those who were children when the accident happened. Fortunately, almost all of these cases were treated successfully. No association with radiation exposure from the accident has been clearly demonstrated for any other type of cancer, including leukemia.
      Furthermore, analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe have not indicated 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.
      If, indeed, “Chernobyl killed nearly 1 million people,” as Grossman and others claim, then nature has done a real good job of hiding the bodies from the cancer researchers.

  8. My Atom, do you have any links to illustrate Yablokov’s anti-nuclear attitude? I’d like to read them, they will definitely be relevant over the coming weeks!

  9. This essay would be much more credible if it would not cite the WOH, another corrupt organization, which declared a pandemic because maybe 10 people died from a new flu or the Government of Belarus redeploying people. A Spanish official said that “Russia, Belarus and Chechnya” have become mafia states, according to Wilikeaks and BBC News.

  10. Chernobyl consequences: politically influenced science
    In the letter [1] it was noticed that in the volume 1181 (year 2009) of The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, dedicated to the Chernobyl accident [2], references to non-professional publications (mass media, websites of unclear affiliation, etc.) were used to back up scientific views. Many questionable statements are made without references. Moreover, photographs on the page 132, showing

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts