The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Giving Green the red light > Comments

Giving Green the red light : Comments

By Ben Heard, published 12/4/2011

The United Nations is quite clear that deaths from Chernobyl were only in the tens.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Ok Jim. This can’t go on indefinitely. You have almost completely refused to engage with my criticisms, but through your comments your position has clarified in some important ways:

• You regard UNSCEAR as a fringe scientific body. Everyone else regards them as the peak scientific body for this nuclear accident

• You regard their findings as not credible, since your lower end estimate for credibility is 9,000 fatalities. The findings were presented to the United Nations general assembly, so I rather think their credibility is beyond reproach.

And finally, for the third time now, UNSCEAR comments clearly that any illness from the low levels of radiation will be so small as to be beyond detection, and in their general conclusions state that “To date, there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect in the general population that can be attributed to radiation exposure” (Page 65, paragraph 95, final bullet point). And that’s after 20 years, a goodly proportion of the average human life.
I think this, along with some (unfailingly polite) correspondence I have had with a representative of ICAN over the last day, really confirms the point of my article. UNSCEAR and their findings are deeply troubling for anti-nuclear opponents who would prefer they don’t exist. That not being possible, they will either ignore the findings all together, or resort to publishing deeply skewed interpretations as you did in Radiation and Risk. I have nothing further to say on the matter
Posted by Ben Heard, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 11:42:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim,

You completely missed the point. As the level of uncertainty rises, the prediction is of less value.

Given that the rate was calculated based on a high dose, and already the ratio of uncertainty between levels of confidence was 140%, extrapolating to medium, low and very low doses becomes meaningless.

For example the ranges of confidence (given the very low doses for the majority) on your estimate of 30 000 to 60 000 deaths would actually mean that the range of deaths could be from 30 to 3 000 000.

These figures are meaningless and the test would be to compare the cancer rate in the affected area with previous rates and those of similar areas that are unaffected. This comparison was done, and showed conclusively that there was no measurable increase.

While as I mentioned previously, much of the deviation from the Hiroshima results is probably due to the preventative measures taken, and the early successful treatment of 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, the proof of the pudding is clearly that your projections of 30 000 deaths is hogwash.

If the theoretical calculations don't match reality, the chances are that reality is correct and the calculations are wrong.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 12:14:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Graham. My apologies, long day, and I am new to the forum way of life. My comments on Calidcotts conclusions will however be a praise of what Monbiot has uncovered. In short, to achieve a figure of 900,000+ deaths, the work Caldicott cites has attributed every excess death in the region post the accident to Chernobyl, irrespective of causation being radiation related or not. Given that there are a lot of ways to die, and only three years later a massive social upheaval occurred, this is patently ridiculous. Thankfully Jim Green seems to agree as he does not include this as a credible estimate in his earlier comment. Furthermore the report, released through the annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, has not been peer reviewed by them, and they do not stand behind the findings, so any inference that it is their report is incorrect.
And others will know better than me but yes, your questions about natural background radiation lead to some interesting places. My examples are more global than local. I understand the Colorado Plateau (a beautiful place) is highly radioactive by background standards because of the rock. Cornwall is more radioactive than London for similar reasons. Ramsar in Iran is right up there. A skiing trip exposes you to elevated levels because of the altitude. So a skiing trip in Colorado? :) As for the x-ray, that’s different altogether. One good scan will hit you will more than a year of background radiation. For certain types of cancer, you will receive managed doses in high concentration to kill the cancer. No one wants that, but it is survivable and profoundly prolongs life for those people. All of this is worth knowing when deciding how to respond. But none of it should ever be used glibly to infer people are silly for being worried about radiation. Some people fall into that trap.
Posted by Ben Heard, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 3:05:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@SP, exactly my point, which was to highlight that Green's use of '600,000 Sv' is an egregious non sequitur without any qualification as to population size or duration of exposure.
Posted by Mark Duffett, Wednesday, 13 April 2011 11:44:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Mark Duffet, to come to Green's defence (believe it or not), in this case he doesn't need to qualify it. This "standard risk assessment" rate for cancer permits him to do exactly what he did and strictly speaking he has applied it correctly. BUT, it's up to the rest of us to decide whether that is actually worth anything, and as you and SP are noting, reality is nowhere near so simple as this standard risk idea suggests. It all stems from the notion of linear non-threshold risk of harm from radiation, which makes radiation very different from other toxins, where curves and thresholds clearly apply. As UNSCEAR point out, the LNT model may have a place as a precautionary approach to setting guidelines, but NOT for determining actual impacts from an event, where there is no substitute for actual studies.
Posted by Ben Heard, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:22:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To respond to Ben's points:

1. No, I don't regard UNSCEAR as fringe though in this report it goes a long way down the path of adopting the fringe view that low-level radiation is harmless. Yet it doesn't go all the way - it doesn't assert that the death toll from widespread radiation was zero, as Ben seems to be claiming.

I accept the BEIR conclusion that "the balance of evidence from epidemiologic, animal and mechanistic studies tend to favor a simple proportionate relationship at low doses between radiation dose and cancer risk." The fringe view is that low level radiation is harmless - that view has very little currency beyond the nuclear industry and its most strident supporters.

2. Ben says that i regard UNSCEAR's findings as not credible, since my lower end estimate for credibility is 9,000 fatalities. But UNSCEAR simply didn't make any finding. It doesn't assert that the death toll from widespread radiation was zero, as Ben seems to be claiming.

3. Ben seems impressed with UNSCEAR's comments that any illness from the low levels of radiation will be so small as to be beyond detection. But that's my point precisely - no-one would expect to be able to demonstrate statistically-significant increases after very low exposures, and any study that did demonstrate statistical-significance would rightly be treated with suspicion.

Lastly, Ben imagines UNSCEAR and its findings "are deeply troubling for anti-nuclear opponents". UNSCEAR doesn't come to any conclusions that would trouble anyone - it sits on the fence. I would be concerned about indefensible claims that the Chernobyl death toll was 30-60 if i thought that claim was widely believed. But i think it is generally regarded as spin from an industry which has little public credibility.
Posted by Jim Green, Thursday, 14 April 2011 10:19:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy