Discussion
BBC news 24 has just had a piece on Chernobyl commemorations and said that 'deformed children are still being born', clearly implying that this was a result of the radiation leak. I can understand that if someone is pregnant when they get a big radiation dose this is bad for the foetus. But can there really be a detectable effect 10 years later?
Some of the isotopes released at the time of the explosion have a half-life running to hundreds of thousands of years so if the pregnant person has been exposed to an elevated internal or external dose then birth defects could be possible.
It may also be explained by pregnancy in second generation off-spring who themselves were subject to genetic damage caused by their own exposure as children.
However - and Idlewop can correct me if I'm wrong - both the deterministic and stochastic models relating to radiation effects have had to be reviewed following Chernobyl as the observed effects did not match the predicted; it wasn't as bad as expected.
It may also be explained by pregnancy in second generation off-spring who themselves were subject to genetic damage caused by their own exposure as children.
However - and Idlewop can correct me if I'm wrong - both the deterministic and stochastic models relating to radiation effects have had to be reviewed following Chernobyl as the observed effects did not match the predicted; it wasn't as bad as expected.
The odd thing, with respect to the half-lives is that the report on BBC is talking about thyroid cancers, it implies 400 or so within the last 10 years in Belarus. But iodine isotopes - associated with thyroid cancers - mostly have half-lives of less than 2 months so would be gone within the first year or two at worst. The thyroid cancer would be expected to develop fairly quickly after that.
Which is consistent with a presentation I saw on Friday by a guy from UNSCEAR which showed a huge spike in thyroid issues in the late 80s and it dropping to pre-accident levels more recently.
Which is consistent with a presentation I saw on Friday by a guy from UNSCEAR which showed a huge spike in thyroid issues in the late 80s and it dropping to pre-accident levels more recently.
llewop said:
The odd thing, with respect to the half-lives is that the report on BBC is talking about thyroid cancers, it implies 400 or so within the last 10 years in Belarus. But iodine isotopes - associated with thyroid cancers - mostly have half-lives of less than 2 months so would be gone within the first year or two at worst. The thyroid cancer would be expected to develop fairly quickly after that.
Which is consistent with a presentation I saw on Friday by a guy from UNSCEAR which showed a huge spike in thyroid issues in the late 80s and it dropping to pre-accident levels more recently.
Interestingly one of the causes of Thyroid cancer is low idodine levels. One has to wonder whether the massive doses handed out to people in the 80s has had some yet to be discovered long term effect.Which is consistent with a presentation I saw on Friday by a guy from UNSCEAR which showed a huge spike in thyroid issues in the late 80s and it dropping to pre-accident levels more recently.
rhinochopig said:
Interestingly one of the causes of Thyroid cancer is low idodine levels. One has to wonder whether the massive doses handed out to people in the 80s has had some yet to be discovered long term effect.
Not beyond possibility, but since the theory of iodine prophylaxis is overload demand with stable iodine so the unstable intake is excreted, as well as any surplus stable iodine, I'm not sue, it's a while since I read up on iodine intake management - if I can find it again I'll see if there is anything mentioned about it.Unless they're showing some clear causality I'd take it with a pinch of salt; there were many deformities and miscarriages in the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but no measurable consequences in children born beyond 1947. As Ilewop says the main isotopes responsible for causing harm are shortlived and have long since decayed out of existence.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 26th April 19:18
The first thing i'd say is that BBC media "researchers" are no longer really a completely trustworthy source!
Time after time, people just copy stuff from random courners of the 'net as "gospel" and are either too rushed, un-informed, or in-expert to spot the, generally pretty obvious, glaring error. In fact, increasingly, the media seem to use the media as their principal resource, and just quote what's been said on Twitter, Facebook or whatever.....
Time after time, people just copy stuff from random courners of the 'net as "gospel" and are either too rushed, un-informed, or in-expert to spot the, generally pretty obvious, glaring error. In fact, increasingly, the media seem to use the media as their principal resource, and just quote what's been said on Twitter, Facebook or whatever.....
Max_Torque said:
The first thing i'd say is that BBC media "researchers" are no longer really a completely trustworthy source!
Time after time, people just copy stuff from random courners of the 'net as "gospel" and are either too rushed, un-informed, or in-expert to spot the, generally pretty obvious, glaring error. In fact, increasingly, the media seem to use the media as their principal resource, and just quote what's been said on Twitter, Facebook or whatever.....
Personal opinion also getting in the way.Time after time, people just copy stuff from random courners of the 'net as "gospel" and are either too rushed, un-informed, or in-expert to spot the, generally pretty obvious, glaring error. In fact, increasingly, the media seem to use the media as their principal resource, and just quote what's been said on Twitter, Facebook or whatever.....
Regardless of what the BBC have said, I thought that given Chernobyl was a massive leak never seen before or since that after effects weren't known and were still being studied?
I've seen and read studies that have shown that the expected deformed animals in the Forrest weren't found to be as bad as feared.
And with the various Babooshkas living off the land people seem to think its relatively safe.
The reality is as already mentioned that some of the isotopes have half life's in the hundred of thousands of years, and with the mass evacuations of Pripryat the widespread rehoming of the exposed means that we'll never really know just how bad it was.
3-4 generations later still experiencing effects is easily believable IMHO.
I've seen and read studies that have shown that the expected deformed animals in the Forrest weren't found to be as bad as feared.
And with the various Babooshkas living off the land people seem to think its relatively safe.
The reality is as already mentioned that some of the isotopes have half life's in the hundred of thousands of years, and with the mass evacuations of Pripryat the widespread rehoming of the exposed means that we'll never really know just how bad it was.
3-4 generations later still experiencing effects is easily believable IMHO.
Roscco said:
Regardless of what the BBC have said, I thought that given Chernobyl was a massive leak never seen before or since that after effects weren't known and were still being studied?
I've seen and read studies that have shown that the expected deformed animals in the Forrest weren't found to be as bad as feared.
And with the various Babooshkas living off the land people seem to think its relatively safe.
The reality is as already mentioned that some of the isotopes have half life's in the hundred of thousands of years, and with the mass evacuations of Pripryat the widespread rehoming of the exposed means that we'll never really know just how bad it was.
3-4 generations later still experiencing effects is easily believable IMHO.
If something has a half-life of hundreds of thousands of years it's not very radioactive; it might be toxic, but the radiation isn't going to harm you. If you look up Hormesis theory it might explain some of it.I've seen and read studies that have shown that the expected deformed animals in the Forrest weren't found to be as bad as feared.
And with the various Babooshkas living off the land people seem to think its relatively safe.
The reality is as already mentioned that some of the isotopes have half life's in the hundred of thousands of years, and with the mass evacuations of Pripryat the widespread rehoming of the exposed means that we'll never really know just how bad it was.
3-4 generations later still experiencing effects is easily believable IMHO.
The WHO released a report (pdf) a few years ago giving an overview of the studies conducted in the 20-25 years following the accident.
Regarding birth defects they had this to say...
Regarding birth defects they had this to say...
WHO said:
...Since 1986, there has been a reported increase in congenital malformations in both contaminated and
uncontaminated areas of Belarus which predated Chernobyl and may be the result of increased
registration of such cases. Based on dose levels to which the majority of the population was exposed,
there is unlikely to be a major effect on the number of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes, delivery
complications, or the overall health of children, but monitoring remains important...
uncontaminated areas of Belarus which predated Chernobyl and may be the result of increased
registration of such cases. Based on dose levels to which the majority of the population was exposed,
there is unlikely to be a major effect on the number of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes, delivery
complications, or the overall health of children, but monitoring remains important...
Im involved with this charity and have to say that the stories from the area are still terrible,
http://www.foccwestlothian.com/
Choose your resources wisely and understand what happened out there. The site is still heavily contaminated and that radiation is still casing issues, Also the area is dreadfully poor like you wouldnt believe and this is not a stones through from europe.
http://www.foccwestlothian.com/
Choose your resources wisely and understand what happened out there. The site is still heavily contaminated and that radiation is still casing issues, Also the area is dreadfully poor like you wouldnt believe and this is not a stones through from europe.
Roscco said:
Regardless of what the BBC have said, I thought that given Chernobyl was a massive leak never seen before or since that after effects weren't known and were still being studied?
I've seen and read studies that have shown that the expected deformed animals in the Forrest weren't found to be as bad as feared.
And with the various Babooshkas living off the land people seem to think its relatively safe.
The reality is as already mentioned that some of the isotopes have half life's in the hundred of thousands of years, and with the mass evacuations of Pripryat the widespread rehoming of the exposed means that we'll never really know just how bad it was.
3-4 generations later still experiencing effects is easily believable IMHO.
You're right in the sense that we still don't know the exact long term effects of Chernobyl. Never before the disaster occurred had we experienced such an enormous accidental release of radionuclides into the environment in that manner (airborne particulate matter)I've seen and read studies that have shown that the expected deformed animals in the Forrest weren't found to be as bad as feared.
And with the various Babooshkas living off the land people seem to think its relatively safe.
The reality is as already mentioned that some of the isotopes have half life's in the hundred of thousands of years, and with the mass evacuations of Pripryat the widespread rehoming of the exposed means that we'll never really know just how bad it was.
3-4 generations later still experiencing effects is easily believable IMHO.
I can't comment on the human effects as my work (and colleagues) are deeply focused on non - human biota in the exclusion zone but here is our latest update. It's a peer-reviewed scientific journal:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
Open access so anyone can read it.
People seem quite surprised at how healthy plants and animals appear to be in the zone. What I need to point out here is that the contamination in there isn't uniform- there are hot spots (some extremely hot spots!) However, animals tend not to live in one place and there are plenty of places for them to thrive around the zone and they do.
As for the plants that don't have the ability to go for a walk the story is a bit different. When plants first colonised the land surface on the planet levels of background radiation were much higher than today. So we think (and are actively researching this) that plants can handle the above background levels found in the zone due to an ancient adaptation to radiation stress written somewhere in genetics.
Having got back from Chernobyl in September last year I'm happy to answer any questions but don't worry, I'm not radioactive.
I remember hearing a story of the three legged frogs around Chernobyl. "Freakish creatures caused by radiation", was the claim made by many.
Years later an alternative theory showed that actually these malformed creatures, were not actually abnormal in wider populations, but the level of predation around Chernobyl was actually hugely lower, owing to the lack of human influence, and loss of habitat. So the appearance of these bizarre creatures, was not owing to radiation, but rater the change in environment.
I've often wondered how far that theory reaches.
Years later an alternative theory showed that actually these malformed creatures, were not actually abnormal in wider populations, but the level of predation around Chernobyl was actually hugely lower, owing to the lack of human influence, and loss of habitat. So the appearance of these bizarre creatures, was not owing to radiation, but rater the change in environment.
I've often wondered how far that theory reaches.
Prof Prolapse said:
I remember hearing a story of the three legged frogs around Chernobyl. "Freakish creatures caused by radiation", was the claim made by many.
Years later an alternative theory showed that actually these malformed creatures, were not actually abnormal in wider populations, but the level of predation around Chernobyl was actually hugely lower, owing to the lack of human influence, and loss of habitat. So the appearance of these bizarre creatures, was not owing to radiation, but rater the change in environment.
I've often wondered how far that theory reaches.
Also true of two headed flowers, again, not just found in areas of high radioactive contamination- just no lawnmowers getting rid of them all. Years later an alternative theory showed that actually these malformed creatures, were not actually abnormal in wider populations, but the level of predation around Chernobyl was actually hugely lower, owing to the lack of human influence, and loss of habitat. So the appearance of these bizarre creatures, was not owing to radiation, but rater the change in environment.
I've often wondered how far that theory reaches.
Thank you ncaplin for introducing some rational debate, and to the OP, where was it on the BBC you heard about "deformed children"?
All I can find is a documentary from 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njTQaUCk4KY which at at an hour long I'm not going to sit through to do your checking for you.
For evidence of the human effects of the disater, I turn to the WHO Report, ten years ago, but still relevant: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/ba...
It is no surprise that the levels of radiation that people have been exposed to have produced a surge in Thyroid and other cancers, in leukaemias, in cataracts and it is suggested cardiovascular disease, but "deformed children"? This paragraph demolishes that idea:
"Reproductive and hereditary effects and children's health
Given the low radiation doses received by most people exposed to the Chernobyl accident, no effects on fertility, numbers of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications have been demonstrated nor are there expected to be any. A modest but steady increase in reported congenital malformations in both contaminated and uncontaminated areas of Belarus appears related to improved reporting and not to radiation exposure."
John
All I can find is a documentary from 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njTQaUCk4KY which at at an hour long I'm not going to sit through to do your checking for you.
For evidence of the human effects of the disater, I turn to the WHO Report, ten years ago, but still relevant: http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/ba...
It is no surprise that the levels of radiation that people have been exposed to have produced a surge in Thyroid and other cancers, in leukaemias, in cataracts and it is suggested cardiovascular disease, but "deformed children"? This paragraph demolishes that idea:
"Reproductive and hereditary effects and children's health
Given the low radiation doses received by most people exposed to the Chernobyl accident, no effects on fertility, numbers of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications have been demonstrated nor are there expected to be any. A modest but steady increase in reported congenital malformations in both contaminated and uncontaminated areas of Belarus appears related to improved reporting and not to radiation exposure."
John
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff