Scientists had to invent new techniques to determine how much radiation people might have actually received. For instance, Chumak and his colleagues developed a way to estimate doses people received by analyzing tooth enamel for effects of ionizing radiation. The Kiev-based team also helped establish ways to three-dimensionally simulate the radiation fields surrounding radioactive material from the disaster.
In the end there are only a handful of rigorous studies linking Chernobyl to disease, Chumak explains. For instance, there have been at least 1,800 documented cases of thyroid cancer in children up to 14 years of age when the disaster happened, far more than normal. Children's thyroid glands are especially vulnerable, because they are prone to absorbing radioactive iodine, a by-product of the meltdown. Also, there seem to be increased levels of leukemia and cataracts at statistically significant levels among liquidators. "We're desperately looking for the effects of radiation, but we have not found more than thyroid cancer, leukemia and cataracts that is convincing," Chumak says.
There is no doubt that people who lived in the exclusion zone have suffered problems. In addition to the cancer and cataracts reported, one also sees issues with the cardiovascular, lung, digestive and kidney systems. "We see early aging in the group from the Chernobyl disaster—if we see a man from that group who is, say, 50, the medical examination might suggest he is 10 or 15 years older compared with a member of the population of Ukraine not influenced by the disaster," says Anver Gasanov, deputy chief medical officer at the Research Center for Radiation Medicine.
Whereas the obvious culprit might be radiation, however, other factors might be at play. For instance, elderly people who were allowed to resettle inside the exclusion zone actually live longer than those who were not, Chumak says.
The issue might be stress. "You have all kinds of stress connected with the disaster that can lead to bad habits, such as smoking, drinking, drugs as well as add to disorders such as depression, and that then influences other diseases they can get," Gasanov explains.
More than 350,000 people from the most severely contaminated areas were relocated, and the move from a rural or village home to a completely unfamiliar life in a city apartment for many could have been traumatic, especially for the elderly, Chumak says. And when it comes to liquidators, "there is 'victim syndrome,' where they think they are damaged beyond repair and there is no point in carrying on with their lives," he adds.
Scientists are continuing to research other potential effects of the disaster, such as whether increased incidence of mental retardation is occurring in subsequent generations due to their progenitors' radiation exposure. "We have looked at the children of victims, and now we are looking at a next generation of victims, the grandsons and granddaughters," Gasanov says.
The work done on Chernobyl is now finding use far beyond the disaster, and may be useful in assisting researchers addressing any health impacts of the latest nuclear plant disaster in Fukushima, Japan. At the same time, here in Kiev physicist Elena Bakhanova at the Research Center for Radiation Medicine is adapting the principles used to three-dimensionally model radiation fields at Chernobyl to help investigate the health effects of medical radiation.
"There are many doctors now with no training in radiology who are dealing with radiation, such as minimally invasive procedures carried out by regular cardiologists," Chumak says. "We want to learn more about the harm there might be to patients and to doctors."
Chernobyl: Timeline of a Tragedy
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
5 Comments
Add CommentWhat makes you think your made up figures are more accurate than the other made up figures? You call yourself 'ConcernedCitizen' when you do not seem all that concerned about human life or any other life. Why would we want to build a source of energy that is as deadly and destructive as radioactive power plants have proven themselves to be when there are cleaner, safer and cheaper to build and maintain energy sources like the first commenter said? We are trying to get away from killer sources of fossil fuel and nuclear is a very dangerous and destructive form of fossil fuel. We no longer have to use fossil fuel for anything, so why are people trying to turn this deadly and destructive form of fossil fuel into a never ending debate like they did with abortion? Are you so eager to destroy human life that you would go to any means to do so?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know of no sources of energy that are "cleaner, safer AND cheaper to build and maintain." Comparing the costs of solar and wind to coal and nuclear will show that they cost around 3-4 as much to build, based on the most currently constructed power plants. Switching to solar/wind would mean everything in our country would cost 3-4x as much, which would make us unable to compete in this world economy and cause massive economic hardships with increased deaths and suicide rates as this nation becomes overwhelmed with poverty. Environmentalists like to think that we can just flip on a switch and convert everything to solar/wind, but they fail to look at the consequences of this action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear is an imperfect technology, but a necessary evil until we either perfect fusion or solar/wind/geothermal/tidal increase to an efficiency level that is sustainable.
Cleaner, safer or cheaper? Pick any two. Except for clean and cheap, or safe and cheap. Oh - sorry, well I guess you can't have either clean OR safe along with cheap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the people who are effected by this terrible disaster and who didn't find suicide attractive might wish that they had paid higher fuel bills for a less lethal form of power generation.
Many of us already live frugally, energy-wise. Many of us already eschew products that are made, raised or grown by energy and resource intensive methods. You'll excuse us for thinking that we should not suffer for the profligate lifestyles of others.
NO NUKES!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2-10 000 times our background level radiation is not so bad at all, it can even make you healthier?
See:
Dose Response. 2010; 8(2): 148–171. PMCID: PMC2889503
2010 University of Massachusetts
Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT
Zbigniew Jaworowski
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ppmc/articles/PMC2889503/#b56-drp-08-148
…. The most nonsensical, expensive and harmful action, however, was the evacuation of 336,000 people from contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union, where the radiation dose from Chernobyl fallout was about twice the natural dose. Later this limit was decreased to even below the natural level and was some five times lower than a radiation dose rate of 5.25 mSv/year at Grand Central Station in New York City (Benenson et al 2006).
The evacuation caused great harm to the populations of Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine. It led to mass psychosomatic disturbances, great economic loss and traumatic social consequences. According to Academician Leonid A. Ilyin, the leading Russian authority on radiation protection, the mass relocation was implemented by the Soviet government under the pressure of populists, ecologists and self-appointed “specialists”, and it was done against the advice of the best Soviet scientists (Ilyin 1995; Ilyin 1996). The really dangerous air radiation dose rate of 1 Gy/h on 26 April 1986 (0.01 Gy/h 2 days later) covered an uninhabited area of only about 0.5 km2 in two patches reaching up to a distance of 1.8 km southwest of the Chernobyl reactor (UNSCEAR 2000b)...
Uranium is NOT a fossil fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Different alternative sources of energy [than fossil fuels] include *nuclear*, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal." "The main use of uranium in the civilian sector is to fuel nuclear power plants. One kilogram of uranium-235 can theoretically produce about 80 terajoules of energy (8×1013 joules), assuming complete fission; as much energy as 3000 tonnes of coal."
"Uranium is a naturally occurring element that can be found in low levels within all rock, soil, and water. Uranium is also the highest-numbered element to be found naturally in significant quantities on earth and is always found combined with other elements.[7] Along with all elements having atomic weights higher than that of iron, it is only naturally formed in supernovae."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel#Limits_and_alternatives