Today is the anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
It is not over. Chernobyl spread radioactive particles across Europe and beyond. The fire in reactor #4 burned for over a month, releasing massive amounts of radionuclides which then would fallout and embed into the #ecosystem.
37 years later we still find food contaminated with Chernobyl fallout every year. Often with cesium-137 which is very adept at transporting in an ecosystem once the particle has deposited from the fallout cloud.
Here's a starter for you. Plenty of research findings on contaminated food, especially mushrooms, berries and wild boar all around Europe that you can easily find.
That's precisely why I asked for the dosage information — the article only casually mentions that the administrative standard in Norway is 1600 Bq/kg while the peak detected levels were around ~4000 Bq/kg, which is only slightly more if you look how small the Bq unit is. Even the Norway minimum is not based on a solid and unambiguous evidence of biological impact, but on a number of assumptions and precautions. For example, once popular Linear No-threshold model (LNT) postulated that any even slightest amount of radiation is harmful which goes right against the existing medical evidence of small doses of radiation having no negative controlsbiological impact.
Everything in this world is naturally radioactive, including human body. Every healthy human carries a number of radioactive isotopes, including potassium-40 which decays at rate ~4000 Bq (decays per second) on average. People living in some areas of high natural radioactivity are exposed to much higher doses, and just live with that because all living organisms evolved in environment literally soaked with background radiation and developed compensation mechanisms for it.
That is not to say that Chernobyl had no environmental impact, but its negative long-term impact is massively exaggerated for the purpose of anti #nuclear activism. As the article discusses elevated cesium levels in reindeer or fish, nobody seems to be stating the obvious: we're talking about living reindeer and fish that have been happily reproducing for the last 30 years with no visible biological impact. Quite the opposite, as the article notes:
> The Sami population turned out to have significantly lower cancer rates than the general population. This is probably due to a healthier lifestyle, according to Skuterud.
As you mention wild boar, I visited a colleague in Bavaria in Germany a few years ago, and he complained just about that: he can't eat wild boar from local forests as the "cesium norms are still heightened". When I asked him the obvious question — how come generations of wild boar happily grew in numbers for the last three decades without caring about the cesium? The answer is in how low the norms are set and in Germany they're apparently set to arbitrarily defined, absurdly low thresholds with no scientific evidence. In the same way he doesn't eat wild mushroom, which everyone eats in Poland, which was much closer to the fallout. As a matter of fact I was living ~700 km from Chernobyl for most of my life, and as you can see I'm here, talking and thank God so far no health issues. And yes, I'm also eating wild mushroom collected in Poland and Ukraine.
Just because you, as an individual, appear to have escaped harm, does not mean that your individual experience is equivalent to a scientific study.
Detecting the existence of genetic damage from radiation exposure in wild animal populations is difficult. Most present as stillbirths or mutations that never survive to adulthood & go unobserved.
Similarly radiation exposure in humans may trigger higher ...
1/2
I have referenced scientific research in the previous comment, which you did not comment on, while this one was a personal note in response to that “wild boar” claim.
You can easily detect long-term negative impact specifically by measuring decline of population and cancer rates. In case of humans the conclusions of 30 years of studying Chernobyl are very well documented and involved detailed medical studies of thousands of people and statistical analysis of thousands of cases all around the world.
One such study from 2021[^1] based on full DNA sequencing of children of liquidators, who were the most impacted by direct radiation at the disaster site concludes:
Effects of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear accident remain a topic of interest. We investigated whether children born to parents employed as cleanup workers or exposed to occupational and environmental ionizing radiation post-accident were born with more germline de novo mutations (DNMs). Whole-genome sequencing of 130 children (born 1987-2002) and their parents did not reveal an increase in the rates, distributions, or types of DNMs versus previous studies. We find no elevation in total DNMs regardless of cumulative preconception gonadal paternal (mean = 365 mGy, range = 0-4,080 mGy) or maternal (mean = 19 mGy, range = 0-550 mGy) exposure to ionizing radiation and conclude over this exposure range, evidence is lacking for a substantial effect on germline DNMs in humans, suggesting minimal impact on health of subsequent generations.
Numerous studies also looked at the thyroid cancer specifically as it’s the most prevalent consequence of the release of iodine isotopes. Studies based on observation of actual cases indicate elevated number of cases in Ukraine in the range of hundreds (e.g. 160 more cases in the whole country),^2 those based on statistical models vary wildly which is the consequence of people using now-discredited LNT model and usually involve sponsoring by Greenpeace and other activist organisations interested in FUD rather than reliable results. These studies also do not indicate actual number of cases but potentially shorter lifetime, often ignoring numerous other factors to the same effect (air pollution, lifestyle, socio-economic factors etc).
Healthy boar tell us nothing. Large mammals are not what you study to discern deleterious effects, you look at insects or other species that reproduce quickly. This is why the early studies were on fruit flies, not uranium miners.
Clearly most harm from radiation after large distributions of radionuclides don't come from genetic inheritance, but from internalizing radionuclides. That is why food that contains radioactive particles is the issue, not measurable external levels, or the ability to see a healthy animal at some point. Even the RERF, where the studies you cite on dose thresholds and genetic abnormalities you discuss originated, acknowledge this.
Governments monitor levels in food. Not because they are worried about whole body dose, or genetic inheritance, but about internalized radionuclides sparking cancers, like iodine-131 does in the thyroid. Internalized particles can eventuate in disease, there is abundant epidemiological evidence of this.
You’re absolutely right and I myself was given Lugol in 1986, even though the medical community in Poland later described this largely as a psychological rather than actual countermeasure as iodine-131 half-life is just 8 days and we were given it only like 3 days after the initial release because Soviets of course denied everything initially.
These topics are rather complex due to different biological metabolism of cesium and iodine, which is very well explained by prof. Geraldine Thomas in this video:
(in short, iodine has short life and thus high activity while the body sends it to a single place, so its carcinogenic potential is higher than cesium, which is spread evenly all around the body and has longer half-life)
There’s no disagreement between us on the need to monitor these levels and some form of food safety policies.
I’m just pointing out that we as society have a huge problem with perception of risk which specifically involves exaggeration of #nuclear related risks by orders of magnitude, which results in communal pressure being completely misdirected and resulting in policy decisions that have the exact opposite effect than intended.
An example being German nuclear phase-out where a non-existent (zero) health impact of nuclear power was effectively replaced by coal generation with very tangible health and social impacts estimated at 1000 extra deaths per year.
I look forward to nuclear fusion development in a peaceful world.
Nuclear reactors are vulnerabilities in an unstable world with genocidal nihilists running a rogue state.
Putin's forces in Ukraine deliberately shelled nuclear power stations. They rely on electricity to operate cooling systems. The electrical grid in Ukraine is repeatedly attacked by Iranian drones.
That’s again an example of misaligned media coverage: Russia has been shelling everything in Ukraine, including conventional power stations, refineries and chemical factories, releasing thousands of tons of ammonia, nitric acid (the yellow clouds after bombing), chlorine etc. These had actual tangible impact on local population and there’s some evidence Russians used that as a form of concealed chemical warfare.
Russians definitely used Zaporizhzhia for a form of a “nuclear blackmail” but paradoxically, they only were withholding themselves a bit in the case of nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia. The plant, covered by a massive concrete bunker and in cold shut down, was objectively one of the safest objects in Ukraine.
So their game was specifically targeted at the elevated perception of nuclear risk in Europe, rather than actually using the plant as a weapon, because even if they completely blew it up the biological impact would be locally limited, like with any dirty bomb.
After the 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo, nuclear fission was seen as a viable alternative. Several nuclear fission plants were launched at public expense.
As part of the nuclear disarmament effort, the oil industry inserted disinformation campaigns to erode support for nuclear fission reactors.
Helped by movies like "The Day After", "Silkwood", "The Testament", "Threads", & "China Syndrome", public sentiment turned away from nuclear towards...
2/3
....subsidizing domestic oil production & harmful practices like fracking.
Public subsidies helped #KochNetwork grow into the politically powerful climate denialist machine it is now.
Accidents like 3 Mile Island & Chernobyl accelerated the rejection of nuclear fission plants & nuclear energy research shrank in hopes of slowing nuclear proliferation. It was only partially successful. North Korea. Iran. Pakistan.
The oil industry continues its malign influence campaigns against any...
3/3
3/3
.... form of energy that threatens its hegemony. Including amplifying Fukushima. Denigrating hydroelectric dams & lithium mining. Wind, solar, & wave are relentlessly mocked as nonviable in shows like Yellowstone
The disinformation includes magnifying the dangers of military attacks on Ukraine's nuclear fission plants
Like OPEC and #KochNetwork, Russia wants to keep the globe addicted to its planet-frying toxic product; oil.
The attacks on Zaporizhzhia may have been part of that strategy
100% agree. There was a hypothesis that Chernobyl was an experiment that was intended to create a small controllable accident, but has gone out of control. The intent would be to discourage spread of nuclear power and increase demand for Soviet gas and oil. Apart from cui bono you can point out apparently absurd schedule of the experiment and reluctance of the management to stop it when it was still possible. Also the fact that the accident did not in slightest discourage Russia from nuclear power, when it was the one most impacted, but did discourage everyone else. Against this hypothesis however stands Hanlon's razor, which especially in the USSR has proven to be the most prevalent management principle for decades...
Similarly radiation exposure in humans may trigger higher cancer rates or sterility decades and generations later.
You seem to be talking specifically about germline mutations here and while I can’t speak about this claim in general (would love to see some evidence), in case of Chernobyl this has been proven to be false in the full DNA sequencing study I’ve linked already (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9398532/)
And in case of Chernobyl there was tons of funding thrown at it by governmental, international and non-governmental organisations. You can find plenty of studies here:
The only exception could be the Russian soldiers who dug trenches in the Red Forest in 2022, but apparently even they haven’t received doses that would have any biological impact 😉
The presence of animal life near Chernobyl is not necessarily conclusive evidence of a lack of harm from radiation exposure. Long term radiation damage in wild animal populations is hard to track.
Radiation exposure in Russian soldiers deployed around Ukraine's radioactive sites has not been reported independently of Russian state officials. Their data is suspect.
I remain skeptical of narratives minimizing the dangers of radiation contamination. Especially if they come from Russia.
While the probability of cancer, sterility, etc may decline over time, that's not how humans evaluate risk. No one wants to be that 1 in 100 case of cancer.
Moreover, too many disinformation narratives originate from the media misreading scientific studies, and I'm very reluctant to add to existing malign influence campaigns saying ...
1/2
This is not Russian source, this is British scientists doing research on the ground in Ukraine discussing the case of Russian soldiers based on Ukrainian sources.
Russians of course denied everything, as they usually do, in spite of evidence (drone videos, satellite photos, witnesses) being available of their soldiers digging right in the Red Forest, but the news published by some Ukrainian and Western media about Russian soldiers being taken to hospitals with acute radiation sickness symptoms seem to have been entirely invented.
It’s absolutely true but humans have plenty of cognitive biases - here we enter the area of risk perception which is entirely subjective experience.
E.g. those who in early 19th century perceived electric lighting as dangerous and more harmful than “good old” paraffin lamp or candle, and continued to use the latter, in long term were only harming themselves due to indoor pollution and elevated risk of fire.
@Npars01 Nuclear war is survivable over the long term. But the long term is centuries to millennia, and it's pretty goddamn brutal for the people who have to deal with it in the interim. The humanity that rises from those ashes would be very different from the one that entered that war.
Humans, like all peak predators, rely on an incredibly complex & diverse ecosystem and a collapse of that complexity may risk human survival as a species.
@Npars01 There would probably be areas in Africa and South America where humans could hold out. N.b., we're talking about a "survival" where the population drops from 8 billion to under 2 billion within ten years and probably down into the high eight digits within 100. Humans can come back from that - we came back from Toba - but it wouldn't be certain, and frankly, even if it was, the pain inflicted over the next 10,000 years would be unforgivable.
“There would probably be areas in Africa and South America where humans could hold out.”
Interesting - where did you hear that? I had read that North America’s Pacific Northwest was likely to be habitable up to 5C. (After that the oceans go anoxic and every air-breathing creature dies.) I thought Africa and South America would be deserts or savannah at best.
@Greengordon@Npars01 This is a nuclear war discussion. Climate change is a different one; arguably, climate change of 6C is much more survivable than nuclear war, though it's kind of like deciding whether you'd rather be shot or stabbed.
@Greengordon@Npars01 At 6C they may start to, but climatologists put the time frame for full completion on the order of 5000 years. It's not something that happens overnight, and critically, it's something that could be reversed. Also, while that would be a deeply unpleasant world, life would likely survive, as there have been anoxic events before (though we might be in trouble.)
Add comment