Professor John Crown: " Chernobyl did not cause increase in birth defects"

Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,805
Excellent article by Crowner on why we need nuclear energy. In particular, it was interesting to read his data on the impact of Chernobyl.

t is widely assumed that the medical and health consequences were vast, with some speculating that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deaths had occurred as a result. In addition, who can forget the harrowing, horrifying, heart-rending pictures of deformed children born in the region in the aftermath of the disaster, children whose birth defects were blamed specifically on radiation poisoning?

Irish people responded with characteristic generosity to appeals for aid, and millions of punts were collected for relief programs which brought children for holidays in Ireland. It was claimed that weeks spent here added years to their life expectancy.



So after 26 years, what were the actual health consequences?



...


Figures from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation are very reassuring.



In the first instance there was no increase in birth defects, even in the affected regions. None. Zero. Sadly, approximately two per cent of all newborns worldwide suffer from congenital malformations. This figure did not go up after Chernobyl. The children whose deformities were highlighted by the charities did not develop them as a result of radiation.


There was an increase in thyroid cancer in children. This is a rare disease, and one which is near-uniformly curable. In the aftermath of Chernobyl it remained rare and remained near-uniformly curable. It is estimated that one new case per million children per year occurred worldwide. In the most heavily irradiated areas, the incidence reached 100 per million.



There was no increase in any other cancer.
Click to expand...
 
Regardless of who wrote the report, I find it hard to believe that such a huge release of radiation didn't have some effect on birth defects. It's interesting to note that Mr. Crown, the author of the article, is in favour of Ireland using nuclear power. One could argue that "he would say that, wouldn't he?"

Having said that, I think Ireland's future use of nuclear power is a debate we need to have. I think it would be quite immoral of us to be anti nuclear-generated power but willing to import nuclear-generated power on an inter-connector from, e.g., Britain.

Personally, I am very open to the notion of Ireland having its own nuclear power plant. If we're not willing to harness wind and wave power on a fairly large scale, we may not have any other option in future years.
 
Regardless of who wrote the report, I find it hard to believe
Click to expand...
Dead right Lex.

Ignore the science and the statistics and the views of the Professor of Oncology in UCD - go with the gut feel you get from seeing pictures of poor deformed kids in the paper.

Chairman of Molecular Therapeutics for Cancer Ireland. Lectured in more than 40 countries. Degrees in medicine, science and business administration. Awarded professorships in cancer research from Dublin City University and University College Dublin.



Author of 150 research papers.



Recipient of awards from the American Cancer Society, European Society of Medical Oncology.
Click to expand...
 
UN Scientific Committe on the Effects of Radiation

Conclusions

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was a tragic event for its victims, and those most affected suffered major hardship. Some of the people who dealt with the emergency lost their lives. Although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery workers are at increased risk of radiation-induced effects, the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences due to the radiation from the Chernobyl accident. For the most part, they were exposed to radiation levels comparable to or a few times higher than annual levels of natural background, and future exposures continue to slowly diminish as the radionuclides decay. Lives have been seriously disrupted by the Chernobyl accident, but from the radiological point of view, generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail.
Click to expand...
 
BBC's Horizon covered this a good few years ago (maybe even as many as 5), it didn't go down well IIRC.

But as a large scale study of the effects of radiation it has been pretty conclusive that it might just not be as bad as we predicted. However, it just isn't "done" to come out and say or show that.

In the Horizon doc, it showed how nature took over the abandoned zone very quickly. Ever since they have studied the wildlife population and even though the radiation levels in the animal population is sky high, there are no observable effects either on birth rate or death rate.

By accident we've conducted one of the biggest scientific studies into the effects of radiation and found out that life is a tough old sod.
 
There was an increase in thyroid cancer in children - are we just going to ignore this part. Straight after your highlighted paragraph....
 
Niall M said:
There was an increase in thyroid cancer in children - are we just going to ignore this part. Straight after your highlighted paragraph....
Click to expand...

And are you going to ignore the rest of it? This is a rare disease, and one which is near-uniformly curable. In the aftermath of Chernobyl it remained rare and remained near-uniformly curable. It is estimated that one new case per million children per year occurred worldwide. In the most heavily irradiated areas, the incidence reached 100 per million.

Worrying but hardly fits in with the terror stories that often float around.

There are just as serious health effects for the people who responded to the 9/11 emergency in NY as there was for any nuclear accident.
 
Lex Foutish said:
It's interesting to note that Mr. Crown, the author of the article, is in favour of Ireland using nuclear power. One could argue that "he would say that, wouldn't he?"
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm missing your logic here. Dr. Crown is a doctor not Monty Burns.
 
Sunny said:
And are you going to ignore the rest of it? This is a rare disease, and one which is near-uniformly curable. In the aftermath of Chernobyl it remained rare and remained near-uniformly curable. It is estimated that one new case per million children per year occurred worldwide. In the most heavily irradiated areas, the incidence reached 100 per million.

Worrying but hardly fits in with the terror stories that often float around.

There are just as serious health effects for the people who responded to the 9/11 emergency in NY as there was for any nuclear accident.
Click to expand...

It is still worth flagging up though. The increase is directly attributed to radiation and curing it is a matter of having enough or ready access to iodine (that isn't out of date).

It doesn't fit into the birth defects and cancer scare stories, but it was an immediate risk and it remains a risk as long as the radiation remains. Most of the deaths linked to Chernobyl were the workers either killed in the explosion or from acute exposure to massive doses, however, all the other fatalities were children and as a result of thyroid cancer.

What rarely gets a mention is that because of the fear of bith defects and cancer rates, the Soviet Government had a programme of forced abortion on a massive scale. Some mothers did escape and had their children, who are all fine and healthy.
 
LA

It is still worth flagging up though. The increase is directly attributed to radiation and curing it is a matter of having enough or ready access to iodine (that isn't out of date).
Click to expand...

Are you confusing curing with preventing?

I understand that by taking iodine as soon as there is a radiation leak, you are stuffing your thyroid with iodine. There is no room left for the radioactive iodine, so you don't get thyroid cancer.

What Crowner is saying is that if a child gets cancer (because they did not take iodine) it is near uniformly curable anyway.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
LA



Are you confusing curing with preventing?

I understand that by taking iodine as soon as there is a radiation leak, you are stuffing your thyroid with iodine. There is no room left for the radioactive iodine, so you don't get thyroid cancer.

What Crowner is saying is that if a child gets cancer (because they did not take iodine) it is near uniformly curable anyway.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Yup I am, apologies. The use of iodine is to prevent the build up of radioactive isotopes in the thyroid.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Excellent article by Crowner on why we need nuclear energy. In particular, it was interesting to read his data on the impact of Chernobyl.
Click to expand...
Better late than never, we should build 3 nuclear power stations now. Can you post a link to his article?
 
None of what this guy says is new. This has been well known and accepted in the scientific community for years. Unfortunately there are people in this world who like to exaggerate the effects of things like this for political, financial or ideological gain. Shame on them.
 
csirl said:
None of what this guy says is new. This has been well known and accepted in the scientific community for years. .
Click to expand...

Hi CS

But he has a good platform in the SINDO and he is a Senator. So it's good to hear him raise these issues.

I would guess that if you stopped people on the street and showed them all the Chernobyl babies they would tell you that it was due to radiation.

This is what Adi Roche's website says today. They claim to have raised €90m over the last 25 years. With a big staff, I am sure that they have.

A new generation struggles to live in the shadow of Chernobyl

A new generation has been born into the most toxic environment in the world, and they are paying the price with their fragile bodies. Birth defects have increased by 200 percent in affected areas, and congenital deformities have increased by 250 percent. Chernobyl’s children carry genetic markers whose long-term effects no one can predict, and the consequences of ongoing radioactive contamination will not be fully seen for another 50 years.
Click to expand...
 
Professor William Reville wrote about the issue a number of years ago in The Irish Times (Dec 2005 I think). He said pretty much the same thing as Crown - minimal damage to human health was caused by radiation. But there was a huge upsurge in psychological problems (post traumatic stress, substance abuse, etc.. No doubt some of this was caused by forced relocation and fear of the unknown. There probably was a small increase in Thyroid cancer but the majority of the cases were treated. If you have a subscription to the Irish Times you should be able to access the article.
 
Just to note.

Taking iodine tablets will prevent the uptake of iodine in the body. It won't prevent the uptake of all the other radioactive compounds that could be released in an explosion.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I wonder how much we, as a nation, gave to these Chernobyl children's charities?
Click to expand...

It was no bad thing as these children, many with both physical and mental development problems were in a very sad state due to state neglect, even though it was mis-represented by many as being due to "radiation".

Some good was done for them though I despaired at seeing it all being blamed on "radiation"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top