New York Times: Fukushima Accident Not Like Chernobyl, Experts Say

This is good news. I trust the good professor at the Mayo Clinic and the UN know what they're talking about.

Before the USS Ronald Reagan moved 100 miles further offshore?

It may not be like Chernobyl in some respects (which I don't pretend to understand) but I think that radioactivity can NEVER be considered "not dangerous" - and I don't care what the experts say.

I'm not snarking at you, ClarkUSA, I'm just disgusted with "experts" after their handling of the Gulf. They're still not acknowledging all the harm that has done. :grr:

"Worsening conditions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan have raised fears that people will be harmed by radiation. But experts say that in terms of public health, the Japanese have already taken precautions that should prevent the accident from becoming another Chernobyl, even if additional radiation is released."

BTW, they haven't "abandoned efforts". The men took a break for an hour and are now back. Japan has asked for US military assistance in dropping water from helicopters, too. Not sure how they're all going to work that out what with all the smoke, radioactivity, etc.

corporations color my choice of words. I realize now I made it sound worse than it was, as though they'd said "it's a lost cause, prepare to die" -- so I apologize for that.

ALTHOUGH, ClarkUSA, I still think it's worse than they admit, not only because I now naturally assume that's how they "report the progress", but a reporter was talking about the energy company who runs it in Japan. They have been caught downplaying, just not informing, and out and out lying and it's been going on for years. Several of the big guys either resigned or were fired (I forget which) at which time the company promised to do better. Then again, in 2007, they were caught falsifying safety reports, and again promised to do better. Today the Prime Minister was said to be using profanity while speaking to them (yelling?) because he's furious with the lack of timely and accurate reporting.

Again, this reminds me of BP - where concern for the company's well being trumps concern for human life and safety.

There is a possibility that if certain events occur, that the result will be Chernobyl-like, not in the explosion that fires the particles/radiation into the air, but that the same type of stuff will travel and it gets into our food chain, thereby it gets into us.

I don't believe experts anymore, but I always hope that those who are presenting a more reasoned, less dire picture, will be the ones who are right.

It's a tragedy no matter what, and I can't even imagine what it's like for those people in Japan. :(

:wtf:

back (just got a CNN breaking e-mail). I was letting my distrust of the corporations color my choice of words.

Sorry -- I realize now I did sound as though it was Run for the hills!

There are, and will be, many forms of results from incidents like these. That kind of response is especially appropriate when you pause to consider that no amount of logic or verbal manipulations will obscure the fact that all life is far more interdependent than words or theories can ever manage to convey.

All we are getting are ways to ameliorate the impact on opinions and concepts in relation to the actual results of what is goin going on. That, in itself, betrays the importance of the actuality of our impact on life itself. We are not going to be able to think or reason our way out of the results. We will all be obliged to live the impact of sort-sightedness based on profits and induced growth based on manufactured consent to continue on a path that is not only unsustainable, but will prove to be counterproductive to all life on this planet and will contribute, in every way, to its demise. Period.

We will only gain sanity when we see that this is the case. No matter who builds a so-called reasonable or scientific debate against our understanding of this process, we must come to our senses and consider the facts for ourselves. Otherwise, we are only participating in a very dire and dismal end-game that features pundits who come forth in order to protect the course of total destruction we have been conditioned to live an accept.

I'm not interested in rhetoric.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You believe something just because it's written in a newspaper article and experts are quoted?

Where have you been during the past decade?

There were experts who said that the Ground Zero air was safe to breath.

There were experts who said that Corexit dumped into the Gulf, in mass quantities, would be
eaten by the fish and would present no danger.

At best, the situation is in flux right now. No one knows for sure how bad this is going to be. So
how can anyone assess--that this is Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, or a walk in the park???

I do know that there are many examples of our own media downplaying this situation, and following
Mitch McConnell's line. McConnell glossed over this crisis, and come to find out--he's taken a
boat load of campaign funds from those in the nuclear-energy business.

It's prudent---given the current state of corporate corruption and media disinformation--to question
articles and experts that appear to be trying to soften this crisis.

also this is, I believe, BEFORE the last events.

This is important to know:

"Worsening conditions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan have raised fears that people will be harmed by radiation. But experts say that in terms of public health, the Japanese have already taken precautions that should prevent the accident from becoming another Chernobyl, even if additional radiation is released."

The article was posted to the NYT website just before midnight. When it was posted is irrelevant to what it says, which is good news for Japan's people. I doubt anyone here has an educational background or experience to match Dr. Vetter's, either, so excuse me if I trust what he has to say and am glad for it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:sarcasm:

I think it's awfully premature to decide how bad this particular disaster actually is. Just because they've taken steps to avert some of the problems encountered at Chernobyl doesn't mean they might not encounter some other difficulty. Every crisis has it quirks.

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html

Right into the "dead zone"

Great stories and observations - after this one you can click on Home on the left side and see more pics.

Seems to me the great tragedy of Chernobyl was the life (everything, including pets. All contaminated) the people left behind and the unknown future they faced, but just my opinion.

I suspect the current problems in Japan will result in nothing like this, but many thought they would regain control
of the reactors, too.

I've seen plenty of pictures of the dead zone, but nothing like this. They should preserve it as a memorial.


Thanks again.

later work, more colorful maps. More people in later photographs, interesting faces.

and you are welcome.

...on this situation. There was an earlier article on the "worst-case scenarios", which
was very fuzzy and barely skimmed any worst-case scenarios. I was really surprised, but
the New York Times seems to be whitewashing this crisis.

If you read the comments section of these articles, you will find incredibly interesting
comments from people who are experts in this field. They often debunk (with facts
and very concrete citations) some of this rosy reporting.

For example, one commentor, pointed out that one of the experts in the "worst-case scenario" article
was a nuclear-energy lobbyist who worked for GE! I looked up the person who was
quoted in the article, and sure enough--he was a known nuclear-energy proponent and
a lobbyist for the industry!

Unfortunately, the New York Times destroyed their credibility on this issue with me. Don't
know why they'd be engaging in such sloppy reporting and pandering to the nuclear-energy industry.

I expected more from the New York Times. Very disappointing.

Read the comments sections in the article--you'll glean more truth thank you will from the article.

Here is what a real expert in the field is saying.
"According to Gundersen, management has abandoned the site and will allow it to "run its course" without human intervention. The skeleton crew is not capable of performing even basic safety procedures.

The situation, he said, " clearly past what happened at Three Mile Island." He said that it is approaching the magnitude of Chernobyl, and could become worse because there is more than just one reactor involved. The temperatures in the fuel pools are increasing, one plant had a fuel pool fire, and there are three reactors in either meltdown or partial meltdown."

<http://www.suite101.com/content/nuclear-meltdown-in-japan----aged-nuclear-us-plants-under-scrut-a359105>

I think I'll take the word of a real life nuclear engineer, one who is tops in his field, over the blatherings of the Times anonymous "experts".

Note that the first paragraph is an indictment of the international organizations under the sway of the nuclear sales and exporting nations for obstructing a comprehensive investigations of the effects of Chernobyl event and forcing research designs that were crafted to minimize the apparent effects of the disaster.

This is work from the Russian Academy of Sciences and is published by the New York Academy of Sciences.

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko1, Vassily B. Nesterenko1,†, Alexey V. Yablokov2
Article first published online: 30 NOV 2009 DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04822.x © 2009 New York Academy of Sciences
Issue
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181, Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment pages 31–220, November 2009

Abstract


Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

...

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.