...praise to your internet-sleuthing skills; omgsomuchtoread.
OH, and my little brother is living in Korea for the next year. I sent him a pocket dosimeter a few weeks ago.
Thanks for the follow-up, Aaron. I withdraw my previous remarks regarding your reaction to this report. And these numbers only reflect the kids? Is there any associated data regarding the adult population, or is that too confounded by all the other potential risk factors?
Again, children at higher risk after exposure to radiation.........
and 'not trusting the govt' is becoming universal phenomena
Some of those numbers strike me as really amazing, especially the respiratory column.
Is it accurate to read this table as signifying that by 1990 half the kids in Gomel Provence had respiratory problems and that by 1995 more than 80% had respiratory problems?
And do sd knos if the definition of respiratory problems slackened in later years, or did that continue to mean "serious" respiratory problems, as it presumably did in 1985 when less than one percent of the kids had such problems? If there was no slackening in the diagnostic procedure, and I suppose even if there was, that increase is jaw dropping.
Excuse me, what I meant in the second paragraph was "And do you know if . . ."
We have a GOLDEN opportunity to study these theories(and others)extensively now forming on the Missouri at Ft. Calhoun and Cooper.
I hate to even ask what exactly death from "mental disorder" even refers to. Is this suicide? Did suicides go up 9.1 fold from a radiation event? This table does say morbidity so I don't know what else to even guess "mental disorder" means and what the causal relationship is or could be to radiation.
I'm not a doctor or medical expert so I really don't know.
"Morbidity" means incidence of disease, not death; it's different than "mortality". (It's scarcely possible for 127,768 out of 100,000 juveniles to die.) No doubt some or all of the rise in mental illness is due to stress, fear, uncertainty, etc.: all due to Chernobyl, but very likely not due to the health effects of radiation.
That's the correct interpretation, but I'm not sure about how the statistician might have handled double-counting. What I mean is, if one child suffered two attacks of respiratory illness in one year, is that counted once (one child affected), or twice? Perhaps I will be able to find the Pflugbeil reference, which should address these questions.
One thing to bear in mind with regard to the figures in the 90s is that the collapse of the Soviet Union itself had huge public health consequences. Average life expectancy dropped by several years in the 90s, which means A LOT of people died many years earlier than they had been dying, would have died. Presumably most of those people got sick before they died, and they got sick because of "adverse changes" in nutrition, public health conditions, access to health care, etc., not just Chernobyl. So I'm sure ALL these changes in the numbers aren't due to radiation.
But some of those numbers really are pretty jaw-dropping and I would bet (though don't know) that some of them, such as the morbidity numbers for respiratory problems, far exceed the changes in the comparable numbers for the rest of the former soviet states.
During a small meeting between me and Jablokov he told me, that the total dose is spread over all kinds of people: healthy mature, ill, unborn, children. So we have different effects. An unborn - damaged by Tritium emitted during "normal" mode of an reactor (emitted by the cooling towers) is damaged during the 10th pregnancy week and develops leukemia, 3 - 4 years after it is born. Here is a video I've made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmvn-BnsPkE and this is the Jablkovo-one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C0wZv462Ug
Ahhh thanks - it was an honest question but these days on the internet sincerity comes across as snark.