Comments: Chernobyl: Health Statistics for Adults, and a Counterfactual

In answer to your admitted ignorance, Tula and Lipetsk are indeed more or less reasonably comparable regions. In fact, if anything Tula would be expected to be closer to the "Massachusetts" of your example, since it directly borders Moscow oblast, while Lipetsk does not (in fact, it borders Tula oblast). That alone means that Tula is at least marginally more wealthy and its residents have access to at least marginally better care.

Posted by JMM at July 7, 2011 09:38 PM

I wonder if Chernobyl had a roof top swiming pool for spent fuel, also?

Posted by Mike Meyer at July 8, 2011 04:05 AM

It seems that sanity gets lost in the details sometimes.

Posted by Dredd at July 8, 2011 10:03 AM

Fascinating again Aaron, grazzi.

You wrote: "it is not apparent to me why the sensible conclusions of Russian health researchers and scientists can be blithely dismissed."

Chorus: Follow the social-economic motive.

Posted by N E at July 8, 2011 01:33 PM

The word "healthy" is certainly fuzzy.

I chimed in on a previous thread about the mortality of infants in the NW. My simple question was about the causes and or a causal link. Low or moderate level radiation exposure to my knowledge has no possible mechanism for causing death in the short term.

I could be wrong but I would like to hear of any possible causal relationship between short term exposure to low level radiation and infant fatalities.

I've got no ax to grind and am not debunking anything. However without any plausible explanation for radiations causation in the deaths I am afraid that this sort of information could prove counter productive.

Posted by rapier at July 9, 2011 09:40 AM

@rapier -

Sure, "healthy" is fuzzy. But you can click on the link to Dr. Nyagu's presentation, and go on from there to read the Greenpeace report, &c, for clarification.

I understand what you're asking, but a) I don't find it hard to imagine, since in very young children the rate of cell division is extremely high, and b) I think you've got the nature of scientific investigation backward in any event.

Regarding a), it's generally accepted today (although once it was not) that pregnant women should not have abdominal X-rays. This is because of the risk of harm to the fetus from the dose of X-ray radiation. Nevertheless, we hear all the time "as safe as an X-ray".

Regarding b), what we have is a theory (really, a set of theories) about the health risks of radiation exposure - that radiation causes cancer, that high doses destroy the GI tract, etc. But where that theory collides with observation, it's the theory that has to yield. Nature is the final arbiter, not our abstractions of it.

As it happens, the Sherman/Mangano conclusions I posted are wrong. I will post about this later this weekend.

Posted by Aaron Datesman at July 9, 2011 10:58 AM

http://www.thebulletin.org/files/May-June%201996_Chernobyl-Sich.pdf

Posted by Amandasaurus at July 9, 2011 02:40 PM

And yet still do not want to live any where near a nuclear plant no matter what the russians say.

Posted by Edward at July 9, 2011 10:54 PM