Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Think Ukraine
- Sergey Ksenzenko (22 September 2001)
-
Do your homework
- Roxanna Senyshyn (22 September 2001)
-
Chornobyl in Ukraine, not Belarus
- Natalie Pawlenko (25 September 2001)
-
Register for Academy Meeting on 'Radiation, Health and Chernobyl'
- Susan Wicks (26 September 2001)
-
Safe, Environmentally Friendly Nuclear Energy
- John Wheeler (4 October 2001)
-
Chernobyl consequences: misinterpretation of statistics
- Sergei V. Jargin (30 November 2008)
|
|
|||
|
Sergey Ksenzenko
Send response to journal:
|
"We have just passed the 15th anniversary of Chernobyl, the world's worstnuclear disaster. The explosion of the reactor at this nuclear power station in Belarus" ?????? Think Ukraine. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Roxanna Senyshyn The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
Send response to journal:
|
First off all, before you write an article, do your homework. Look at the map and check with different sources to find out where Chornobyl is located. It is not in Belarus, it is in Ukraine and has always been on its territory. Secondly, when you blame government or officials for misusing the assistance - be specific. Thank you. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Natalie Pawlenko Toronto District Health Council
Send response to journal:
|
In Mr. Dillwyn's editorial regarding post-Chornobyl coordination, he opens with "The explosion of the reactor at this nuclear power station in Belarus in 1986..." Surely he meant Ukraine? |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Susan Wicks, Fellowship Officer The Academy of Medical Sciences
Send response to journal:
|
Dillwyn Williams is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences and organising a scientific meeting on the topic of Radiation, Health and Chernobyl on 10 October taking place in London: the issues raised in this article will be pursued further and potential delegates are welcome to register. Further details are on the Academy's website at www.acmedsci.ac.uk |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Wheeler, Manager of Training Indian Point Energy Center
Send response to journal:
|
Mr. Williams’ statement that “Chernobyl is unlikely to be the last major nuclear disaster” implies an obvious anti-nuclear bias. Unfortunately, he failed to acknowledge the multitude of “lessons learned” and safety improvements implemented at nuclear plants around the world that makes another Chernobyl-like event extremely unlikely. Nuclear plants are safer to work in, and safer to live by than virtually any other heavy industrial facility. Nuclear plant operators and technicians are the most highly trained civilian professionals in the world. Their excellent performance over the last several years has resulted in significant gains in safety, reliability, and economy that have fostered a rebirth of nuclear power in the United States. The industry’s contribution to reduced “greenhouse” emissions, and reduction in the demand for imported petroleum will make nuclear energy even more attractive in the years ahead. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sergei V. Jargin, Pathologist Clementovski per 6-82; 115184 Moscow, Russia
Send response to journal:
|
Several publications overestimating medical consequences of Chernobyl accident (1-4) and nuclear tests (5) were reviewed in our previous publications. Another example is provided by the article by Okeanov A.E. et al. (6), based on the data from National Cancer Registry of Republic of Belarus, where the following statements are made: “A significant increase in the incidence of cancer morbidity of colon, lung, urinary bladder and thyroid gland, as well as cancers of all sites, was observed in the population of the contaminated areas. This increase is significant in inhabitants of the most contaminated Gomel region ...“ and “The overall cancer morbidity rate in all organs including colon, urinary bladder and thyroid, was significantly higher in the Gomel region than in Vitebsk.“ All the figures below are taken from the Table 1 of this article. The radiocontamination was maximal in Gomel and minimal in Vitebsk regions of Belarus; the latter was used as control. In fact, the difference between the incidence of all types of cancer in Gomel and Vitebsk regions (224,6±6,3 vs. 217,9±3,5 per 100,000 inhabitants) was statistically insignificant. It is known, that better diagnostics, registration and reporting contributed to the increased cancer incidence after Chernobyl accident (7). Accordingly, higher figures for Minsk (263,7±1,76) must have been caused by more developed health care system in the capital city, as compared to rural areas. Tumor incidence in Minsk was significantly higher than in the most contaminated Gomel region (263,7±1,76 vs. 224,6±6,3; P< 0,001) and in the Minsk region surrounding the capital (263,7±1,76 vs. 216,6±3,9; P< 0,001). These quantitative relationships speak against the causative role of radiocontamination, which was higher in rural areas than in towns because of nuclide preservation in the soil and in forests, one of the main exposure sources being locally produced foodstuffs (8). Therefore, article by Okeanov et al. provides an example of misinterpretation of statistical data. Chernobyl accident was followed by many other publications overestimating its medical consequences. Interpretation of spontaneous diseases as radiation-induced, indication of radioactivity or dose levels without comparison with the natural radiation background, conclusions about incidence increase without statistically correct comparison with growth tendencies for larger regions or the whole country, as well as other methodological flaws, can be found in these studies. Abundance of such publications in professional and especially in popular literature created a phenomenon known as “Chernobyl mythos” (9), which has hindered development of nuclear energy production in many countries. References: 1. Jargin SV. Over-estimation of radiation-induced malignancy after the Chernobyl accident. Virchows Arch. 2007; 451(1): 105-106. 2. Jargin SV. Re: DNA damage repair in bladder urothelium after the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine. J Urol. 2007; 177:794-799. 3. Jargin SV. On the overestimation of Chernobyl NPP accident consequences. Med Radiol and Radiation Safety (in Russian). 2007; 52 (1):73-74. 4. Jargin SV. On the overestimation of Chernobyl NPP accident effects: urinary bladder tumors. Med Radiol and Radiation Safety (in Russian). 2007; 52 (4): 83-84. 5. Jargin SV. On non-reliable publications regarding radiation cancerogenesis incidence found in Semipalatinsk area. Med Radiol and Radiation Safety (in Russian). 2007; 52 (5): 73-74. 6. Okeanov AE, Sosnovskaya EY, Priatkina OP. A national cancer registry to assess trends after the Chernobyl accident. Swiss Med Wkly 2004; 134: 645-649. 7. Cardis E. Current status and epidemiological research needs for achieving a better understanding of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Health Phys 2007; 93: 542-546. 8. Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident and their remediation: twenty years of experience. Report of the Chernobyl Forum expert group ‘Environment’. Vienna: IAEA; 2006. 9. Jaworowski Z. Chernobyl victims: realistic evaluation of medical consequences of Chernobyl accident. Med Radiol and Radiation Safety (in Russian). 1999; 44(1): 19-30. Competing interests: None declared |
|||