Chernobyl blamed for everything

[cry freedom]

Your heart would need to be made of stone if it was not moved by the story below:

Rose of Tralee's mission of hope to children of Chernobyl - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

Adi Roche is indeed to be commended for the magnificent work she has done down the years for the children of Belarus and the surrounding area.

It may then seem that I am nit picking when I point out the following:

There is no way known to science that this poor child, born as she was 8 years after the Chernobyl explosion, could have been blighted with this terrible affliction of hydrocephalus due to radiation from that said catastrophy. She is no more likely to have developed the defect from Chernobyl than any child from say, Cork, (with a similar brain disease.)

At the risk of being branded Ghoulish I will further state that 99.9 % of the defects Ms Roche’s charity looks after are caused by disease totally unconnected with Chernobyl.

Chernobyl is a handy hook to hang a multitude of frightening medical horror stories on, and a great excuse for lazy journalism.

I am not aware of any statistics from the WHO or any other reputable organisation
which back up the assumptions made in the above article.

The causes of birth and other defects are many and complex and it does nobody any good - least of all the children afflicted - to band them all together under the handy label of Chernobyl.

At most it was responsible for 56 deaths directly and possibly several thousand cancer fatalities though the WHO notes these will probably never be detected above the normal cancer deaths (25% of deaths). They also note there was no increase in birth defects that could be attributed to the radiation.

While I am at it I would like to state, [and this is purely a personal opinion] that the Chernobyl episode should not be called an accident, but a crime. A crime committed by an egotistical, boorish, bureaucratic head of engineering, who rode roughshod over all rules and procedures to carry out an unnecessary experiment

[Drico]

Well the effects of Chernobyl are certainly exaggerated.

My one contention with your post is what you say at the end about the head of engineering. It is grossly unfair to pin the disaster on his head.

Russian nuclear reactors were horribly underfunded and underrated. They were run by political appointees from the Kremlin not the best scientists. Like every aspect of the Communist economy the head of engineering in Chernobyl would have been set specific targets which being largely arbitrary would likely be highly unrealistic, punishment for failing to meet these targets would have been severe and thus bending of regulations was necessitated for personal survival in the Communist regime (this was true across all economic sectors). This was so pervasive in Soviet Society in fact that Gorbachev himself did not know the true facts of what happened for some time after the explosion, under-bureaucrats had kept it from him.

However the principal issue with Chernobyl was the design of the reactor.It was incredibly badly built. Its moderator was archaic and it was not contained in a thick concrete protective building as say American ones were. Also due to a lack of funding it was not maintained properly and due to the bureaucratic nature of political appointments in the Soviet Union many of the staff simply did not have the necessary expertise.

[fiannafailure]

Nuclear power gets mostly bad press in this country, however it is not a panacea either and does need very strong regulation if its to be fit for purpose.

It is also an industry that takes a long time to get started, never mind become established

[Mitsui2]

Nuclear power... is not a panacea either and does need very strong regulation if its to be fit for purpose.

This is a large part of the reason why I dread the day nuclear power is introduced here - not because I mistrust nuke power plants per se, but because the government would be bound to fup up the regulation and I strongly suspect that we'd end up with a high proportion of Homer Simpsons actually running the damned things. Plus the radioactive waste would probably end up being fly-tipped in some quarry in Wicklow.

[politicaldonations]

Adi Roche gets largely a free ride from the irish media for whatever reason. Theres little evidence that the children that come here were directly affected by chernobyl and their own country is well off enough to look after them. Theres millions more truly needy children in the world starving to death and dying from preventable illness but they are mainly black and asian and not as Irish looking as the Belarussian kids. Time the Chernobyl crowd shut down and helped the truly needy in the world and not keep blaming every defect in Europe on a fairly minor incident. Sunbathing kills more people in europe every year than Chernobyl ever did.

[cry freedom]

Well the effects of Chernobyl are certainly exaggerated.

My one contention with your post is what you say at the end about the head of engineering. It is grossly unfair to pin the disaster on his head.

Russian nuclear reactors were horribly underfunded and underrated. They were run by political appointees from the Kremlin not the best scientists. Like every aspect of the Communist economy the head of engineering in Chernobyl would have been set specific targets which being largely arbitrary would likely be highly unrealistic, punishment for failing to meet these targets would have been severe and thus bending of regulations was necessitated for personal survival in the Communist regime (this was true across all economic sectors). This was so pervasive in Soviet Society in fact that Gorbachev himself did not know the true facts of what happened for some time after the explosion, under-bureaucrats had kept it from him.

However the principal issue with Chernobyl was the design of the reactor.It was incredibly badly built. Its moderator was archaic and it was not contained in a thick concrete protective building as say American ones were. Also due to a lack of funding it was not maintained properly and due to the bureaucratic nature of political appointments in the Soviet Union many of the staff simply did not have the necessary expertise.

I, in turn,agree with most of your post.
The end result however is that because of the Chernobyl debacle nuclear power has a much worse press than it deserves.
Admittedly it was poorly constructed and its safety protocols were far below western standards but if it had been operated within even these [lower] standards the whole building would be extant today and maybe even producing electricity.
The said engineer has a lot to answer for!

[FrankSpeaks]

I, in turn,agree with most of your post.
The end result however is that because of the Chernobyl debacle nuclear power has a much worse press than it deserves.
Admittedly it was poorly constructed and its safety protocols were far below western standards but if it had been operated within even these [lower] standards the whole building would be extant today and maybe even producing electricity.
The said engineer has a lot to answer for!

+1

[cry freedom]

Nuclear power gets mostly bad press in this country, however it is not a panacea either and does need very strong regulation if its to be fit for purpose.

It is also an industry that takes a long time to get started, never mind become established

Well Pat, a journey of a thousand miles has to start with the first step!

The reason I keep banging on about this is that I genuinely feel that we will eventually have to bring nuclear power on board in this country.

The question is when?

Going by our past performance, probably when it is too late.

We should plan for this inevitability now.

We should discuss it, lay plans and then at the end of the day decide as a community if we want it or not.

All cards on the table and everything out in the open!

Everything to be subject to the most rigorous analysis and engineering scrutiny.

Surely nothing could be fairer or healthier than that.

It has long been my contention that our energy needs will have to be met with a mixture of both soft and hard technology.

No one option has the the ultimate answer that will keep our civilization from drifting back to the dark ages.

No one should feel threatened or railroaded by such an approach.

I call on the government to rescind the ridiculous and archaic ban on our utilities even [FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][FONT="Impact"]considering[/FONT][/FONT] nuclear power.

[FrankSpeaks]

well pat, a journey of a thousand miles has to start with the first step!

The reason i keep banging on about this is that i genuinely feel that we will eventually have to bring nuclear power on board in this country.

The question is when?

Going by our past performance, probably when it is too late.

We should plan for this inevitability now.

We should discuss it, lay plans and then at the end of the day decide as a community if we want it or not.

All cards on the table and everything out in the open!

Everything to be subject to the most rigorous analysis and engineering scrutiny.

Surely nothing could be fairer or healthier than that.

It has long been my contention that our energy needs will have to be met with a mixture of both soft and hard technology.

No one option has the the ultimate answer that will keep our civilization from drifting back to the dark ages.

No one should feel threatened or railroaded by such an approach.

I call on the government to rescind the ridiculous and archaic ban on our utilities even [font=franklin gothic medium][font=impact]considering[/font][/font] nuclear power.

another +1

[Thac0man]

At the risk of being branded Ghoulish I will further state that 99.9 % of the defects Ms Roche’s charity looks after are caused by disease totally unconnected with Chernobyl.

Its not ghoulish at all, its a fact. A few years ago when a young baby with hydroencephalitis was used by the Chernobyl campaign on one if its advertisments, a friend of mine who is a qualified nurse expressed the same opinion, stating a there are a few cases of the same affliction in Ireland on occasion. So why is every Ukranian birth deformity wheeled out and put at the foot of Chernobyl? Its seems more than a little opportunistic and I might add abusive and in bad taste if that is what is happening. The tactic seems to be that if we are shocked enough by an image, we will not question its cause.

This approach services two agendas, firstly the Chernobyl charitys and secondly the anti-nuclear lobby in Ireland. Neither it seems is overly interested in honest appraisel of the affects of Chernobyl.

I am put in mind of a documentry about the Chernobyl charity featuring Adi Roche in a protective suit. The scene that sticks in my mind is Adi and her group viewing the Chernobyl plant at a distance, and stating that this was as close as it was safe to get. Then detecting an apparent rise in radiation that sent them running to their mini-van with the shout "go go go!". Both before and after that I have seen journalists and reporters at the plant itself, standing next to it with less protection than Roche and her team had. Our own Duncan Stewart of RTEs "About the House" was unjured monkeying about on the structure itself apparently, an event which had nothing at all to do with radiation except perhaps that which radiates from his own usual frenetic disposition.

Ukraine is a poor country and both that poverty and the results of decades of Communist neglect and industrial malpractice cannot be laid at the feet of Chernobyl alone. Yet that seems to be what is happening. However the uncomfortable truth may be that the ultimate results of the worlds worst nuclear disaster are not as apocolyptic as we are and have been led to believe. Thus nuclear energy is not as dangerous as we have and are being led to believe. That potentially opens up a can of worms many would rather see stay shut.

I beleive an EU report on Chernobyls effects painted a picture of an aftermath that was far less damaging than the one being maintined in the popular imagination.

A WHO report had this to say:

WHO | Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident

Bennett continued: “This was a very serious accident with major health consequences, especially for thousands of workers exposed in the early days who received very high radiation doses, and for the thousands more stricken with thyroid cancer. By and large, however, we have not found profound negative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas, nor have we found widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health, within a few exceptional, restricted areas.”

According to the UNSCEAR 2000 report:

"apart from this [thyroid cancer] increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure." As yet there is little evidence of any increase in leukaemia, even among clean-up workers where it might be most expected. However, these workers - where high doses may have been received - remain at increased risk of cancer in the long term.

These reports form the most complete and accurate analysis of the Chernobyl aftermath and bare no resembalance to other more alarmist claims.