I believe, the only international event that ever caused me a sense of personal panic was the nuclear power station disaster that occurred on April 28, 1986. I was at the London office of an American bulge bracket investment bank, when I heard the news. For days, I felt spells of extreme disquietude bubbling up in me.
The world has advanced enormously, since then. Thanks to the internet, it is much easier to discern credible from noncredible information, today.
As the serious incident at Fukushima et al shows, unfortunately, for many people time has stopped on April 28, 1986.
The concerted efforts to distort by untruthful hysteria causes and consequences of the events at the distressed nuclear plants in Japan are a time-lapse variant (a deluge of false information compressed into the time span of a few days) of the (thematically different) global warming propaganda onslaught perpetrated against us over years on end.
It is amazing how much almost any random interlocutor (here in Germany) knows about the medical and other scientific findings that have been produced with respect to the consequences of the Chernobyl accident and nuclear power in general - without ever having studied any research of the pertinent type.
It is all the more illuminating to read a paper by a scientist who has devoted decades of his life to studying the Chernobyl disaster from the moment of its occurrence to this day.
Thus, consider this article on the Chernobyl accident and the beneficial health effects of low level radiation, written by Zbigniew Jaworowski, the former chair of the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
Chernobyl was the worst possible catastrophe. It happened in a dangerously constructed nuclear power reactor with a total meltdown of the core and 10 days of free emission of radionuclides into the atmosphere.
Probably nothing worse could happen. Yet, the resulting human losses, although tragic, were minute in comparison with catastrophes from other energy sources.
Highly sensitive monitoring systems that had been developed in many countries for the detection of fallout from nuclear weapons enabled easy detection of minute amounts of Chernobyl dust, even in remote corners of the world. This added to global epidemics of fear induced by the accident. [...]
[At Chernobyl, G.T.] a vast environmental dispersion of radioactivity occurred that did not cause any scientifically confirmed fatalities in the general population. The worst harm to the population was caused not by radiation, and not to flesh, but to minds.
The article's conclusion:
It is reassuring, however, that 16 years after the Chernobyl catastrophe, another group, composed of four U.N. organizations—the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.N. International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affaires (UNOCHA)—dared to state in its 2002 report, based on UNSCEAR studies, that a great part of the billions of dollars used to mitigate the consequences of the Chernobyl accident was spent incorrectly. The dollars spent in these efforts did not improve, but actually worsened, a deteriorating situation for 7 million socalled “victims of Chernobyl” and solidified the psychological effects of the catastrophe and the wrong decisions of the authorities.
The report (UNDP 2002) recommended that the three post-Soviet countries and the international organizations abandon the current policy. The misguided basis of this policy, i.e. expectation of mass radiation health effects, was responsible for the enormous and uselessly expended resources sacrificed for remediation efforts. Instead, the report presented 35 practical recommendations needed to stop the vicious cycle of Chernobyl frustrations, social degradation, pauperization, and the epidemic of psychosomatic disorders.
The recommendations suggest a reversal of the policy of concentrating attention on nonexistent radiation hazards, and propose that relocated individuals be allowed to return to their old settlements. That is, that essentially all of the restrictions should be removed. *
But here we enter a political mine-field. How well will people accept losing the mass benefits (equivalent to about $40 a month) that they poetically call a “coffin bonus”?
How can it be explained to them that they were made to believe that they were the “victims” of a nonexistent hazard; that the mass evacuations were an irresponsible error; that for 20 years, people were unnecessarily exposed to suffering and need; that vast areas of land were unnecessarily barred from use; and that their countries’ resources were incredibly squandered?
Would fulfilling the recommendations of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2000 report again result in a political catharsis and perhaps induce violent reactions? Probably not in Russia, where a more rational approach to Chernobyl prevails. But the political classes of Belarus and Ukraine have for years demonstrated a much more emotional approach. When the UNSCEAR 2000a report, documenting the low incidence of serious health hazards resulting from the Chernobyl accident, was presented to the U.N. General Assembly, the Belarus and Ukraine delegations lodged a fulminating protest.
This set the stage for the Chernobyl Forum in 2002, and helped to focus its agenda. Today, the Chernobyl rumble and emotions are beginning to settle down. In the centuries to come, the catastrophe will be remembered as a proof that nuclear power is a safe means of energy production.
Recent Comments