my letter to the NY Times today:

To the Editor,

In your Editorial today ("Chernobyl's Reduced Impact"), you state that "In the long run, the experts predict, some 4,000 emergency workers and residents of the most contaminated areas may die from radiation-induced cancer."

But Burton Bennett, chair of the Chernobyl Forum and the conference, said that on the contrary, the 4,000 figure was an upper-bound estimate and could greatly overstate the risk from the accident.

Bennett's comment is consistent with risk calculations based on extrapolating from high radiation doses to low doses, using the so-called Linear No-Threshold, or LNT hypothesis.

As stated in the POSITION STATEMENT OF THE HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY, "RADIATION RISK IN PERSPECTIVE," (posted at http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf ), "in accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem in addition to background radiation. Risk estimation in this dose range should be strictly qualitative accentuating a range of hypothetical health outcomes with an emphasis on the likely possibility of zero adverse health effects."

Average Chernobyl-related doses have been a little over 1 rem per year, and declining over time.

The Position Statement continues, "There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks following high-dose exposures. However, below 5-10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent. [....] Collective dose (the sum of individual doses in a defined exposed population expressed as person-rem) has been a useful index for quantifying dose in large populations and in comparing the magnitude of exposures from different radiation sources. However, collective dose may aggregate information excessively, for example, a large dose to a small number of people is not equivalent to a small dose to many people, even if the collective doses are the same. Thus, for populations in which almost all individuals are estimated to receive a lifetime dose of less than 10 rem above background, collective dose is a highly speculative and uncertain measure of risk and should not be used for the purpose of estimating population health risks."

The Chernobyl Forum statement said that apart from the still closed, highly contaminated 30 km (19 mile) area surrounding the reactor and some closed lakes and restricted forests, radiation levels had mostly returned to acceptable levels.

Thus while the media may wish to emphasize that the final death toll attributed to radiation "could reach 4,000," in fact they SHOULD be emphasizing that it is highly unlikely to be very much more than the "Fewer than 50 deaths [that] have been directly attributed to radiation released in the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident."

On the other hand, the Editorial correctly states that "the greatest public health hazard has been mental. People from

the region are anxious and fatalistic, based on a greatly exaggerated view of the risks they face. The result can be drug and alcohol abuse, unemployment, and an inability to function."

Dr. Bennett confirmed that poverty and "lifestyle diseases'' posed a "far greater threat'' to local communities.

Yet the media fail to make the connection with who is responsible for perpetuating that "greatly exaggerated view of the risks [of radiation]" and therefore also responsible for the enormous public health problem.

The unwarranted fear and panic was whipped up by "environmental groups" aided and abetted by a sensationalist media.

Why isn't this news?

===============================================

Chernobyl's Reduced Impact

NY Times Editorial: September 8, 2005

An authoritative scientific report commissioned by the United Nations has found that the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in rural Ukraine - the worst nuclear accident in history - caused far less health and environmental damage than originally feared. The findings offer clues for coping with a major release of radiation from a nuclear plant, whether caused by terrorists or by an accident.

No sooner had the report been issued this week than it was attacked by several environmental groups as a biased attempt to whitewash the potential dangers of nuclear power. But the report reflects the consensus of eight United Nations agencies, including those responsible for health, the environment and nuclear power, and the governments of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.

The explosion at one of Chernobyl's reactors sent chunks of the core into surrounding fields and spewed clouds of radioactive particles into the air for days afterward, contaminating large swaths of land downwind.

There were dire predictions that tens of thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands, of people might die from radiation-related illnesses. So far 56 deaths have been directly attributed to the accident, 47 among emergency workers and 9 among young children who developed thyroid cancer after drinking contaminated milk.

In the long run, the experts predict, some 4,000 emergency workers and residents of the most contaminated areas may die from radiation-induced cancer. That qualifies Chernobyl as a very serious accident but not a catastrophe.

The greatest harm was inflicted on emergency workers; some succumbed quickly to acute radiation sickness and show a slight rise in leukemia.

This suggests that proper equipment for such workers can greatly mitigate the health damage after an accident. In the wider region, the most concrete damage has been thyroid cancer, which has afflicted some 4,000 children. Some 99 percent were treated successfully, and 9 died.

Efforts in areas around nuclear plants to stockpile pills that block thyroid cancer appear well advised.

Most emergency workers and residents of contaminated areas received relatively low radiation doses, comparable to natural background exposures in some areas of the world. So there have been no decreases in fertility and no increases in birth defects.

Instead, the greatest public health hazard has been mental. People from the region are anxious and fatalistic, based on a greatly exaggerated view of the risks they face. The result can be drug and alcohol abuse, unemployment, and an inability to function. Disaster coordinators will clearly have to factor mental health effects into their planning.