| CRISIS WITHOUT END The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe Helen Caldicott (ed.) New York: The New Press, October 2014 |
Rating: 4.5 Hign |
|||
| ISBN-13 978-1-59558-960-6 | ||||
| ISBN-10 1-59558-960-0 | 241pp. | HC/BWI | $26.95 | |
As the Table of Contents shows, the presentations at Dr. Caldicott's March 2013 symposium number 20, all by people of long experience with nuclear power and mostly with significant expertise in relevant fields. Eighteen of these presentations are good; sixteen of them are very good. They fall into two broad categories: the technical faults of the Fukushima plant, and of reactors generally; and the complicated health effects of ionizing radiation.
About the former, I can say (as I have before) that several aspects of the Fukushima1 plant design were invitations to trouble. David Lochbaum and Arnold Gundersen expand on this by pointing out that studies prior to the construction of Fukushima predicted, for example, the necessity of a higher sea wall. Lochbaum notes that, had any of several shortcomings been corrected, the meltdowns at Fukushima might have been averted. Kevin Kamps provides a historical overview of the nuclear industry's major mistakes.
But I think members of the public understand fairly well that existing nuclear plants have flaws which make them a risky option, even if they cannot give specifics. Thus, the greater value of the symposium is in its coverage of health issues. To summarize, chronic exposure to low-level radiation is found to cause cancers, thyroid abnormalities, brain and nervous-system defects, and congenital malformations. Infants and children are especially susceptible, and women are more susceptible than men. Closely related to this relatively new understanding is the fact of bias in postwar studies such as the Life Span Study (LSS) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. The LSS did not start followup until five years after the bombing, and thirteen years after for cancer. And it has other biases.
For me, the four chapters that stand out in the book are by Timothy Mousseau, Wladimir Wertelecki, Steven Wing, and Herbert Abrams. They all deal with health, and convincingly argue for more research and stricter standards. It is noteworthy that the first two flank Chapter 10, by Alexey V. Yablokov. I have more to say about him below.
A co-founder of Greenpeace Russia, Dr. Yablokov is known in the West mainly for Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, which he wrote with Vassily B. Nesterenko and Alexey V. Nesterenko. Reportedly based on a survey of thousands of scientific papers published in Slavic languages, the book makes the claim that 985,000 people have already died due to radiation released by Chernobyl — a number orders of magnitude greater than any other estimate. Published in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences, the book drew strong criticism of both its conclusions and its methodology.2 The Academy stopped selling the 237-page book in printed form, but still hosts the PDF on its Web site. (Several reviews are hosted there as well.) It can also be downloaded from other sites. I have not read it (nor am I likely to.) But I have read Dr. Yablokov's contribution to this volume, and that gives me some basis for judgment.
Here is an excerpt from Dr. Yablokov's conclusion to his essay in the book:
What will be the total death toll of the Chornobyl catastrophe? The WHO and the IAEA only acknowledge the generations spanning 1986 to 2056, with nine thousand people estimated to die from cancer and a further two hundred thousand to fall sick due to the accident—the latter are practically invisible in the total mortality and morbidity of the affected populations. Under pressure, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) launched discussions on Chornobyl-induced thyroid cancer and autoimmune thyroiditis (which has affected up to several thousand people), leukemia, and cataracts. – Pages 116-117 |
If I wrote that Dr. Yablokov's work was up to 100 percent reliable, would he pick up on the snark? I aim it at his vague estimate for autoimmune thyroiditis. After so much study, should he not have a better grasp of the number of cases? This excerpt is characteristic of his presentation: he throws out a lot of casualty figures, but specifies them poorly. Where are they located? What was their radiation exposure? This information is not provided.
Trained as a children's pediatrician in Australia, Dr. Caldicott has devoted her life to curing a malady she came to see as the greatest threat to the world's children: the scourge of exposure to ionizing radiation.
I could admire her lifelong dedication to any cause; and this cause is a worthy one. However, I also know she does not fully understand the physics of the industry she hopes to remove from the planet. This is seen in her use of odd terms like "neutron rays" and her overstated claim that nuclear power will destroy all life. But this volume, probably because she wisely limited herself to writing just the introduction and conclusion, is both informative and enjoyable.
What we need to do is to educate people through the media; to give doctors and scientists a platform to analyze and expound upon the data; to teach people to think about the way we live and the consequences of nuclear power; and above all, to seriously think about how to save our children. America has become as wealthy as it is not only because of natural resources but also because of the ingenuity of its people. America can easily show Earth what an energy-responsible nation can do, and it could take pride in its achievements. But for that, there needs to be a revolution, and that revolution has to come from you. – Page 227 |
Even though I don't share her concept of "revolution", I agree with the need for more education. And she put together a good slate of presenters for her symposium; that's a good start. Now if she would only tone down the warnings and give up on Yablokov...
He includes a number of graphs. There are contour plots of two radionuclides within 30km of Chernobyl, and something on the contamination of Greece. There are plots of rates of various maladies (cancers, miscarriages) over time. There are photos of two deformed infants; their circumstances are not described.
A few of these figures stand out:
I submit that what is important is what radionuclides were released, and in what amounts.
Liquidators are the heroes who fought the disintegrating reactor and stopped the release of radioactivity — often with no protective gear. Naturally they and their families were strongly affected. But this has no relevance to harm to the general populace.
The meaning of this is not explained.
It all reads like a conspiracy-monger throwing stuff at the wall in hopes something will stick. Dr. Yablokov might have a case that the IAEA underestimated the harm from Chernobyl. But he doesn't make it here. I come down heavy on him because his work (specifically the book) has been a centerpiece of Dr. Caldicott's argument for years now.
If you want an example of how to properly construct the case for Western authorities underestimating the harm resulting from Chernobyl, you have only to look at the next essay: "Congenital Malformations in Rivne, Ukraine" by Wladimir Wertelecki. It states on page 131:
A critical difference between the Hiroshima-Nagasaki and Chornobyl radiation impacts is that radiation exposure from the bombs was external, intense, and short. There was virtually no residual radiation [because the bombs were air-bursts]. In contrast, the radiation exposure from Chernobyl was internal, low, and continuous. The impact of radiation on health is cumulative. The average pregnant woman in Polissia absorbs at least 250 becquerels per day, which by the age of twenty-five is equivalent to over 2,200,000 becquerels. A growing number of parents have been exposed to radiation since their own conception. – Page 131 |
Clear, concise, and with solid numerical measurements. That's it!
Dr. Yablokov intersperses his figures with eight reasons why he distrusts the IAEA and WHO. I take a crack at them here (yellow is from the book, blue is my comments.)
To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.