ScribbleLive

thanks, but do you have article for source for this? Official chernoybl figures don't seem to attribute any deaths to cesium at all, though rense, busby, et all are all off-scale on claims of cancers, cancer deaths and birth defects. The one youtube documentary refers to guinea pigs fed cesium contaminated food that had birth defects, but have not seen reference to that- radiation causes cell changes which can result in cancer, auto immune disease , and it is known that changes are intergenerational meaning the children inherit birth defects as well as all the nuke waste that will need managing for a few more generations. Chernobyl studies found the cancers started 5yrs after initial and ongoing exposure

by elainekirk 6:04 PM yesterday

Found UN study of Chernobyl effects that's been pooh-poohed by Moret and Busby:
www.who.int
The only deaths are due to radiation sickness from massive exposure over 1-10SV
<pre>

Population (years exposed)
Number
Average total in 20 years (mSv)1

Liquidators (1986–1987) (high exposed) 240 000 >100
Evacuees (1986) 116 000 >33
Residents SCZs (>555 kBq/m2)(1986–2005) 270 000 >50
Residents low contam. (37 kBq/m2) (1986–2005) 5 000 000 10–20
Natural background 2.4 mSv/year (typical range 1–10, max >20) 48

Approximate typical doses from medical x-ray exposures per procedure:
Whole body CT scan 12 mSv
Mammogram 0.13 mSv
Chest x-ray 0.08 mSv
[1] These doses are additional to those from natural background radiation.
</pre>

Ionizing radiation is a known cause of certain types of leukaemia (a
malignancy of blood cells). An elevated risk of leukaemia was first
found among the survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan some two to
five years after exposure. Recent investigations suggest a doubling of
the incidence of leukaemia among the most highly exposed Chernobyl
liquidators. No such increase has been clearly demonstrated among
children or adults resident in any of the contaminated areas.'<p>

reviews by the WHO Expert Group revealed no evidence of increased
cancer risks, apart from thyroid cancer, that can clearly be
attributed to radiation from Chernobyl. Aside from the recent finding
on leukaemia risk among Chernobyl liquidators, reports indicate a
small increase in the incidence of pre-menopausal breast cancer in the
most contaminated areas, which appear to be related to radiation dose.
Both of these findings, however, need confirmation in well-designed
epidemiological studies. The absence of demonstrated increases in
cancer risk – apart from thyroid cancer – is not proof that no
increase has occurred. Based on the experience of atomic bomb
survivors, a small increase in the risk of cancer is expected, even at
the low to moderate doses received. Such an increase, however, is
expected to be difficult to identify. <p>

Mortality<P>

According to UNSCEAR (2000), 134 liquidators received radiation doses
high enough to be diagnosed with acute radiation sickness (ARS). Among
them, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Other liquidators have since
died but their deaths could not necessarily be attributed to radiation
exposure. <p>

Projections concerning cancer deaths among the five million residents
of areas with radioactive caesium deposition of 37 kBq/m2 in Belarus,
the Russian Federation and Ukraine are much less certain because they
are exposed to doses slightly above natural background radiation
levels. Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up
to 5 000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population from
radiation exposure, or about 0.6% of the cancer deaths expected in
this population due to other causes<p>

Reproductive and hereditary effects and children's health<p>

Given the low radiation doses received by most people exposed to the
Chernobyl accident, no effects on fertility, numbers of stillbirths,
adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications have been
demonstrated nor are there expected to be any. A modest but steady
increase in reported congenital malformations in both contaminated and
uncontaminated areas of Belarus appears related to improved reporting
and not to radiation exposure <P>

Hmmm, my conclusions so far of study of this cesium thing is that if it's not enough to give you radiation sickness (over 250 msv / day) it may be scary as heck, it may show up in milk, meat, and urine, but there are not many cases of cancer, death, or birth defects. If this is the case, then Moret and Busby are way the heck out of line with their scary pronouncements, and if you give people the choice of a) abandoning the land for 500 years until cesium falls below background levels or b) taking your chances with cesium and what your neighbors will think of you if you're leaving cesium at the potty maybe such a drastic forced evacuation should be re-evaluated? Is it true that at levels that don't give you radiation sickness, the concern over cesium is mainly over cancer and birth defects?

CDC report says that cesium is hazardous mainly if you get enough to give you radiation sickness, at lower levels it might do other bad things eventually but it will not kill you or even make you sick. www.atsdr.cdc.gov
Cesium Health Effects CDC
Animal studies indicate that cesium is of relatively low toxicity... Single oral doses of cesium chloride, administered to female mice at dose levels ranging from 125 to 500 mg/kg, have been shown to result in significant increases in chromosomal breaks in bone marrow cells (Ghosh et al. 1990, 1991).

reindeer and caribou, may ingest large quantities of radiocesium (and other radionuclides found in fallout). Human consumption of meat from such animals results in the internalization of these radionuclides Radioactive cesium particles may be found in the air following the release of nuclear fission products; however, no reports were located in which adverse health effects from inhalation of radioactive ..

At very high doses, the beta and gamma radiation can cause such adverse effects as
erythema, ulceration, or even tissue necrosis Adverse health effects resulting from external exposure to beta or gamma emissions from radioisotopes of cesium would be the same as those from other radioactive elements that release beta or gamma radiation, and would not be the result of exposure to cesium per se (refer to Section 2.2 for a discussion of doserelated
symptoms of acute radiation exposure). Developmental and carcinogenic effects have been
reported in Japanese survivors of acute high-dose external radiation from the atomic bombs detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki (see Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 1999 for a detailed description of the health effects related to ionizing radiation in general). Exposure to lower levels of radiation would be expected to result in decreased health risk.

adverse effects in animals exposed to radioactive isotopes of cesium via natural routes (inhalation, oral, or dermal) is limited to observations of significantly reduced fertility and
temporary sterility in male mice following single or repeated oral administration of radioactive cesium nitrate (Ramaiya et al. 1994). Postmating embryo mortality was associated with increased frequency of dominant lethal mutations.

@elainekirk , lilly, I assume the scenarios of fig. V-2-1 pertain to unit 3, 2, 1 from top to bottom. I could not find any labels identifying which one is which and am just guessing the sequence, because the last shows the tent. Note that tepco plans to fill the reactors with water to different levels. That differentiated approach must mean something, too.

hotel fukushima-ichi www.youtube.com

The highest numbers I found come from Moret and Busby. They come from linear extrapolation of figures they pulled out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as I recall, but they don't support it with any evidence that there were actual documented deaths to back up those extrapolations. There may be problems with official figures, but at least they are based on documented cases, not something scribbled on the back of a napkin by the likes of Moret and Busby.