Where Are Chernobyl’s Children? • Hacker News Board

Re: Where Are Chernobyl’s Children?

#31

Post by tgb » Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 8:38 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #29

I remember the day it was announced. We were sitting with my dad watching evening news. The news was almost over and just in passing they quickly mentioned there was "a malfunction" at the Chernobyl power plant. They showed a quick picture of some smoke rising. And that's it. Nothing more. It was like they were announcing about how the local sports team won a medal or something. My dad said, yeah this is not good. We…

> The only thing I remember then was that my mom's on the balcony outside died.

Are you missing a word? I hope you are. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

Re: Where Are Chernobyl’s Children?

#32

Post by rdtsc » Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 8:39 PM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #7

Photos of Chernobyl always remind me of Stalker ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalker_(1979_film) ), yet the philosophical introspective guide is light years away from the garish tourist guide pictured here with radioactive lenses.

Well of course in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (the computer game) they had combined the two. The Zone there is obviously Chernobyl, it even includes the giant over the horizon (now defunct) radar installation and so on.

(Note: I never played, I was just told by others about).

Re: Where Are Chernobyl’s Children?

#33

Post by rdtsc » Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 8:40 PM UTC

tgb wrote: post #31

rdtsc wrote: post #29

I remember the day it was announced. We were sitting with my dad watching evening news. The news was almost over and just in passing they quickly mentioned there was "a malfunction" at the Chernobyl power plant. They showed a quick picture of some smoke rising. And that's it. Nothing more. It was like they were announcing about how the local sports team won a medal or something. My dad said, yeah this is not good. We…

> The only thing I remember then was that my mom's on the balcony outside died. Are you missing a word? I hope you are. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

Sorry, corrected, it was plants (flowers).

Re: Where Are Chernobyl’s Children?

#34

Post by paulmd » Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 8:50 PM UTC

vasilipupkin wrote: post #30

hga wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about absolute numbers so small that we can't have much confidence in the cause ( http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.full ): Between 1986 and 1996 a total of 21 cases of leukaemia were observed in Zhitomir occurring among children born during 1986. A total of eight cases were observed in the largely uncontaminated Poltava region.

yes, but we can bolster our confidence somewhat because we know radiation causes leukemia. it's not a statistical association, but causual

It depends on the dosage. In medium to large doses that's certainly true, but it's not a settled question for low doses. The model that assumes that any radiation (no matter how little) causes damage is called the Linear No-Threshold model, and there's actually not a lot of scientific consensus on its validity.

It's a conservative model, and thus it tends to get used out of an abundance of caution, but it's hard to quantify low-dose effects accurately. Since we're all exposed to a fair bit of radiation naturally, low doses don't represent much change in total radiation exposure.

Average dosage to the public in the affected countries was about 9 millisieverts [1]. A CT scan is about 10 mSv. The average natural exposure is about 2.4 mSv per year in America, but in some places with high radon levels exposure can be up to 7 mSv/year. It's difficult to reach significance with small changes like that.

[1] http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effec...

Re: Where Are Chernobyl’s Children?

#35

Post by walshemj » Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 9:04 PM UTC

dvt wrote: post #16

I'm also Chernobyl kid! :) I was born in Romania in May of 1986 about 700km from the plant[1]. My mom tells me stories about how all the pregnant women in the area were encouraged to eat pre-packaged food (no fresh veggies, for example), and drink powdered milk. Luckily, I was almost completely developed by the time of the disaster (born May 8, meltdown happened April 26), but I am very cognizant about some health pr…

Did you get iodine supplements?

Re: Where Are Chernobyl’s Children?

#36

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 9:09 PM UTC

vasilipupkin wrote: post #30

hga wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about absolute numbers so small that we can't have much confidence in the cause ( http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.full ): Between 1986 and 1996 a total of 21 cases of leukaemia were observed in Zhitomir occurring among children born during 1986. A total of eight cases were observed in the largely uncontaminated Poltava region.

yes, but we can bolster our confidence somewhat because we know radiation causes leukemia. it's not a statistical association, but causual

[deleted]

Re: Where Are Chernobyl’s Children?

#37

Post by mohawk » Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #34

vasilipupkin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but we can bolster our confidence somewhat because we know radiation causes leukemia. it's not a statistical association, but causual

It depends on the dosage. In medium to large doses that's certainly true, but it's not a settled question for low doses. The model that assumes that any radiation (no matter how little) causes damage is called the Linear No-Threshold model, and there's actually not a lot of scientific consensus on its validity. It's a conservative model, and thus it tends to get used out of an abundance of caution, but it's hard to q…

Please update your beliefs with this new data

http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low...

Re: Where Are Chernobyl’s Children?

#38

Post by Udik » Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 9:13 PM UTC

salgernon wrote: post #12

rasz_pl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children with deformations are born every day.

I feel like you're looping the conversation, since that sentiment was expressed and dismissed in the article. So, should financial support be withdrawn for Chernobyl cleanup / support?

Funny, are the officials lying when they say that none of the malformations are connected to Chernobyl, or when, for fear of losing the stream of money coming from charities, they say the opposite?

One of the conclusions of the WHO report on the consequences of Chernobyl, published in 2005, is that:

"Most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas received relatively low whole body radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels. As a consequence, no evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found, nor has there been any evidence of increases in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation exposure. "

Re: Where Are Chernobyl’s Children?

#39

Post by dogma1138 » Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 9:28 PM UTC

If we learned anything from the polygon nuclear test site is that we should not ask where are the children but where are grand and grand grand children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipalatinsk_Test_Site

Birth defects seem to only increase with every generation to the point where the 3rd and 4th generation are hitting a genetic roadblock as all the small genetic defects have reached a "boiling point".

Some local doctors actually proposed to assign a genetic passport to the residents of the area to let them know what's the chance of them being able to reproduce without defects. There have been quite a few documentaries about this VICE included it in a segment on their HBO show https://youtu.be/YMnpnd0T4gE?t=802. WARNNING!: Some of the images especially in the medical center are very disturbing to the point of looking more like a set of a scifi movie ala the thing than real life.

So the true ramifications of Chernobyl might not be visible for another 1 or 2 generations, on the good side the population which was exposed to the Chernobyl incident is much less isolated than various native populations exposed to nuclear test in Siberia, Kazakhstan and in the pacific so they have a much bigger (unexposed) genetic pool to have children with which might result in a smaller likelihood of enough genetic defects to accumulate to the point where they cannot actually produce sufficient children to sustain a population.

Re: Where Are Chernobyl’s Children?

#40

Post by vilhelm_s » Thu, Aug 27, 2015, 9:35 PM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #28

rasz_pl wrote: post #9

Where are they? In the scaremongering imagination of pop writers and lobbying scientists. Last time I checked there was a <3% leukaemia bump after 'the worst nuclear disaster in the world'.

The comparisons of Fukushima to Chernobyl really got my goat, personally. Despite the fact that fuel rods melted in both cases (thus both were "meltdowns"), there is an extraordinary difference between fuel rods overheating in a cooling pond and explosive breach of a critical reactor in a runaway condition. It's like classifying a campfire and the Hindenburg together because both are combustion - both can certainly b…

Not everyone is moving back though. I couldn't find out how long the Fukushima "difficult-to-return" inner exclusion zone is expected to be maintained, do you know? Apparently people who can't move back within 5 years will receive compensation based on the full pre-accident market value of their house.