Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:28:53.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Overestimating Chernobyl’s Consequences: Motives and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letters to the Editor
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2011

To the Editor: The article by Davis et al, “The Impact of Disasters on Populations With Health and Health Care Disparities,”Reference Davis, Wilson, Brock-Martin, Glover and Svendsen1 concludes that the present literature does not capture the health care disparities in medically underserved communities before and after a disaster. The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident provides an example of the considerable difference in the diagnostic quality of many diseases, especially thyroid cancer, before and after the disaster. Improvements in screening and early detection of thyroid nodules after the accident were accompanied by overestimation of the incidence of thyroid cancer, which could contribute to an overestimation of radioiodine carcinogenicity.Reference Jargin2 Some publications have contributed to the misconception. I noted recentlyReference Jargin3 that in some articlesReference Yablokov4Reference Yablokov5Reference Yablokov6 dedicated to the Chernobyl accident, references to nonprofessional publications (eg, newspapers, Web sites of unclear affiliations often with nonworking URLs, commercial editions) were used widely to support scientific views and conclusions, thus overestimating the medical consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Yablokov and Nesterenko acknowledged that “sometimes references in the text do not correspond with those used in the list of references.”Reference Yablokov and Nesterenko7 They provided a quotation from the Ministry for Emergency Situations of the Republic of Belarus Web site (http://www.chernobyl.gov.by/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=665&Itemid=1, accessed on April 6, 2011): “A certain fraction of mushrooms, berries, wild flesh, and fish consumed by inhabitants was highly contaminated, ie, during the last three years about 30% of mushrooms, 15% of berries, and 40% of wild flesh.” This was a misquotation. The actual quotation from the Web site, translated verbatim from Russian was “A fraction of mushrooms, berries, wild and fish, taken from inhabitants, contaminated above permissible levels, remains stably high, and during the last 3 years was 30% (mushrooms), 15% (berries), and 40% (meat of wild animals).” Nowhere on this site are found the levels that were regarded as permissible, and the Web site is not a scientific source of information.

Misquoting a source contributes to the overestimation of the consequences of the accident at Chernobyl. I have interviewed pathologists and other physicians in the hospitals, clinics, and oncologic dispensaries (cancer prevention and treatment centers) of the formerly contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine who have diagnosed many of the post-Chernobyl tumors. Most of them agreed that Chernobyl's consequences have been overestimated,Reference Jargin2Reference Jargin8 and they point to exaggeration of the Chernobyl theme facilitating scientific research and international help as motives. Moreover, it is believed that the Chernobyl accident has been exploited to strangle development worldwide of atomic energy,Reference Jaworowski9 thus contributing to the enhanced consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels.

References

REFERENCES

1.Davis, JR, Wilson, S, Brock-Martin, A, Glover, S, Svendsen, ER.The impact of disasters on populations with health and health care disparities. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2010;4 (1):3038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Jargin, SV.Chernobyl-related cancer: re-evaluation needed. Turk J Pathol. 2010;26:177181.Google Scholar
3.Jargin, SV.Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2010;49 (4):743745, author reply 747-748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Yablokov, AV.3. General morbidity, impairment, and disability after the Chernobyl catastrophe. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1181:4254.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Yablokov, AV.5. Nonmalignant diseases after the Chernobyl catastrophe. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1181:58160.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Yablokov, AV.7. Mortality after the Chernobyl catastrophe. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1181:192216.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Yablokov, A, Nesterenko, A.Reply to letter by Jargin on “Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published.” Radiat Environ Biophys. 2010;49 (4):747748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Jargin, SV.Thyroid cancer after Chernobyl: obfuscated truth. Dose Response. 2011; DOI:10.2203/dose-response.11-001.Jargin.Google Scholar
9.Jaworowski, Z.Observations on the Chernobyl disaster and LNT. DoseResponse. 2010;8 (2):148171.Google ScholarPubMed