1 / 31

Nuclear Weapons: The Final Pandemic Preventing Proliferation and Achieving Abolition

Nuclear Weapons: The Final Pandemic Preventing Proliferation and Achieving Abolition. The need for continuing scientific study of radiation effects. Prof. Sir E. D. Williams Emeritus Professor of Histopathology, University of Cambridge.

odeda
Download Presentation

Nuclear Weapons: The Final Pandemic Preventing Proliferation and Achieving Abolition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Nuclear Weapons: The Final PandemicPreventing Proliferation and Achieving Abolition The need for continuing scientific study of radiation effects Prof. Sir E. D. Williams Emeritus Professor of Histopathology, University of Cambridge

  2. The Need for Continuing Study of Radiation EffectsDillwyn Williams Cambridge

  3. There is no argument that the world would be a better place without nuclear weapons • There is an argument about the use of nuclear power for energy production • The existence of nuclear power plants makes it more difficult to enforce a nuclear weapons ban • A nuclear power plant accident can expose huge numbers of people to radiation • Storage of radioactive products carries long-term dangers • Nuclear power may cause less global warming than conventional power generation

  4. Making a rational assessment of the place of nuclear power generation requires a knowledge of the risks. • Who determines the risks?

  5. The Nuclear Industry View • The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety. • 28 people died within four months from radiation or thermal burns, 19 have subsequently died, and there have been around nine deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident: total 56 fatalities as of 2004. • An authoritative UN report in 2000 concluded that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed. This was confirmed in a very thorough 2005-06 study. World Nuclear Association Chernobyl information, ’07 <world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/info07/html>

  6. The Radiation Activist’s View.ECRR 2006: CHERNOBYL 20 YEARS AFTER • “Using conservative methodology based on the external radiation risk factors deduced from the Japanese A-Bomb studies, I would estimate that the eventual death toll from the Chernobyl disaster would be: 290 due to direct radiation damage 899,310 to 1,786,657 due to fatal cancers” Dr Rosalie Bertell, IICPH Toronto, in www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobylebook.pdf

  7. The Official View Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident. 20 years later a UN report Provides Definitive Answers and Ways to Repair Lives. • Opening paragraph “A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists have concluded”.WHO/IAEA/UNDP press release, 2005

  8. `` • “Deliberate omission or outrageous error” • “Not scientifically acceptable” • “Selective and misleading”

  9. The Nuclear Industry View • The reported excess of thyroid cancers in children and adults who were exposed to Chernobyl fallout is not consistent with the knowledge of the effects of medical use of iodine-131. • The report of an “excess” appears to be an effect of the medical screening, and consists only of a small fraction of the normal occult thyroid cancer incidence that occurs in populations unexposed to iodine-131. • In centuries to come, the Chernobyl catastrophe will be seen as a proof that nuclear power is a safe means of energy production. Jaworowski,EIR 2004, Science and Technology, 58-63, quoted in <world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/info07/html>

  10. PAPILLARY THYROID CARCINOMABELARUS, 2000 and 2001

  11. The Epidemiologist’s ViewEstimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident. • Headline figure:- Deaths from radiation induced cancers, 17,850. • Fuller information:- Deaths from radiation induced cancers, in Europe up to 2065, 7,600 – 42,400. • Set in context, deaths from radiation induced cancers, 17,850, deaths from cancers due to other causes, 130,525,000. • Deaths from radiation induced cancers, 0.001% of all cancer deaths. Cardis et al Int J Cancer. 2006 Sep 15;119(6):1224-35.

  12. A Radiobiologist/Pathologist’s View • “…estimates depend on the assumed risk coefficient, but of the order of 60,000 such fatalities in total can be estimated, based on the collective dose estimated by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 1988), less than half of which would derive from the declared contaminated areas”. Baverstock and Williams,2006, Env Health Perspect 114, 1312-1317

  13. The Environmental activist view • Health impact of Chernobyl 'grossly underestimated' says Greenpeace • It is estimated that the Chernobyl accident will cause some 270 000 excess cancers worldwide, of which 90,000 will be fatal. Some 14,000 of these deaths will be from thyroid cancers, 8,000 from leukaemias and 71,000 from solid cancers. • Press Release, Tuesday, April 18, 2006www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/pressreleases

  14. Estimates of Cancer Deaths from Chernobyl • Nuclear Industry: 56 up to 2004, ‘most people unaffected’ • WHO/IAEA/UNDP: press release, 4,000, body of report, 9,000 • Cardis,17,850 (7,600-42,400) • Baverstock and Williams, 60,000 • Greenpeace, one estimate, 90,000 • Bertell, 1,343,000 (899,310-1,786,657)

  15. Why such huge discrepancies? • The main factor responsible is a difference in views on the risks of low dose exposures. • Chernobyl led to the exposure of a few hundreds to very high dose external radiation, and a few hundred thousands to high dose internal radiation. Hundreds of millions were exposed to very low doses from fallout

  16. Linear No-threshold Hypothesis • Generally accepted view:- carcinogenic effect of radiation is directly related to dose, even down to lowest doses. • Minority view:- efficiency of repair mechanisms is also affected by dose, and below 100mSv the LNT greatly overestimates carcinogenic effect. • Minority view:- at very low doses the carcinogenic effect is undetectable and can be ignored. • Minority view:- low dose radiation is beneficial.

  17. It is essential that studies of low dose effects in man are continued, particularly in the context of the Chernobyl accident

  18. Non-thyroid cancers after Chernobyl • Germ-line effects. These were not found after Nagasaki/Hiroshima, but were found in children of parents exposed to Chernobyl fallout • Significance of minisatellite instability • Impaired intellectual development • Birth defects, eg Downs Syndrome • Heart disease • US studies

  19. About 1 Billion dollars is being spent on fitting a new roof to the Chernobyl reactor but US studies of the effects on the exposed population are being terminated

  20. Mutation RETPTC3 RETPTC1 ? BRAF,RAS, PAX8 Tumour Pap Ca Pap Ca ? Pap Ca ?Foll Ca Morphology Solid variant Classical ? Encapsulated Clinical Aggressive Typical ? “benign” / typical Latency 4-10yrs 7-17yrs ? 15- (start-peak)

  21. Conclusions • Estimates of deaths due to cancer resulting from the Chernobyl accident vary by several orders of magnitude. • The size of extreme estimates seems to correlate with the bias of the estimator. • It is essential that studies of the consequences of Chernobyl continue so that the true effects of a nuclear accident can be known

  22. Catastrophe sanitaire à Tchernobyl • L'OMS coupable de non assistance à populations en danger ! • www.independentwho.info CONFERENCE DE PRESSE Jeudi 26 avril à 10h00 Salle de presse N°2 « The library » Palais des Nations

  23. “In the absence of a properly coordinated and international approach to monitoring incidences and trends in both cancer and noncancer morbidity …. a huge ( though hopefully unique) opportunity to learn fully the long term consequences of such a disaster has been missed” The Chernobyl Catastrophe, Consequences on Human Health, Greenpeace, 2006

More Related