Replies

The high estimates were based on the Linear Dose Response No Threshold theory, which holds that the risk is inversely proportional to the lifetime dose at all exposure levels.

Ironically, the Chernobyl event itself, and other research, have lead toxicologists to drop that theory. It is illogical on the face of it to apply 6-order-of-magnitude extrapolations to biological systems, but that's what the theory does.

The previously unknown existence of DNA repair mechanisms means that multiple simultaneous hits on the same strand must happen for a mutation to occur, and of course most mutations are either harmless (most DNA is non-functional) or kills the cell without spreading. Also, a human being experiences something like 50,000 DNA Single Nucleotide Polymorhphism (SNP) mutations (think of it as a single corrupted bit) PER SECOND. Obviously at some level, radiation damage is swamped by this natural background.

Unfortunately, others, including, of course, envirwhackos, hold to the old theory.

Chrichton's estimate is probably high but is way below the 100,000 or so predicted by the old theory.

Also, the "uninhabitable" zone is only uninhabitable to those humans who both believe the old theory, and fear a one-chance-in-a-million (or so) increased chance of cancer. In other words, most of it is great real-estate. Detailed studies of animals in the area show no deleterious effects from the current levels of radiation except in the highest dosage areas right next to the plant. The number of heritable mutations is not increased.

Finally, the idea that radiation results in heritable mutations is a bit weak. The dosages necessary to cause a significant likelihood of such mutations are high enough to definitely cause radiation sickness (100REM in small time period), as opposed to the milliREM levels people are scared to death of.

Hard to beat that if you try!

However, since folks are living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now, I think your worries about"uninhabitable for the foreseeable future" are overblown.

It would be a mistake to think that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were comparable incidents to Chernobyl, or that the results of those incidents, including the amount of radioactive contamination, would be identical.

As tornadochaser pointed out, the number of deaths caused by the Chernobyl disaster was much smaller than first predicted. I believe we can all be thankful for that. The estimated death toll to this point in time is 3500 to 4000. There will be more who die of thyroid cancer and other cancers in the future. While it is not possible to positively link to the incident in Chernobyl every individual case of such cancers in those who were exposed, there was, and continues to be, an increase in the incidence of such cancers in that group.

There is, to this day, more than 20 years after the incident, an "exclusion zone" around The Chernobyl plant. The most heavily contaminated area, called zone 4, is a 19 mile radius around the plant. No one lives there. There are some who work in that area. The contamination is not evenly spread around the plant due to weather patterns and depending on where contaminated materials were buried. Nor is the contamination confined to the Ukraine. There are areas in Belarus which are contaminated, as well.

I don't think you would want to raise your family in any of those areas, whether zone 1, 2 ,3, or 4. Riskwise, it would be similar to smoking, which kills one third of its practitioners. You want to take that chance with your kids? So, yes, it will be "uninhabitable for the foreseeable future."