Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT

Abstract

The Chernobyl accident was probably the worst possible catastrophe of a nuclear power station. It was the only such catastrophe since the advent of nuclear power 55 years ago. It resulted in a total meltdown of the reactor core, a vast emission of radionuclides, and early deaths of only 31 persons. Its enormous political, economic, social and psychological impact was mainly due to deeply rooted fear of radiation induced by the linear non-threshold hypothesis (LNT) assumption. It was a historic event that provided invaluable lessons for nuclear industry and risk philosophy. One of them is demonstration that counted per electricity units produced, early Chernobyl fatalities amounted to 0.86 death/GWe-year), and they were 47 times lower than from hydroelectric stations ( approximately 40 deaths/GWe-year). The accident demonstrated that using the LNT assumption as a basis for protection measures and radiation dose limitations was counterproductive, and lead to sufferings and pauperization of millions of inhabitants of contaminated areas. The projections of thousands of late cancer deaths based on LNT, are in conflict with observations that in comparison with general population of Russia, a 15% to 30% deficit of solid cancer mortality was found among the Russian emergency workers, and a 5% deficit solid cancer incidence among the population of most contaminated areas.

Keywords: Chernobyl; LNT; health effects; irradiation; remedial measures; social consequences.

FIGURE 1.

Worldwide and local (near Chernobyl and in areas of high natural radiation) average annual radiation doses from natural and man-made sources. Based on UNSCEAR (1988, 1993, 1998, 2000b).

FIGURE 2.

Measuring radiation on April 10, 2008 at a sport stadium downtown of Pripyat, about 4 km NW from Chernobyl reactor. The dose rate was 0.28 μSv/h (2.5 mSv/year). Based on Fornalski (2009).

FIGURE 3.

Standard mortality ratios (SMR) for solid cancers among the Russian emergency workers. The values of SMR indicate how cancer mortality of emergency workers differs from that in general population of Russia used as a control group (1.0). The deficit of cancers among these workers between 1990 and 1999 ranged between 15% and 30%. Based on Ivanov et al. (2004, page 225).

FIGURE 4.

Standard incidence ratios (SIR) for solid cancers among inhabitants of Bryansk region, Russia. The average deficit of cancers in Bryansk region was 5%, and in the most exposed group (mean radiation dose of 40 mGy) 17%. Based on Ivanov et al. (2004, pages 373 and 374).