Do you remember Chernobyl? Nuclear disaster contamination: apparently worse than previously thought.

This article has been entirely reposted to a new link (click here) -  it has been revised, some videos added, etc.

Reactor 4, Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Ukraine, 26 of April 1986.

Reactor 4, Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Ukraine, around May 3rd, 1986. The explosion had occurred on 26 of April 1986.

This article has been entirely reposted to a new link (click here) -  it has been revised, some videos added, etc.

The Chernobyl disaster occurred on 26 of April 1986.

It is said that the disaster released as much as 400 times the radioactive contamination of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Over 400,000 people were evacuated.

The Chernobyl explosion sent a radioactive dust cloud over northern Ukraine that crossed into Belarus and Russia. Excessive levels of radiation were recorded in Greece, Ireland, Sweden, Wales, Italy, Alaska, also probably in the north and east of France (despite official denials), and in other areas. Almost the entire territory of Belarus was contaminated (more than 90%).

The hole, the warning, the eloquent and sobering message of a silent wound. What remained of Reactor 4 from the Chernobyl (Tchernobyl) nuclear plant in Ukraine (Ukrainia), some time after the explosion.

The hole, the warning, the eloquent and sobering message of a still vivid and silent wound. What remained of Reactor 4 from the Chernobyl (Tchernobyl) nuclear plant in Ukraine (Ukrainia) some time after the explosion. Photo taken in 1986.

The World Health Organization estimated in 2005 that “a total of up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident,” according to “an international team of more than 100 scientists.”  In 2006, the figures presented by the World Health Organization had increased to 9,000 (BBC link). Greenpeace opposed those figures and predicted an eventual death toll of 93,000 (same BBC link). Apparently, Greenpeace’s report at the time was looking at all areas of Europe contaminated by the nuclear disaster, while WHO  considered only the three most affected countries (Ukraine, Belarus, Russia).  BBC states, at the very bottom of its 2006 article, that the original WHO report “found more than 600,000 people received high levels of exposure, including reactor staff, emergency and recovery personnel and residents of the nearby areas.”

One should be cautious. It goes without saying that the nuclear industry has a vested interest in playing down Chernobyl. It’s an embarrassment to them – and to billions of dollars.

In her 2002 documentary, Chernobyl Heart, Maryann de Leo says that, at the time (2002), 13,000 of the 600,000 “liquidators,” conscripted for the cleanup in 1986, had died. The “liquidators” had been exposed to massive doses of radiation, evaluated at 90 times greater than radiation from the explosion of the uranium atomic bomb detonated over Hiroshima by the US on 6th of August 1945.

Today, there is an “Exclusion Zone” of 30 km (19 miles) radius surrounding the destroyed reactor (which was located much nearer to Pripyat than to Chernobyl per se). Officially, nobody is allowed to live in the “Exclusion Zone,” although some people, among the elders, have returned home and are tolerated by the authorities.

In 2002, 16 years after the disaster, according to Chernobyl Heart, the incidence of thyroid cancer in Gomel (Belarus) was 10,000 times higher than it was before the Chernobyl accident, and disheartening congenital birth defects had increased by 250%. Children were the worst affected. Gomel, less than 50 miles from Chernobyl (population: 700,000), was contaminated in 2002 with a cesium level 40 times higher than the recognized danger limit. The Chief Director at the Maternity Hospital of Gomel, Dr. Burakovsky, was quoted in Chernobyl Heart, saying: “Approximately fifteen percent (15%) to twenty percent (20%) of babies are born healthy” (no, it’s neither a typo, a lapsus or an error). More than 90% of Belarus, according to Chernobyl Heart, was contaminated. The infant mortality rate in Belarus was 300% higher than in the rest of Europe. Babies, kids, pay a horrible price.

I recently stumbled upon the documentary Sex Slaves, directed by Ric Esther Bienstock and produced around 2005. That documentary is dealing with human trafficking. It provides, incidentally, a descriptive example (here, on youtube, segment 5 of the video, between 06:48 and 08:41) of long-term trans-generational ill-effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster on kids, some of whom not being born yet in 1986. And, yes, it also shows a link between Chernobyl, the impoverishment of ex-Ussr, misery, and human trafficking… Same video here in French, en français, segment 2, between 05:00 and 07:00 (the original video in english seems more complete and is a better reference).

I rapidly built this post out of some kind of growing compassion for all the victims of the nuclear asuric nonsense we have witnessed, especially since the middle-forties of the twentieth century (actually, nuclear radiation research and experimentation were already existing in France by the end of the nineteenth century), and out of thirst for information, comprehension, knowledge, consciousness growth and, yes, curiosity. Human beings are many-faceted.

I believe that all nuclear power plants should simply be dismantled before they dismantle themselves by accident, or because of an error (a real error, or a “so-called” error) or for whatever reason, and in so doing sabotaging, crippling or destroying the genetics of this planet…

Fukushima , one year later, August 2012, from Scientific Reports : A sane butterfly (up), and a genetically difformed butterfly (down); photo source, Radio Canada (Src). Click, further down, on link to illustrated June-August 2012 scientific document :  “The biological impacts of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on butterflies (pdf)”.

[ Update, Fukushima, Japan, March 12, 2011: As an illustration of what you've just read, here is a short and pertinent update, this time about nuclear reactors explosion in Japan, following March 11, 2011 Sendai devastating earthquake (at 05:46:23 UTC, 8.9 magnitude (Mw)) : Video: Japan nuclear plant Fukushima big explosion live 2011; and some articles :  Emergency at 5 nuclear reactors in Japan after quake knocks out power to cooling systems - from Mari Yamaguchi And Jeff Donn, March 11, 2011 - 7:06 PM; Possible meltdown at Tepco Reactor in Japan - Saturday, March 12, 2011 ; Japan nuclear mishap among 'worst ever' - Bangkok Post 13/03/2011 at 12:09 AM ; Health effects from radiation poisoning : questions and answers Excerpt - Q: How is radiation poisoning treated? A: Potassium iodide can be used to block radioactive iodine from being taken into the thyroid gland, protecting it from injury. It cannot protect other parts of the body or reverse damage to the thyroid once it has occurred. Prussian blue, a dye used by artists and manufacturers since 1704, can also be used to remove certain radioactive materials from the body. It should only be used under medical supervision ; Japan Nuclear reactors not contained, more explosions, evacuations.  One year later, June 2012 : genetic difformities of butterflies are growing (Scientific Reports) :  The biological impacts of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on butterflies (pdf)  (or here, article online) ; déformations génétiques chez les papillons autour de Fukushima, observez les deux photos : constatation inquiétante en lisant cet article en français sur le site de la Src (Radio Canada); on lit, en effet, que le nombre de papillons ainsi déformés croît d'une génération à l'autre, les gènes objet de mutations aberrantes seraient donc dominants, pas récessifs, même en choisissant «un papillon sain, d'une autre région, pour l'accoupler avec un papillon de Fukushima». C'est ce qu'on nous prépare. Le nucléaire, un crime contre l'humanité? Évidemment. ]

Back to Chernobyl. Link to a recent article (2009), Reuters:

Chernobyl Animals Worse affected than thought: study – by Nick Vonocur.

Excerpt:

LONDON (Reuters) – Radiation has affected animals living near the site of Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear disaster far more than was previously thought, a study showed Wednesday, challenging beliefs that local wildlife was on the rebound.

The study showed that numbers of bumble-bees, butterflies, spiders, grasshoppers and other invertebrates were lower in contaminated sites than other areas because of high levels of radiation left over from the blast more than 20 years ago.

The findings challenge earlier research that suggested animal populations were rebounding around the site of the Chernobyl explosion in Ukraine, which forced thousands to abandon their homes and evacuate the area.

[End of excerpt.]

I tried to find the specific study released in France (by the CNRS, the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique – National Center for Scientific Research; the study was led by Anders Moller), and mentioned in the Reuters article, linked above. Difficult to find. When a document largely mentioned in the press seems almost impossible to find on the internet… well, there can be many reasons and, at least for the moment, I don’t draw conclusions.

But let’s face it: the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 was very bad news for France, and any bad news, 23 years later, in 2009, about the aftermath of the Chernobyl reactor disaster is simply more very bad news for France.

France is equipped with 59 nuclear power plants that produced, in 2008, almost 88% of all its electricity. France is the world leading net exporter of nuclear electricity in the world. It exports to neighbours like the Netherlands, Germany, Britain, Italy, and its electricity cost is among the lower in Europe. The present economic crisis will certainly influence negatively the maintenance and repair of all nuclear power plants in the world, as of civil infrastructures in general. For instance, the Chalk River nuclear power plant in Ontario, Canada, has been shut in 2009 for repairs, or so goes the official story…

Back to France: in 2008, in July, about 18 000 litres (environ 4 500 gallons) of uranium solution that contained natural uranium were released, accidentally, we presume, not intentionally, from the Tricastin nuclear power center; an accident…  So… Oh yes, I was mentioning that the original study document originating from the CNRS in France, and mentioned in the Reuters article above, is very difficult to find… There are reasons, as we have seen. Have a look at the following graph:

Electricity production in France... The greenish line soaring above the two others at the bottom of the graph represents electricity produced in France through that country's 59 nuclear power plants...

Electricity production in France… The greenish-khaki line, the one soaring high above the three others we see at the bottom of the graph, represents electricity produced in France through that country’s 59 nuclear power plants. You can see that, even in 1986, the greenish-khaki line was already high above the three others. It’s impressively higher today. Have a look. The recent study on Chernobyl, originating from the CNRS (France), and mentioned by Reuters, is rather difficult to find… Hopefully not “impossible,” but unusually difficult to find for an ordinary guy looking for data on the internet. (Source: Energy Information Administration – EIA, an official source of energy statistics from the US government.)

I found more about the French nuclear lobby cover-up here: Réseau Sortir du Nucléaire (Phasing Out the Nuclear Age Network).

The home page (la page d’accueil) is in French; you can access their English home page and some pdf documents in English by clicking “English” on the upper right side of the home page.

There is a very good document in French, published by the same Network, about the French nuclear lobby cover-up regarding the toxic effects of the Chernobyl disaster: Tchernobyl, enquête exclusive – Comment le lobby nucléaire français enterre la vérité en zones contaminées.

What appears to be the main thrust of the French lobby’s public relations and propaganda regarding Chernobyl is to disseminate among the public the idea that one can “live happy ever after” and “without worry”  in nuclear contaminated areas like the one surrounding Chernobyl’s reactor 4.

Can we trust the nuclear lobby? I certainly wouldn’t. The nuclear lobby is trying to exploit a powerful archetypal image related to paradise, resurrection, redemption, etc., and there is certainly much to say about the psychological and archetypal dimension – indeed the fascinating aura of mystery, strangeness, the aura of wilderness revirginisée and victorious – surrounding the Chernobyl disaster and its aftermath. These feelings are genuine, powerful, legitimate, and must certainly not be repressed, to the contrary. However, what the nuclear lobby is trying to do, among other things, is to divert and exploit the depth of  the human psyche, through public relations and manipulation, bypassing or downplaying all genetic hazards, for money, power, prestige and profits. It’s the good ol’ asuric game of using and perverting the best in human beings and human psyche in order to weaken them, gain control over them and submit their bodies to someone else’s will. This is absurd, this is cruel – and boring to death – but there’s something in that game they play that seems to make them tick. Plus ça change, more of the same. Don’t trust them. Simply. Serenely. Never trust them. They don’t care about us. They don’t. They never did. They care about something that always plays against us. We don’t count for them. They’re reckless.  That’s all.

La Banque des Règlements Internationaux (BRI); the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) à Bâle (Basel), en Suisse (Switzerland) : This is the world’s Central Banks’ mecca. Sort of. It has the shape of a nuclear plant, and it also looks like a temple, especially with its thick hieratic steps, on the right, at a bit lower than the building’s mid-level.

BTW, have you ever noticed the shape of the Bank for International Settlements’ (BIS) building in Basel (Bâle), Switzerland? Look at the illustration on the left. ( It is also reproduced here, on an other post, a short piece on the concept of “corporation”.)

Observe the building’s shape.

The striking symbolic, and somewhat hieratic architecture of the BIS’ headquarters – BIS is owned by the network of the numerous privately controlled Central Banks of the world -  has evidently been planned, it can’t be the result of an “accident” or of a “fortuitous coincidence,” no more than the presence of a cross at the top of a church tower would be a “fortuitous coincidence.”

Actually, the whole impression is that of some kind of cult, whatever that kind of “cult” could be. It’s an intuition that’s been present to me for some years. I can’t really check it as I would. Presently. But I know, as to me, that it is the kind of intuition that usually proves to be right: it’s a “cool” one, with a very tranquil presence, nothing obsessive …

I like that piece of art by Québec artist Michel Casavant: Table Ronde G8 (Round Table G8). It’s a 1986 charcoal and gouache. « Some kind of cult … »

In any event, let’s get back to Chernobyl.

Here’s a very good link: the Chernobyl Research Initiative at South Carolina University.  The study mentioned by Reuters, and quoted earlier on this post (Chernobyl Animals Worse affected than thought: study – by Nick Vonocur.), could be somewhere, there, among the numerous documents published by the Chernobyl Research Initiative (click on “publications” at the top of their home page). The study could be there, or some of its content, or much of its content, or related content, but one thing is sure, you’ll find there something substantial; the Directors of the Chernobyl Research Initiative are Timothy A. Mousseau and Anders Pape Moller. Anders Pape Moller, according to Reuters, led the study released by the CNRS. The CRI provides minute studies and reports dating back to, at least, 2001, up to 2008; these studies and reports are very informative. You will also find links to research on Chernobyl, sources of funding for the Chernobyl Research Initiative, etc.

Here is a quote from the Chernobyl Research Initiative which certainly deserves careful attention.

[Excerpt:]

Summary of principal findings to date [...][at least up to 2008, maybe up to 2009]:

1)      Children living in contaminated regions show significant negative impacts on blood parameters including red and white blood cell counts, hemoglobin levels, and platelet numbers.

2)      Surveys of bird populations indicate that mutation loads in natural populations are much higher than in uncontaminated areas.

3)      Literature reviews indicate that mutation rates in many different species of plants and animals (including humans) are higher than in control regions.

4)      Chernobyl populations exhibit a wide variety of morphological deformities that are not found in any normal population.

5)      Surveys of birds, insects, and spiders indicate that many species are either absent or in very low numbers in the Chernobyl region. Brightly colored and migratory species of birds appear to be particularly sensitive to radioactive contaminants.

6)      Studies of birds indicate that some species may only persist in the contaminated regions via immigration from uncontaminated areas. Without this immigration, perceived impacts would be even higher than current projections. Media reports of a “healthy” Chernobyl environment with rare species of birds and mammals are likely the result of immigrants and not locally sustained populations.

7)      Population and community studies suggest that antioxidants (e.g. vitamins A and E, and carotenoids) may provide protection against the mutagenic effects of radioactive contaminants.

[End of excerpt.]

Thanks to Twan’s Blog (onelikelystory.wordpress.com), I found a recent link (July 7 2009) on the construction cost for Chernobyl’s New Safe Confinement structure (the disaster, let’s remind it, occurred in 1986, and it’s not over yet, and there are still people promoting the building of nuclear power plants…) :

Updated Cost Estimates for Chernobyl’s New Safe Confinement Structure.

This is Mark Resnicoff’s web site. You should read his account of a two-day visit to Chernobyl in 2006, even though it may seems to contradict, implicitly, the essential of the findings, over the years, by the Chernobyl Research Initiative. Mark’s piece of writing conveys a very deep, lasting impression – at least that’s what it did on me – and apparently on him. Presently, I think there is still much, very much,  to meditate upon and to learn, and in more than one direction, about the Chernobyl disaster, its aftermath, its deeper meaning. As Socrates used to say: knowledge is reminiscence :

My Journey to Chernobyl: 20 years after the disaster.

I find the following news article quite telling, not to say frightening; it dates back to April 2005 – we’re in 2009. Link to full article:

Cracks in decaying shell of  Chernobyl reactor threaten second disaster – Andrew Osborn in Moscow, The Independent, 28 april 2005.

[Excerpt:]

A leading Russian scientist has claimed that the sarcophagus entombing Chernobyl’s broken nuclear reactor is dangerously degraded and he warned that its collapse could cause a catastrophe on the same scale as the original accident almost 20 years ago.

Professor Alexei Yablokov, President of the Centre for Russian Environmental Policy, said the concrete and metal sarcophagus was riven with cracks, already leaking radiation and at risk of collapse unless repairs were undertaken and work on a replacement urgently begun.

“If it collapses, there will be no explosion, as this is not a bomb, but a pillar of dust containing irradiated particles will shoot 1.5 kilometres into the air and will be spread by the wind.” Depending on how the wind is blowing, Russia or Belarus would bear the brunt of such a dust cloud. Ukraine, where Chernobyl is located, would also be affected.

[End of excerpt.]

“Confinement” of  the structure seems to me like a gigantic, dangerous, costly nightmare since 1986. Except for one of the links (World Nuclear Association) the following links are not  necessarily updated to 2009, but they are very informative, especially Chernobyl: Understanding some of the true costs of nuclear technology and the link to GreenFacts.

Wikipedia link:  Chernobyl Disaster.

Wikipedia link: Chernobyl New “Safe” Confinement Project.

Chernobyl: Understanding some of the true costs of nuclear technology.

This link is to The World Nuclear Association, “representing the people and organisations of the global nuclear profession” (those who make money out of building nuclear plants, and out of repairing or confining them…). There is information there, however.

This link is to GreenFacts: Scientific facts on the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident. (Document and information compiled in 2006.)

The Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, apparently after they started to build the sarcophagus in the aftermath of the disaster. The nuclear disaster itself had happened on 26 of April 1986. Compare with photo just following this one. When comparing, take the red-and-white chimney as point of reference for orientation.
(Up) The Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, apparently after they started to build the sarcophagus in the aftermath of the disaster. The sarcophagus in progress appears at the forefront, where previously there was a hole. The nuclear disaster itself had happened on 26 of April 1986. Compare with photo immediately following. When comparing, take the red-and-white chimney as point of reference for orientation.
Chernobyl_Disaster_Wiki_02
(Up) Same photo as the second one from the top of this post, but reduced in size.
The Chernobyl Sarcophgus, probably at a later stage of being erected.

The decaying Chernobyl Sarcophagus. The photo was most probably taken while the “confinement” structure was under repair a long time after completion.

________________________________________________

The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in Japan, were nuked and destroyed by the US in august 1945. The uranium atom bomb dropped over the city of Hiroshima had an explosive yield of around 15,000 tons of TNT. It immediately killed between 70,000 to 100,000 people (figures vary and can be presented differently; for instance, 90,000 killed immediately and 145,000 within months). It injured countless others. Tens of thousands died in the ensuing months and years from injuries and radiation. This was the first time a nuclear bomb was used as a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). It was insane, pure terror:

Nuclear explosion over Hiroshima, on morning of August 6th, 1945, 08h15, photographed from the plane that had dropped the uranium atom bomb dubbed "Little Boy." The plane had been baptized "Enola Gay," by the pilot of the bomber, colonel Paul W. Tibbets, after the name of his mother. Tibbets died at age 92 in 2007.

Mushroom cloud following nuclear explosion of uranium atom bomb over Hiroshima, on morning of August 6th, 1945, 08h15, photographed from the plane that had dropped the uranium atom bomb dubbed “Little Boy.” The plane had been baptized “Enola Gay,” by the pilot of the bomber, colonel Paul W. Tibbets, after the name of his mother. Tibbets died at age 92 in 2007.

The pilot of Enola Gay, Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, died at age 92 in 2007. Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel, never expressed regret over his role. In 1975, in an interview, he's quoted to have said: "I sleep clearly every night.''

The pilot of Enola Gay, Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, died at age 92 in 2007. Tibbets, a 30-year-old colonel in 1945, never expressed regret over his role. In 1975, in an interview, he’s quoted to have said that it was its patriotic duty: “I sleep clearly every night.” What appears at first grasp as a mix of stupefying shallowness and “macho bragging” on the part of Paul W. Tibbets isn’t unique to him, it’s actually widespread.

Hiroshima aftermath...

Hiroshima aftermath…

Hiroshima aftermath

Hiroshima aftermath. “They” dit it once, and I’m intimately convinced that “they” could do it again, “somewhere else,” as we say – but where on earth is “somewhere else?” Let us not be fooled by country names and borders: What goes around comes around. Anywhere is everywhere.

Three days later on 9 August 1945 at 11.02 am,  the United States  dropped the plutonium atom bomb  "Fat Man" on  Nagasaki. The plutonium bomb had an explosive yield of 21,000 tons of TNT. 45,000 were killed immediately and 75,000 more were dead by the end of 1945.

Mass destruction: mushroom cloud over Nagasaki. Three days after Hiroshima, on August 9, 1945, 11h02, the United States dropped the plutonium atom bomb dubbed “Fat Man” over Nagasaki. It had an explosive yield of 21,000 tons of TNT. 45,000 people were killed immediately and 75,000 more were dead by the end of 1945.

Human artermath...

Hiroshima-Nagasaki: Human aftermath…

Victim of Hiroshima nuclear holocaust...

Hiroshima...

August 1945. This is just a small part of Hiroshima, Japan, after the first nuclear bomb destroyed the city on 6th of August 1945. Three days later, on August 9, another nuclear bomb was exploded over Nagasaki, Japan.  This illustration shows only rubble, and a fraction of the result, at the time, of  “what is now just the detonating cap for a modern nuclear weapon.” (Daniel Ellsberg). Much of the raw evidence filmed at the time in the immediate aftermath (not “dramatizations” or “re-enactments”) have been kept for very long from public view by US authorities – except for the release of some “classic” photos, like this one, apparently.

In a recent article posted on Global Research, Daniel Ellsberg writes: “Every one of our many thousands of H-bombs, the thermonuclear fusion bombs that arm our [US] strategic forces, requires a Nagasaki-type A-bomb as its detonator.”

Read this article by Daniel Ellsberg: Hiroshima Day: America has been asleep at the wheel for 64 years.

[Excerpt:]

“Every one of our many thousands of H-bombs, the thermonuclear fusion bombs that arm our strategic forces, requires a Nagasaki-type A-bomb as its detonator. I doubt that one American in a hundred knows that simple fact, and thus has a clear understanding of the difference between A- and H-bombs, or of the reality of the thermonuclear arsenals of the last 50 years.

“Our popular image of nuclear war—from the familiar pictures of the devastation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima—is grotesquely misleading. Those pictures show us only what happens to humans and buildings when they are hit by what is now just the detonating cap for a modern nuclear weapon.”

[End of excerpt.]

© Copyright 2009 Hamilton-Lucas Sinclair (Loup Kibiloki), click

Waging Total Nuclear War against Humanity and Human Genes   –   Malformed babies resulting from israeli banned weapons   –   Depleted Uranium found in Gaza victims    -  Nuclear Fuel. What is it? – Wikipedia   -   Chernobyl Heart, video documentary by Maryann de Leo, on Google Video. Can also be found on youtube.    -    Was there an earthly paradise?  What was it?  Where was it? (Satprem and Mira Alfassa – the Mother)    –    Astounding 2009 Nobel Prize for Literature Joan de Blow never wrote a book!  She talks about Obama.    -   Invisible Person with Enormous Power: it starts with a “C”, as in “Corporation”, but it doesn’t end there…    –     Western leaders, western populations : awareness, massmedia control and censorship.   -   How can we make our consciousness vast?    -

La terre tremble pendant des mois en 1663 au Canada. Des montagnes, des rivières, disparaissent.

Non à la pollution! Non à la Formule 1 à Montréal ou ailleurs dans le monde!    –    Arrêtez de raser les parterres et de massacrer les plantes sauvages! Laissez la Vie Vivre!

Canada: Un totalitarisme souterrain persistant.    -   Avons-nous jamais vécu en démocratie? Pétitionne, trace ton x, cause toujours.    -

Blogsurfer.usIcerocket

About Loup Kibiloki

Aller ici (have a look here) : http://electrodes-h-sinclair-502.com/electrodes_anode/
This entry was posted in Articles, billets, essais., Chernobyl - Le nucléaire, monde, Survie - Survival and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Do you remember Chernobyl? Nuclear disaster contamination: apparently worse than previously thought.

  1. Twan says:

    The new confinement shelter being built is rising in cost everyday.

    • Thanks for the comment. Personally, I wouldn’t go – although, on the other hand, presently, I’d rather visit Russia than the US. But I’m broke… so (and actually, I don’t complain :-). I’ve watched some months ago a video on Google Video showing plants, wild plants, and trees, animals taking back their kingdom in the vicinity of Chernobyl. But I’m not convinced there’s no ongoing damage, more or less visible, although it’s always impressive, strongly impressive, to witness plants taking back ruins and their neighborhood. Wild plants are superb, patient, crafty, lovable warriors – and I think they fight for us all, those aristocrats of survival we call weeds. But we must consider the mid, long and very-long-term effects on the genetics of animals, plants, humans, etc., and I believe Chernobyl – but not only Chernobyl – is a strident warning to us all. I think all nuclear power plants should simply be dismantled.

      One should read the studies and reports on Chernobyl found at the following link:

      Chernobyl Research Initiative at South Carolina University.

  2. Mark says:

    Thanks for linking to my post about the New Safe Confinement construction costs.

    I personally visited the Chernobyl area for two days in June 2006 with a friend who is a former resident of Pripyat. We toured the Chernobyl Plant (including the Reactor 4 control room), several of the abandoned villages, and Pripyat. I have posted a photo journal of my trip at:

    My Journey to Chernobyl: 20 Years After the Disaster

  3. Alam says:

    Good Information on Chernobyl! But, was it necessary the use of atomic bomb in war against Japan?

  4. Madame Chose says:

    J’aimerais bien que ce texte soit traduit en français. Je sais peu de chose sur cette tragédie et votre point de vue, M. Loup, m’intéresse.

    Je vous remercie !

  5. SUPARNO168 says:

    Its war. This is not paradise , not heaven.
    I just want peace in the world. Nomore war.No more cry.No more tear.Just Peace Because we life under the same sky.

  6. Mark Davidson says:

    I disagree with just about every sentiment in this website. I’d be proud to be the one who release the bomb over Japan in ’45, because we were attacked and they had to be stopped. Rather a hundred thousand of them than one more of us. They refused to surrender because of the code of Bushido and the Allies sacrificed many young men to stop Hirohito, Hitler and Mussolini. Nuclear weapons are the reason we are not at each other’s throats yet again. WW2 Japan was a hateful, murderous nation in the grip of militarists, engaged in the rape of China. The young boys who defeated the Axis died horrible, unnecessary, deaths. They were just kids! As far as I’m concerned, anti nuclear activists are traitors; You see- the leaders of the world’s nations are happy to send you and I out to die, but when they’re threatened, the wars over. I’m not happy about it, but it’s been proven throughout human history that in order to have peace we must all arm ourselves with the most terrible weapons we can devise (a sad indictment of our nature) Only then will we be too terrified to use them and there will be peace (mostly). So far it has worked reasonably. Of course there are going to be Chernobyls. We’re only human and were dealing with the ultimate fire. But freedom must be defended. At all costs. I never complain about nuclear power, weapons or the sound of gunfire from the nearby army training range; to me, it’s the sound of freedom.

    • Thanks for the comment. At least, the expression of your sentiment is now part of this website :-)

      It’s difficult to argue with sentiment – not impossible, but difficult.

      Dropping nuclear bombs in 1945 over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, against civilian population essentially, could be compared to humanity shooting globally itself in the foot in the name of freedom to walk, or gingerly rushing over the cliff in the name of freedom to fly. The autodestructive atomic cycle has developed itsef unabated since, and now it encompasses the whole planet.

      *

      There are historic documents suggesting or showing that before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan representatives and the Emperor were trying secretly (through Swiss authorities, I believe), to contact US authorities in order to negotiate an end to hostilities. But to no avail. Apparently, US authorities were following another agenda and were not interested.

      You should read the following article:

      Official U.S. history of atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is more fiction than fact

      The article draws the following conclusions (and offers more links):

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki fact and fiction:

      * Lie: Leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities to warn civilians to evacuate.
      * Truth: Leaflets were dropped after we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      * Lie: Our use of the atomic bombs shortened the war.
      * Truth: The Japanese were looking for peace when they returned from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3, 1945, three days before the U.S. military bombed Hiroshima.

      * Lie: We bombed Hiroshima, which was an important Japanese Army base.
      * Truth: We bombed the city center of Hiroshima, which had a population of 350,000.
      * Truth: Only four of the 30 targets were, in fact, military in nature.

      * Lie: The destroyed area of Hiroshima contained major industrial targets.
      * Truth: The only “industrial” targets were three textile mills.
      * Truth: Residential areas sustained the most damage.
      * Truth: Less than 10 percent of Hiroshima’s manufacturing, transportation and storage facilities were damaged.

      * Lie: Residual radiation was not a threat to the American soldiers who stayed to occupy Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
      * Truth: The “black rain” that fell after the bombings contaminated the ground, which was one of the many sources of residual radiation.

      Or you could read this other article:

      Hiroshima 1945: Behind The U.S. Atom Bomb Atrocity
      By Fred Halstead

      There are many others.

      *

      The equilibrium of Terror (or Mutual Assured Destruction – MAD) imposed itself for a while after USSR got hold of the secret of the Bomb. Just on time not to be bombed by the US?… It’s an open question, a very pertinent one. Thus far, the only country who has been willing, with no remorse of afterthougth whatsoever, to use the Bomb on a massive scale and essentially against civilians – has been the US. The smell of freedom or victory you’re so endeared with, stinks.

      The fact is that, today, radiation has contaminated the planet, including the US – and the process is still going on, especially through the use of depleted uranium (DU) in armaments.

      One should read the following article on this blog : Waging Total Nuclear War against Planet Earth and Human Genes

      And this one about state justification of war through manipulation and deception:

      The Lie of the Century

      *

      The use of deception to justify war includes the purposeful path of US deception and boycots against Japan that led to Pearl Harbour (if you go to “The Lie of the Century,” you’ll find a declassified US document in 8 points describing just that). Most wars are children of deception.

      One could go as far back as Nero destroying Rome through massive arson (this was not a “war”, but it is a good example of state deception through false flag operation), then afterwards accusing christians of the crime Nero and the thugs he’d hired had committed against Rome and its citizens, then getting rid of those embarrassing christians by having thousands killed, and then acquiring a large piece of burned down real estate for a cheap price, a piece of real estate that had been previously denied to Nero (owners apparently refused to sell). Using deception and lies for power and real estate gains and profits.

      I don’t think this document (*The Lie of the Century*) will change your sentiment.

      But maybe the compassion you feel for the American boys maiming and being maimed, wounding and being wounded, killing and being killed on the battlefield, maybe your compassion could be felt under new lights – without this compassion being altered or diminished – to the contrary. Actually it could grow larger than just the US victims. It could.

      I learned – and I’m still learning – not to barter feelings or sentiments for collective deception and sting, like I did in the past.

      More often than not, especially in matter of war, Political and Money powers offer a deceptive deal. Then, millions are maimed and killed and life on this planet is gradually and tragically destroyed.

      The result is not the smell of freedom or victory. The result is a pervading smell of self-deceit and self-defeat, that fury looks more like organized insanity on the loose than like freedom.

  7. …..BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE OF JAPAN…???
    THEY WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPTION: SURRENDER OR NOT?
    THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO WAR…!!!
    IS IT??
    SHOULD WE PLAY THE WARS ON THE RESIDENCY OR CITIES…???
    I DONT THINK..
    I THINK US WAS WRONG ON THIS MATTER..NO DOUBT…

  8. rohit kumar says:

    there can never be a proper justification for a heinous act like this especially when japanese were wanting peace as mentioned in the postdam conference on aug 3. It was wholly a cruel idea to do that.Killing innocent civilians in revenge for a attack that was purely on a military base,especially during a war can never be justified.In other words it was cowardice.In the name of shortening of war americans gave the world the biggest danger to the world ‘the nuclear weapons’.In 1945, it was america today many nations are with this and countries like iran ,north korea who regularly threaten to use them and there is a grave concern that many terrorist organisations can also get this and can use them in future. for all these situation only america is to blame

  9. Jack Gamble says:

    I only read a few lines into it and found too many mistakes.

    1. WHO says that about 50 deaths were caused by Chernobyl, not 9000. The 9000 is the # of Thyroid Cancer cases that MAY be LINKED to Chernobyl. Thyroid Cancer is the most treatable
    form of cancer and has the lowest mortality rate of all cancers.

    2. You cite Greenpeace as a source and expect rational people to take you seriously, big mistake.

    • I think it is fair to mention from the start that the author of the comment I’m answering to (just above this one), Mr. Jack Gamble, with due respect, is an engineer working in the nuclear industry whose web site states that : ” Nuclear Energy suffers from a poor public image. We’re here to change all that. “

      The image. Very important.

      In other words, Mr. Gamble is on some kind of public relation and spin mission and, to him, the whole of the present article on Chernobyl cannot be anything else than an error or a mistake, almost some kind of sin. Some kind of sin against the image…

      So, pick up a grain of salt …

      *

      In a nutshell: figure of 9,000 deaths predicted by WHO was quoted from the BBC and was correct (as for the BBC), as was the figure of 93,000 deaths predicted by Greenpeace (same BBC article). Greenpeace’s figures were clearly mentioned as a prediction in my article, but it wasn’t as clear for WHO’s predicted figures of deaths. I made the correction, and this time, I linked my post to the source, the BBC article. So Mr. Gamble was wrong on that.

      I explain all this, and more, further down.

      *

      I agree with Mr. Gamble that one should be cautious with Greenpeace.

      Mr. Gamble will certainly agree that one should be cautious too with anyone whose earnings come through the nuclear energy industry.

      One should be cautious with WHO, too (World Health Organization).

      Personally, I have no vested interests in the nuclear energy industry, and in no other energy industry – or any kind of industry whatsoever – I’m not even a member of any organization, great or small (except a writers’ small association in my country in the activities of which I never get involved.

      *

      That being said:

      Apparently, the WHO (World Health Organization) document on Chernobyl disaster (which occured in 1986), refered to by JG, could be the following one: Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident. It dates back to 2005.

      It states that “As of mid-2005, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster…”

      Which is highly doubtful, to say the least, as you know if you’ve been around researching and reading about the question for a while …

      However, the WHO article’s lead reads like this: “5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA — A total of up to 4000 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 has concluded…”

      We’ll come to the figure of 9,000 (from 4,000), further down.

      The same WHO document dating back to 2005 also says:

      “ This was a very serious accident with major health consequences, especially for thousands of workers exposed in the early days who received very high radiation doses, and for the thousands more stricken with thyroid cancer… ”

      So thyroid cancer, according to WHO, is only a piece of the whole disaster aftermath, and what they say implies that there is worse. As for Mr. Gamble, if thyroid cancer is so benign, why doesn’t he purposefully go and spent a month or two sleeping in the Pripyat-Chernobyl nuclear plant sarcophagus, and then catch one, a real one, like the children of Belarus that one can see, for instance, in Chernobyl Heart, to show to the world how fun and benign thyroid cancer is. It would certainly be good for the nuclear energy image he’s so generously dedicated to.

      Then, following the dire, dramatic statement previously quoted from WHO, the same WHO document goes on, this time (sooth)saying:

      ” By and large, however, we have not found profound negative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas, nor have we found widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health, within a few exceptional, restricted areas. ”

      Observe that the whole WHO document paragraph that I’ve divided in two parts sounds like this:

      a) [first half of the WHO document paragraph] The bird’s egg was hit with the sledgehammer and …

      b) [second half of the paragraph] Well, there were small marks here and there, but not that much damage.

      Peculiar.

      But I have other good reasons to doubt what is stated above by WHO and stressed by me in italic bold. For instance, one should pay great attention to this documentary (and to many other links in my article) :

      Link to “Chernobyl Heart,” an important video documentary by Maryann de Leo on Google Video. It can be found also on youtube.

      And pay attention to this document in French: Tchernobyl, enquête exclusive – Comment le lobby nucléaire français enterre la vérité en zones contaminées.

      [Title's English Translation: "Chernobyl, exclusive investigation: How the French nuclear lobby burries the truth about [Chernobyl] contaminated areas.”]

      *

      As for the figure of 9,000 stated in my article, as I said, I found back the link and the source.

      The link stating the figure of 9,000 came from the BBC -18 April 2006: “Greenpeace rejects Chernobyl toll.” One can observe, comparing the WHO document quoted earlier (2005) to the BBC article (2006) that I will quote immediately a bit further down, that from 2005 to 2006, the predicted death figures from UN (or WHO) had been growing from 4,000 (in 2005) to 9,000 (in 2006) — Their death toll prediction, at the time, had more than doubled! In one year!

      Quote from the BBC article (2006):

      ” Official UN figures predicted up to 9,000 Chernobyl-related cancer deaths. But Greenpeace says in a report released on Tuesday that recent studies estimate that the actual number of such deaths will be 93,000. Stressing that there is a problem with diagnosis, it adds that other illnesses could take the toll to 200,000. ”

      Apparently, Greenpeace considers all areas of Europe contaminated by the disaster, while WHO only considers the more limited Chernobyl surrounding areas.

      Greenpeace outlook makes sense, here. Be cautious. Sure. But one must keep the following in mind:

      ” The [Chernobyl] nuclear meltdown produced a radioactive cloud that was detected over all of Europe except for the Iberian Peninsula [roughly: Gibraltar, Spain, Portugal],” (quoted from Wikipedia).

      On the other hand, WHO’s attitude is quite strange to me – especially coming from an international agency of the United Nations – and not from a local Pripyat or Chernobyl organization…

      The World Health Organization (WHO) is an agency of the United Nations, it acts as a coordinating authority on public health matters, and so UN figures mentioned by BBC most evidently originated from WHO. Those figures had a predictive aspect that was more clearly stressed for the Greenpeace figures in my quoting of the BBC article.

      *

      I provide lots of different links to sources on the subject, besides Greenpeace, including to The World Nuclear Association, “ representing the people and organisations of the global nuclear profession, ” as they present themselves on their web site.

      There too, one should be as cautious as can be.

      Which doesn’t prevent me from linking them – including WHO…

      And the author of the comment I’m commenting upon is also linked through his comment – so anyone can go and read.

      I take for granted that readers who pay a visit here are certainly concerned, intelligent people – above all, curious, sincerely concerned, and will carry their research through the maze of the whole question, exactly as I do – here and elsewhere, small step after small step – and find the most complete truth they can hope for. To a very large extent, at the end, that transcends figures.

      Actually, the Chernobyl disaster must be put in a much wider perspective.

      Let’s not forget that nuclear reactors, when they don’t burst open in our midst, are generating radioactive waste (besides electricity) – which is lavishly used in military weaponry – which would tend to prove that being cautious, first and foremost about nuclear energy and its promoters, in the long run, pays infinitely more for all of us than the industry haste, greed, hubris, faustian drive or so-called “pride”.

      Meanwhile, the whole insane nuclear radiation chibagne still goes on. It’s been going on unabated since 1945 :

      Waging Total Nuclear War against Planet Earth and Human Genes

    • Actually, and more simply, one could go to the link at the end of this comment and watch and ask oneself, meanwhile or afterwards, if it wouldn’t be wiser and simply more common sense and humane to promote something else than nuclear plants and nuclear energy?

      Why in the world, after such an obnoxious, cruel, disgusting mess, after all this unlegitimate and perfectly unnecessary and useless degradation and suffering – that is still going on – why persist on promoting more nuclear energy plants, and by doing so, raising even higher the inevitability of another similar or worse cruel and unnecessary outcome – while increasing the production of nuclear radioactive waste to be sold to warmongers and warmongeresses of all stripes ?

      http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl

    • AMDG says:

      Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer is the most deadly form of cancer a human can suffer from. Basically incurable, with a prognosis of 6 months, if you are ‘lucky’. The usual mechanism of death is mechanical suffocation, caused by pressure from the rapidly growing tumor pressing on the oesophagus. This is the most likely form of Thyroid cancer if exposed to such high levels of radiation, and I just watched my 44 year old sister die from it.

      The irony of your surname is not lost on me Mr Gamble.

  10. Disasters like this deeply sadden me. The fact that the Radiations not only affects the direct victims but generations down the line. Nuclear weapons are such a terrible invention and disaters such as Chernobyl affect such a wide area.

  11. Mr. Dunne says:

    Whilst I vehemently oppose the use of nuclear warfare (as an obvious extension of my not agreeing with any manner of warfare…), and I condemn America’s action against Japan, I think your opposition to nuclear power is somewhat unfounded. The disaster at Chernobyl was indeed a travesty, and it highlights the potential dangers of using fission reactors to generate energy, but the methods of fission have become far more sophisticated in the past 20 years. Regulations are far stricter nowadays and reactors have a much better design. Of course, one of the main factors (along with the illogical design of the RMBK reactor) in the Chernobyl accident was the lack of caution of the staff running the test, and though I’m invariably distrustful of humanity’s natural fallibility (a quote from Jurassic Park’s Ian Malcolm seems to apply here : “God help us – we’re in the hands of engineers”), I believe that it is in no one’s interests to be reckless when dealing with nuclear power, and that sufficient care is being taken on an ongoing basis to ensure that a disaster like Chernobyl never happens again.

    The benefits of nuclear power, to my mind, outweigh the potential for accidents. It is not perfect, by any means – and the sooner fusion becomes a practical possibility, the better – but it is preferable to the overconsumption of fossil fuels. Renewable energy is the optimal standard, here, save for the fact that it would take years to implement enough renewable energy resources to provide for our total needs. Meanwhile, I am a reluctant proponent of fission energy, with the caveat that the operators involved are sensible, and do not afford room for any risks.

    • Mr. Dunne says:

      *RBMK, actually – sorry. Hit the keys in the wrong order.

    • Thanks. I sincerely appreciate your comment in that it tries to balance opposites.

      However, there exists extraordinary alternatives.

      There exists a fabulous nuclear reactor and energy provider that’s been active for billions of years and still is, that’s been harnessed by our own planetary system and still is and will be for a very long time in the future, and can be harnessed by us too, it’s proven, and can be developped even more than it is presently, and indefinitely perfected by us, as plants, skin, earthlings have been doing from time immemorial with an impressive sophistication, reliability, resilience and success; this fabulous nuclear reactor, we all know it – if it disappears, we disappear, as long as it is there, we’re there too (unless we commit collective suicide). This fabulous nuclear reactor is the sun.

      Our nuclear plants are pale, dangerous, terribly COSTLY and dwarf imitations of the real guy already there at the center of the system, and to me, the «benefits» of our nuclear power plants will never outweigh the potential for accidents – or worse. It’s a question of choice. Murphy’s law always applies, especially here: «If something can go wrong, it will…» In a mid or long-term perspective, that popular saying certainly applies.

      There are other alternatives too.

      Yours.

      Loup.

  12. AMDG says:

    I live in Scotland, and has just lost my sister to Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer. The consultant said that he was seeing a huge increase in this previously rare cancer. When asked, by her medical team, if she remembered what she had been doing around about the time of the Chernobl disaster, she said that she’d always remembered getting soaked in a particularly heavy Scottish rainstorm. Her medical team looked at each other with a knowing nod. This particular type of cancer normally affects men in their 70s who have had a history of working near radiation. So how else do we explain a perfectly healthy non smoking, non drinking, fit 44 year old woman being killed by this illness? I wholeheartedly believe we haven’t seen half the damage Chernobyl has done.

  13. I saw this really good post today.

  14. Pingback: What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Weapons?

  15. Pingback: Onfray : Le culte béat de Big Brother, de Big Bee, de Big Bug. Le vieil idéal étouffant de la fourmillière. | Électrodes

  16. Pingback: Ants, Fire, and the Lawnmower | Électrodes

  17. Pingback: Le pacifisme béat, le bellicisme hurlant, le cynisme bonhomme des leaderships | Électrodes

  18. Pingback: René Guénon : La duperie des «prophéties» | Électrodes

  19. Pingback: Rebirth : reincarnation and other worlds; karma, the soul and immortality. | Électrodes

  20. Pingback: La réincarnation, le karma, les autres mondes. | Électrodes

  21. Pingback: Gilles Surprenant au casino : blanchiment d’argent ? Commission Charbonneau. | Électrodes

  22. Rodney says:

    Howdy! This post couldn’t be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my previous roommate! He continually kept talking about this. I’ll forward
    this article to him. Pretty sure he’ll have a good read. Thank you for sharing!

  23. Pingback: Montréal est une poudrière ( article censuré par le moteur de recherche yahoo ) .. | Électrodes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s