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

Article moved to new link

Click here

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


Article moved to new link

Click here



About Jacques Renaud

This entry was posted in Articles and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Do you remember Chernobyl ? Nuclear disaster contamination apparently worse than previously thought

  1. 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.


  2. 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.




  3. 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.


  4. 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.


      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 ?


    • 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.


  5. 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


    IS IT??


  7. 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.


  8. 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.


  9. 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 !


  10. Alam says:

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


  11. 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


    • 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.


  12. Twan says:

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


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s