11/6/2023 0 Comments Murasaki menu![]() ![]() Many were forced to stay in overcrowded gyms, schools, and public facilities for several months until more permanent emergency housing became available. Within a few weeks of the accident more than 160,000 people had moved away, either from official evacuation efforts or voluntarily from fear of further radioactive releases. And that most people were not exposed to doses higher than this.Ī more difficult question is how many people died indirectly through the response and evacuation of locals from the area around Fukushima. ![]() Cancer rates in Ukraine, for example, were not higher in locations closer to the site 14 This suggests that there is a lower limit to the level at which radiation exposure has negative health impacts. If the health impacts of radiation were directly and linearly related to the level of exposure, we would expect to find that cancer rates were highest in regions closest to the Chernobyl site, and would decline with distance from the plant. 13 In 2018 it published a follow-up report, which came to the same conclusion. In 2008, the UNSCEAR concluded that radioactive exposure to the general public was very low, and that it does not expect adverse health impacts in the countries affected by Chernobyl, or the rest of Europe. More recent studies suggest that these estimates were too high. 12 These estimates were based on the assumption that a large number of people were exposed to elevated levels of radioactivity, and that radioactivity increases cancer risk, even at very low levels of exposure (the so-called ‘ linear no-threshold model’ of radiation exposure). 11 In its 2005 report, the WHO estimated a potential death toll of 4,000. ![]() Some reports in the early 2000s estimated much higher death tolls ranging from 16,000 to 60,000. 10 This figure comes with significant uncertainty.įinally, there has been significant concern about cancer risks to the wider population across Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and other parts of Europe. This comes from the assumption of a survival rate of 92% to 98% (or, to flip it, a mortality rate of 2% to 8%). If we combine standard survival rates with our number of radiation-induced cancer cases – 4,808 cases – we might estimate that the number of deaths could be in the range of 96 to 385. ![]() Others show an even better prognosis, with a survival rate of 98% after 40 years. 7 Large-scale studies report a 20-year survival rate of 92% for thyroid cancer. Many patients that have undergone treatment have seen either a partial or complete remission. Thankfully the prognosis for thyroid cancer in children is very good. It’s therefore not possible to give a definitive number, but we can look at survival rates and outcomes to get an estimate. 6 However, it was likely that this figure would increase: at least some of those still living with thyroid cancer will eventually die from it. 5īy 2005, it was reported that 15 of these thyroid cancer cases had been fatal. That would mean 4,808 thyroid cancer cases. UNSCEAR concluded that around one-quarter of these cases could be linked to radiation exposure. Over the period from 1991 to 2015, there were 19,233 cases of thyroid cancer in patients who were younger than 18 at the time of the disaster across Ukraine, Belarus, and exposed regions of Russia. In 2018, UNSCEAR published its latest findings on thyroid cancers attributed to the Chernobyl disaster. Increased screening, particularly in child populations, would result in finding many cases of cancer that would normally go undetected. It’s not uncommon for thyroid cancer cases to go undetected – and have no negative impact on an individual’s life. This is because there was a large increase in screening efforts in the aftermath of the disaster. Figuring out how many cases of thyroid cancer in this young population were caused by the accident is not straightforward. This exposure to 131I has not been linked to increased cancer risk in the adult population, but several studies have shown an increased incidence of thyroid cancer in those who were children and adolescents around this time. Radioactive fallout settled on pasture grass across the region this contaminated milk supplies and leafy vegetables that were consumed in the days immediately after the incident. However, the slow response to the disaster meant that some individuals were exposed to the short-lived radionuclide Iodine-131 ( 131I) through the contamination of milk. Most of the population was not exposed to levels of radiation that would put them at risk of negative health impacts. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |