Re: Michael Crichton explains it all -- or why it can't all be explained

aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sent the following on 3/1/2007 12:35 PM:
Jim Gysin <jimgysin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sent the following on 3/1/2007 9:09 AM:
Jim Gysin <jimgysin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sent the following on 2/27/2007 8:22 PM:
Jim Gysin <jimgysin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sent the following on 2/27/2007 6:19 PM:
Jim Gysin <jimgysin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sent the following on 2/27/2007 1:57 PM:
Jim Gysin <jimgysin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sent the following on 2/26/2007 10:52 AM:
The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <Iamtj4life@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2:51 pm, <aborg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jim Gysin <jimgy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
aborg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sent the following on 2/23/2007 12:03 PM:
Crichton is scientifically illiterate... and completely lying when he
says that "About 50 people had died in Chernobyl"
Is this an exception, or do you not bother to fact-check anything that
you post?
Encyclopedia Britannica, emphasis mine: Beyond 32 immediate deaths,
several thousand radiation-induced illnesses and cancer deaths were
EXPECTED in the long term.
Encarta: Soviet officials placed the death toll at 2 (both workers
killed during the explosion at the No. 4 reactor) but by mid-August
revised the figure to 31, reflecting deaths of workers from acute
radiation exposure during the cleanup.
Wikipedia, emphasis mine: The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl
Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World
Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident
workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and ESTIMATED that as
many as 9,000 people among the approximately 6.6 million most highly
exposed, MAY die from some form of cancer (one of the induced diseases).
So your argument is that the estimates are off by 4 orders of
magnitude?

Currently the rate of thyroid cancer among children in Belarus is 40
times the pre-accident levels, with around 4-5 per 100 000 of population
per year diagnosed with new thyroid cancers. Neighbouring Ukraine has seen
a 2-3 fold increase to 0.4-0.5 per 100 000 per year in childhood thyroid
cancers from 1992. In the total population of Belarus the number of thyroid
cancers has gone from 1392 diagnosed in the 12 years leading up to the
accident (1974-1985) to 5449 new case diagnosed in the 12 years following
(1986-1998).

Tenses matter. "Had died in Chernobyl"....the above does nothing to
buttress your claim.
At this date "had died" in my mind applies to any time before now. We
know that as of today this increase in thyroid cancers has led to deaths
above and beyond the ~50 he cites. If Crichton made this claim in 1988,
it would be one thing. He didn't.
It doesn't matter how your mind does or doesn't apply things here. And
we don't "know that as of today," as the reference quotes that I gave
were current as of the day I first posted them, and the highest number
cited was 56.
No, the quotes you cited count ~50 direct deaths PLUS a whole bunch
more estimated deaths.
Estimated deaths that are expected in the long term (Britanicca), or who
may die (Wikipedia). Both are FUTURE events--or potential FUTURE
events. Neither has happened yet.
Yes, they have - because they were estimated in 1986. It's now 20 years
later.
Not true. The Wikipedia entry that lists 56 deaths specifically cites a
2005 report. And if the other two sources are aware of any deaths that
were once EXPECTED but have since become reality, then, as of last week,
they're not including that information in their articles.
Then they absolutely ARE wrong.
No. You're wrong. Read Rich's link, and then you can come back here
and apologize to Crichton and to me.
Ummm. I've read the entire report.
Then you're just being dishonest and refusing to admit you were wrong.

No. Just pointing out that your interpretation of the data is completely
erroneous.

Those estimated deaths count... and they've
happened.
They count as deaths if and when they happen, but they don't count as
deaths that have ALREADY happened.
It's been twenty years - quite a lot of them have happened.
In that case, why doesn't the 2005 report cited by Wikipedia--the one
prepared by the Chernobyl Forum and led by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization--list any such
deaths? Again, that 2005 number is 56.
After reading the actual meeting reports from the Chernobyl forum -
wiki is just wrong. 90% of the TOTAL thyroid cancer incidents
should occur during the first 20 years according the Anspaugh report
from the 2005 Chernobyl conference. The Cardis section of the report
(from which the ~9000 number comes from) is not saying 9000 deaths in
the fututre - but 9000 deaths total, starting in 1986.
You'll have to show me where that is in the PDF that Rich links to
elsewhere, because I'm not seeing it.
From the Anspaugh presentation (slide #68):

Projected external dose for 70 years following the accident

- 30% accumulated during the first year
- 70% accumulated during the first 15 years
Projected doses for 70 years is not ACTUAL DEATHS as of 2005. Show me
ACTUAL DEATH NUMBERS for the period ENDING in 2005 that in any way
conflict with the ~50 number that started this entire debate.

Anspaugh presentation (slide #74):

Average effective internal dose in Ukraine (% of projected total
internal dose 1986-2056)

1986: 7.6%
1987-1995: 67%
1996-2005: 12.9%
2006-2056: 12.4%
Average effective internal dose for 70 years is not ACTUAL DEATHS as of
2005. Show me ACTUAL DEATH NUMBERS for the period ENDING in 2005 that
in any way conflict with the ~50 number that started this entire debate.

From the Cardis presentation (slide #8):

Peak of thyroid cancer incidents in children: 1995
Peak of thyroid cancer incidents in adolescents: 2001
Peak of thyroid cancer incidents is not ACTUAL DEATHS as of 2005. Show
me ACTUAL DEATH NUMBERS for the period ENDING in 2005 that in any way
conflict with the ~50 number that started this entire debate.

From the Mettler presentation (slide #44):

Mortality due to the accident:

Acute: 28 persons due to acute radiation poisoning in 1986, 2
in explosion, 134 due to acute radiation poisoning 1987-2004
Now we're getting somewhere. Got a link for that data?

slide #44, Mettler presentation to the Chernobyl Forum.


Intermediate: 216 excess among Russian workers

Long term: ~4,000 due to radiogenic cancer and leukemia
How are "intermediate" and "longterm" are being defined here?

Intermediate is defined as 1991-1998. Long term is anything beyond
1998 to infinity.

To only cite the direct deaths is one of two things:
ignorant or disingenuous.
No, it's called reading what's written.
Whats written was appropriate in 1986. Now twenty years later some
good number of those estimated deaths have happened. To pretend that
even 20 years after the event they're all still in some nebulous
"future" is disingenuous.
It's disingenuous to take the WHO's numbers from 2005 at face value?
No, it's disingenuous to not actually use the Chernobyl Forums numbers
as they're actually stated and instead pretend the estimate 9000 deaths
has a 20 year latency.
Show me where the Chernobyl Forum's stated numbers (I've read the
applicable PDF sections) indicate that 9000 deaths have already occurred.
They haven't ALL already occured. A majority of them have. Some of
the health effects do have long latencies, some do not. Thyroid
cancer incidences have already peaked (in children 11 years ago).
Show me ACTUAL DEATH NUMBERS for the period ENDING in 2005 that in any
way conflict with the ~50 number that started this entire debate.

Already did.

Would it kill you to just acknowledge that you libeled Crichton and move on?
Crichton is either ignorant or being disingenuous. I don't believe
he is ignorant... and being disingenuous IS lying.
I guess it would kill you, then.
Sorry I won't apologize for calling a liar a liar.
Now that I've pointed out the apparent disconnect on your end, do you
want to reconsider?
No... because there is no disconnect. There is a misreading of the
estimate. The estimate was made in 2005 but is an estimate of the total
deaths expected over a 70 year period - STARTING IN 1986.
Crichton and I are NOT and never WERE talking about FUTURE deaths beyond
2005. As such, read the PDF. Then read Crichton's words. Then read my
words. Then read the words in the Britannica, Encarta and Wikipedia
links. And if you're still arrogant enough to refuse to acknowledge
that you're wrong, get help.
I've read the actual Chernobyl Forum presentations. Just in acute
and intermediate term deaths (ignoring long term cancer effects)
the Chernobyl forum reports cite 380 deaths 1986-2005.

380 deaths ignoring long term cancers... or about 760% of what Crichton
(and you apparently) are claiming.
Do you have a link to a site that provides the 380 deaths figure?
Because Rich's link says nothing of the sort. I'm assuming, of course,
that 380 refers to actual deaths directly liked to Chernobyl as of 2005,
since that was what Crichton was talking about.

http://www-ns.iaea.org/meetings/rw-summaries/chernobyl-conference-2005.htm#1

I still haven't found a computer with PowerPoint that I can borrow, so
for now I'll assume that Britannica, Encarta, Wikipedia, and the
Chernobyl Forum (which includes the IAEA, WHO, UNDP and others) is
correct and you're wrong. Especially since the IAEA is the group you're
citing, and I've already shown that they've signed off on a version of
reality that doesn't match yours.

--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
.