8/7/01   2:44 am GMT
		29 April 1996 Chernobyl as a metaphor for the 1990s John Gillot explores how the dishonest discussion about delayed-action cancers are used to justify an anti-nuclear argument. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant on 26 April 1986 killed many people and will undoubtedly continue to blight the lives of people in the region for many years to come. But many of the commentaries about it today, exactly ten years on, lack all sense of proportion. Chernobyl has become a metaphor for destruction and poisoning in our ecologically-minded and risk-conscious age. And, as with most concerns about the destructive consequences of human action today, the perceived problems far outstrip the real ones. A central theme in the discussion of Chernobyl today is the idea that the worst is still to come. According to the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States and the former environmental activist Yuri Shcherback, we have yet to even comprehend all of the likely consequences of the accident. (Scientific American, April 1996) While the discussion around the run-up to and the aftermath of the explosion takes a variety of forms, many commentators focus on the projected rise in cancers in the area. Shcherback and many of the more morbid commentators argue that this rise is an almost inevitable consequence of the explosion. The cancers, it is said, will take the death toll into the tens if not hundreds of thousands. So far, the only documented increase in cancer cases has been the rise in cases of thyroid cancer in children. But, and in this view he is quite typical, James Meek in the Guardian thinks that this merely foreshadows 'other delayed-action cancer tragedies'.(20 April) However, there are good reasons to believe that this is not the case. As is well known, thyroid cancers are in a class of their own. The thyroid gland concentrates iodine. Unfortunately it makes no distinction between ordinary iodine and the radioactive isotope released in nuclear accidents. The thyroid gland thus acts to concentrate the effect, turning a low dose into a high dose. Other sources of radiation besides radioactive iodine are not so concentrated. Because there are good reasons to believe that prolonged exposure to low doses of radiation are less harmful than a shorter exposure to a high dose it is unreasonable to generalise from the experiences of thyroid cancers and paint a picture of many cancers to come. Many of the commentators know this. To put it kindly, their tendency to suggest that the increase in thyroid cancers is the tip of the iceberg can only be explained by an urge to fear the worst. To put it unkindly, the delayed-action cancer thesis is a dishonest manoeuvre designed to justify an anti-nuclear argument. To project an increase in cancers in the future might seem to be an expression of sympathy for the people of the region. But it is in fact quite harmful to their well-being. It can only cast a pall over their lives, preventing them from getting on with things. At worst, the exaggeration of the problem can only add to the widely documented increase in stress and depression afflicting people in the region. Chernobyl was bad enough. To pour doom and gloom on top of it can only make things worse. John, author of Science and the Retreat from Reason and co-convenor (with Dominic Wood) of 'The Greening of Society course at The Week conference, will convene a chat on the tenth anniversary of the Chernobyl explosion at 22:00 BST on Thursday 2 May at the Living Marxism chat room. Join a discussion on this commentary
		http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/discuss/commentary/04-29-96-CHERNOBYL.html				Mail: webmaster@mail.informinc.co.uk