Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park and other best sellers, gave a lecture on 6th November with the text now ‘doing the rounds’ on the internet. Titled, ‘Fear, Complexity and Environmental Management in the 21st Century‘ it is a bit of a ramble covering issues as diverse as management of Yellowstone National Park and deaths at Chernobyl, click here for the entire speech with some powerpoint slides.
In the speech Michael Crichton claims that the BBC and New York Times reported 15,000-30,000 dead from Chernobyl when the actual number was 56. Crichton claims:
Chernobyl was a tragic event, but nothing remotely close to the global catastrophe I imagined. About 50 people had died in Chernobyl, roughly the number of Americans that die every day in traffic accidents. I don’t mean to be gruesome, but it was a setback for me. You can’t write a novel about a global disaster in which only 50 people die.
Crichton claims CNN estimated there would be 3.5 million future deaths when in reality there were less than 4,000.
In the speech Crichton claims:
But the shock that I had experienced reverberated within me for a while. Because what I had been led to believe about Chernobyl was not merely wrong-it was astonishingly wrong. Let’s review the data.
The initial reports in 1986 claimed 2,000 dead, and an unknown number of future deaths and deformities occurring in a wide swath extending from Sweden to the Black Sea. As the years passed, the size of the disaster increased; by 2000, the BBC and New York Times estimated 15,000-30,000 dead, and so on …
Now, to report that 15,000-30,000 people have died, when the actual number is 56, represents a big error. Let’s try to get some idea of how big. Suppose we line up all the victims in a row. If 56 people are each represented by one foot of space, then 56 feet is roughly the distance from me to the fourth row of the auditorium. Fifteen thousand people is three miles away. It seems difficult to make a mistake of that scale.
But, of course, you think, we’re talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences? Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate.
The chart shows estimates as high as 3.5 million, or 500,000 deaths, when the actual number of delayed deaths is less than 4,000. That’s the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions every six weeks. Again, a huge error.
But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that “the largest public health problem created by the accident” is the “damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information … [manifesting] as negative self-assessments of Xanax health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state.”end of quote
Is this true? How many really died from the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I would like to comment on the number of alleged deaths from Chernobyl. The physical number is correct about 50 including some 30 close in time to the accident.
The projected number of deaths is 4000 according to the last IAEA release, but tens of thousands according to some other estimates. All the so called, “deaths” are predictions made from the linear no threshold hypothesis (LNTH) of dose to response (cancer cases). LNTH may have strong support in the regulatory community for administrative reasons. Biologically, considering such issues as DNA repair, programed cell death, adaptive response etc, a linear relationship between dose and response is most unlikely. Further predictions based on LNTH are not supported by the empirical evidence. I agree with Michael Crichton.
Apart from the fatalities, are there data on the economic costs? Health care for the victims who suffer ill health and survive? Talking to a couple of Swedes a month or so back and they said there are parts of southern Sweden where dairy products could not be produced even now. How much of Europe is affected in this way? What’s the balance between the value of the electricity produced from Chernobyl and the economic damage of the accident?
I recall reading that a number of women ( in the thousands I think )had abortions as a direct result of their fears regarding the effects of radiation on the unborn children.
I wonder if these numbers are included in the totals?
hello i am from argentina and at school i am meaking an investigation about Chernobyl and for what i anderstand what raly matters is notonly the numbr of people that died in th moment of the accident. On the contrary the terible thing is what was produced affterwords, all the cancer this accident bought.
And about what Michael Crichton said, i think that isa very poor point of vew, we can’t say this was not an important dissaste because only 50 people died.
I live in 26256 Las Vegas, Nevada. Have you been here before?
bc89579e028a I like style of your posts
I agree
I kept 2 chernobly girls a few years ago for the summer so they could get away from the toxicity of the place. They said Ireland was like a fairy tale compared to where they lived. Send them over money a few months later via post…There government took it out of the letters.Wankers
I kept 2 chernobly girls a few years ago for the summer so they could get away from the toxicity of the place. They said Ireland was like a fairy tale compared to where they lived. Send them over money a few months later via post…There government took it out of the letters.Wankers
I kept 2 chernobly girls a few years ago for the summer so they could get away from the toxicity of the place. They said Ireland was like a fairy tale compared to where they lived. Send them over money a few months later via post…There government took it out of the letters.Wankers
The link to the lecture is gone from the Crichton page. Since Crichton passed away, whoever inherited control over his estate has done their damndest to erase all reference to his arguments regarding global warming and the FUD being generated by the Green movement to power their own sails.
Here is a link to the lecture, active as I write this, at least.
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Fear,%20Complexity,%20&%20Environmental%20Management%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.htm
As someone with a background in physics, math, and computers (including graduate level courses in math), I would suggest that Crichton is spot on with this kind of stuff.
One recent study showed that the incidence even of cancer for those living in the so called “Chernobyl Death Zone” is dominated more by anxiety-induced cancers than by actual cancers relatable to the conditions of the environment — that is, there is no detectable increase in general cancers, but there ARE more cancers of varieties which can be specifically linked to worry, concern, and general anxiety. In short, the FEAR of living near Chernobyl is deadlier than actually being there.
}}} On the contrary the terible thing is what was produced affterwords, all the cancer this accident bought.
Crichton includes these. As I note above, there is really no substantial increase in cancers that can’t be tied to anxiety.
There’s a term: Radiation Hormesis —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
The notion is that the immune system responds properly and sensibly to “low-contact agents of destruction” that are historically common in the environment, and, while few realize it, there is radiation all around us. In other words, we’ve built up mechanisms that can handle the damage from things our bodies have been exposed to for thousands of generations… not much of a surprise if you think about it.
ANY high number of deaths attributed to Chernobyl post-facto/off-site is based on a ludicrous proposition that says that ANY exposure to radiation is bad and cancer-inducing. You cannot “test” this directly, but the fact is, there ARE populations who naturally get exposed to higher than “typical” levels of radiation — people in India living on Monazite sands (high natural uranium content), as well as anyone living at high altitudes, such as in Denver, Colorado, @ 5000 ft above sea level, who get exposed to substantially more “cosmic radiation” than the rest of the populace as a result of less atmospheric shielding.
This “zero exposure” theory SHOULD demonstrate, if correct, a higher incidence of cancer in both of these populations. But no, there is no such thing. In actual fact, there is LESS cancer in those two populations. So by this same, ridiculous logic being used, it’s clear that exposure to radiation PREVENTS cancer… (no, not seriously… but it disproves the notion that ANY exposure is bad — there is almost certainly a cut-off point where additional exposure will create additional problems).
Trust not the Greens. They have an agenda, and it’s based on getting you to give them money and political support for their aims. They are no better (and perhaps worse) than Exxon or Dow Chemical.