research papers about chernobyl

Loading metrics

Open Access

Perspective

Perspectives are commissioned from an expert and discuss the clinical practice or public health implications of a published study. The original publication must be freely available online.

See all article types »

The Chernobyl Disaster and Beyond: Implications of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030

Affiliations Public Health England, London, United Kingdom, Epidemiology and Public Health Department, University College London, London, United Kingdom

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Public Health England, London, United Kingdom, UNISDR Scientific & Technical Advisory Group, Geneva, Switzerland

• Amina Aitsi-Selmi, 
• Virginia Murray

Published: April 25, 2016

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002017
• Reader Comments

Citation: Aitsi-Selmi A, Murray V (2016) The Chernobyl Disaster and Beyond: Implications of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. PLoS Med 13(4): e1002017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002017

Copyright: © 2016 Aitsi-Selmi, Murray. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: No research funding was allocated to this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Provenance: Commissioned; not externally peer-reviewed.

Thirty years have passed since the terrible Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in what was then the Soviet Union. A nuclear reactor exploded on April 26, 1986, giving rise to a large plume of radioactive material. At the time, it was the most serious nuclear accident ever to occur [ 1 ]. The world held its collective breath in fear of radiation as the story of the accident and its impact in Russia and Europe slowly unfolded.

An intergovernmental review conducted 20 years after the incident by the Chernobyl Forum—comprised of an international team of more than 100 scientists—concluded that the impacts were less severe than originally predicted [ 2 ]. Despite the estimated 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer and about 4,000 deaths expected to be a result of the disaster, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being in highly exposed rescue workers [ 2 , 3 ]. However, more recent reviews remind us that the long-term effects are still to be evaluated [ 4 ].

Among the recommendations of the Chernobyl Forum report was to address the lack of accurate information available to local populations on the health risks from the disaster itself as well as wider health risks, such as non-communicable diseases. The report also recommended taking into account and addressing socioeconomic challenges in the region [ 2 ]. Among the wider, cultural factors put forward as contributing to the Chernobyl disaster was the Soviet Union's isolation from the rest of the world and the lack of networks and personal contacts with scientists from other countries [ 5 ].

The 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and resulting tsunami, was a sobering reminder that even contemporary systems are vulnerable to natural hazards and complex in their interdependencies with natural and human factors [ 6 ]. Indeed, much work remains to be done to normalise a comprehensive, multidimensional approach to reducing disaster risk.

United Nations Member States Adopt the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030

Learning from the lessons of disparate disasters such as Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, the international community has broadened its approach, moving from a focus on response to including prevention, preparedness, and recovery and rehabilitation, and embracing multisectoral and multidisciplinary action that links with sustainable economic development and climate change [ 7 , 8 ].

The year 2015 brought the endorsement of a landmark UN agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) 2015–2030, which aims to reduce disaster losses in terms of lives, livelihoods, and health. It was adopted in March, 2015, by 187 UN member states. This agreement is an opportunity to strengthen international cooperation in science and technology and ensure that scientific knowledge is useful, usable, and used in emergencies.

The Sendai Framework puts unprecedented emphasis on the role of science in understanding and delivering risk reduction. It builds on its predecessor, the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005−2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters [ 9 ], and reflects shifts in scientific thinking over the last 20 years, with a powerful implication that disasters are not natural events against which human societies are powerless, but are the result of the interaction between hazards (natural and human-made), exposure levels, and pre-existing vulnerability.

Important recommendations of the Sendai Framework to the scientific community and its partners include improving the scientific and public understanding of risk and optimising the use of science for decision-making ( Box 1 ). It makes more than 30 explicit references to health (compared to three in the Hyogo Framework), highlighting the importance of outbreaks and epidemics, chronic disease management, psychosocial interventions, and rehabilitation as part of disaster recovery and makes several references to the International Health Regulations [ 10 ]. The latter, if implemented properly, have the potential to reduce the risk of disasters such as the recent West African Ebola outbreak, which has been called “the definitive humanitarian disaster of our generation” [ 11 ]. Harking back to the slow speed with which communities were informed of the Chernobyl disaster, the Sendai Framework makes a recommendation to “invest in, develop, maintain and strengthen people-centred multi-hazard, multisectoral forecasting and early warning systems.”

Box 1. Key Paragraph of Recommendations

Key paragraph of recommendations to the scientific community for strengthening the evidence base and informing disaster risk reduction policy (para 25g, The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030) [ 7 ]:

“Enhanced scientific and technical work on disaster risk reduction and its mobilization through the coordination of existing networks and scientific research institutions at all levels and all regions…to strengthen the evidence base in support of the implementation of this framework; promote scientific research of disaster risk patterns, causes and effects; disseminate risk information with the best use of geospatial information technology; provide guidance on methodologies and standards for risk assessments, disaster risk modelling and the use of data; identify research and technology gaps and set recommendations for research priority areas in disaster risk reduction; promote and support the availability and application of science and technology to decision-making; contribute to the update of the terminology on disaster risk reduction; and use post-disaster reviews as opportunities to enhance learning and public policy and disseminate studies.”

The Sendai Framework is a strong call to action for improving decision-making through a stronger science–policy–practice nexus with one expected outcome (“The substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health…”), one goal (“Prevent new and reduce existing disaster risk through the implementation of integrated and inclusive…measures that prevent and reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability to disaster, increase preparedness for response and recovery, and thus strengthen resilience”), four priorities for action, and seven targets [ 7 ]. Some consider that reconnecting science with policy and practice is among the first tasks in implementing the Sendai Framework [ 12 ], particularly to support people in low- and middle-income countries and especially minority groups and women. A large body of research exists to support political and financial investment in the eradication and disruption of both the intergenerational transmission of poverty and the perpetuation of socioeconomic inequalities [ 13 ]. However, the Sendai Framework is a voluntary agreement, and its implementation will depend on political will, financing, and the imperative to collaborate across institutional and country boundaries, as well as the availability of data to monitor its targets [ 14 ].

One of the first implementation conferences was the Science and Technology Conference that took place in Geneva, Switzerland, on January 27–29, 2016, and brought together disaster risk reduction scientists, practitioners, and decision-makers from around the world. Important outcomes were to gain global agreement on a 15 year Road Map for the Implementation of the Sendai Framework [ 15 ], and the launch of a global Science and Technology Partnership to support the Road Map [ 16 ]. Only time will tell whether 2015 had its intended impact, and progress on the Sendai Framework objectives will be reviewed at the biannual Global Disaster Risk Reduction Platforms as we progress towards the 2030 goals. Recent devastating disasters resulting from historically unprecedented events, such as the 2011 floods in Thailand and Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines in 2013, illustrate the challenge of increasing exposure to hazards (in this case, the predicted increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events) alongside rising vulnerability and exposure through urbanisation and demographic change [ 17 ]. The importance of disaster preparedness can no longer be ignored.

Author Contributions

Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: AAS VM. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: AAS VM. Agree with the manuscript’s results and conclusions: AAS VM. Conceptualized the manuscript and developed the arguments: AAS VM. Drafted the manuscript: AAS. Finalized the manuscript: AAS VM. Reviewed and amended the manuscript: AAS VM. All authors have read, and confirm that they meet, ICMJE criteria for authorship.

• 1. The Chernobyl accident. UNSCEAR's assessments of the radiation effects. http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html . Accessed 03 March 2016.
• 2. The Chernobyl Forum: 2003–2005. Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/chernobyl.pdf . Accessed 03 March 2016.
• 3. World Health Organisation. 2005. Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ . Accessed 17 March 2016.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 7. UN General Assembly. 2015. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. http://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf . Accessed 19 June 2015.
• 8. Aitsi-Selmi A, Blanchard K, Al-Khudhairy D, Ammann W, Basabe P, Johnston D, et al. 2015. UNISDR Science and Technical Advisory Group report 2015: Science is used for disaster risk reduction. http://preventionweb.net/go/42848 . Accessed 01 March 2016.
• 9. UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2011. Hyogo framework for action 2005−2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. Mid-term review 2010−2011. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/18197 . Accessed 01 March 2016.
• 11. Oxfam Education. Oxfam. Ebola: Behind the headlines. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/resources/ebola . Accessed 17 March 2016.
• 13. CSDH (The Commission on the Social Determinants of Health). 2008. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43943/1/9789241563703_eng.pdf . Accessed 02 Mar 2016.
• 15. UNISDR. 2016. The Science and Technology Roadmap to Support the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/45270_unisdrscienceandtechnologyroadmap.pdf
• 16. UNISDR. 2016. Terms of Reference of the Scientific and Technical Partnership for the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/45270_torofunisdrstpartnership.pdf
• 17. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chernobyl Nuclear Accident

Chernobyl accident: radiation and health effects.

Publications

DCEG Research on Chernobyl

Researchers and Collaborators

About the Accident

Chernobyl Tissue Bank 

On April 26, 1986, an accident occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in northern Ukraine. In addition to 28 near-term deaths due to radiation, the accident resulted in the exposure of 5 million people in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine to fallout from the accident, principally radioiodines.

DCEG Studies of Radiation and Health Effects

This exposure has led to substantial epidemiological research, especially among clean-up workers and children. The governments of Ukraine, Belarus, and the United States (namely the Radiation Epidemiology Branch at NCI), and other research partners, have been conducting these studies.

Research conducted by DCEG investigators falls into three main categories: Epidemiological, Molecular Genomic, and Dosimetric. For more information, contact Elizabeth K. Cahoon, Ph.D. , or read more about DCEG research on Chernobyl .

Researchers and Collaborators

Dr. Gilbert W. Beebe (1912–2003) and fellow NCI staff launched multidisciplinary studies in cooperation with many international radiation experts as well as investigators from Belarus and Ukraine. See the full list of  researchers and collaborators for Chernobyl research .

About the Chernobyl Accident

Learn more details about the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine.

Study Publications from Chernobyl Research

The research into the effects of the Chernobyl accident has resulted in numerous scientific papers. Obtain a list of Chernobyl study publications .

Information for Journalists

To request an interview with a DCEG investigator, contact the NCI Office of Media Relations:

E-mail: [email protected]

Phone: 240-760-6600

•   [email protected]

HIS 100 - Perspectives in History

On April 26, 1986, there was an explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the republic of Ukraine. Large amounts of radioactive material were released into the atmosphere, where it was carried great distances by air currents. It affected large areas of the former Soviet Union and even parts of western Europe. This led to the deaths of more than a dozen people, hundreds becoming ill from radiation sickness, as well as environmental damage. Please review the below links to reference articles (tertiary sources) on this topic for more information.  (Please note, encyclopedias/tertiary sources should NOT be cited in your assignment. Scroll down for primary and secondary sources) .

• Chernobyl nuclear accident This link opens in a new window Research Starter encyclopedia article about the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
• Chernobyl disaster This link opens in a new window Britannica Academic encyclopedia article about the Chernobyl disaster.
• Chernobyl This link opens in a new window Overview from the Dictionary of Environmental Science and Technology.

Primary Sources

Note: For help with citing primary sources properly, check out this FAQ and be sure to reach out to your instructor with any questions you may have.  For help citing interviews such as Voices from Chernobyl (below), click here . 

This memo reviews early Soviet information received through U.S. intelligence and speculates about the number of fatalities on the day of the explosion.

Abramowitz, M. (1986, May 2). INR information memorandum from Morton Abramowitz to the Secretary of State: Estimate of fatalities at Chernobyl reactor accident. National Security Archive.

This working copy of a Politburo session provides details from the first discussion of the Chernobyl accident.

Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. (1986, April 28). Extraordinary session of the CC CPSU Politburo. National Security Archive.

This book presents personal accounts of what happened on April 26, 1986, when the worst nuclear reactor accident in history contaminated as much as three-quarters of Europe.

Alexievich, S. (2006). Voices from Chernobyl: The oral history of a nuclear disaster (K. Gessen, Trans.). Picador. (Original work published 1997)

The document refers to the level of radiation in the area affected and the measures undertaken for planned evacuations.

State Archives Department of the Security Service of Ukraine. (1986, April 27). Untitled Notice on Levels of Radiation in Chernobyl NPP and Steps Taken in Response. Wilson Center Digital Archive.

This report details government action after the Chernobyl incident including containment and evacuation efforts.

"Deputy head of the 6th department of the KGB administration Liet. Col. Aksenov, 'Notice of emergency incident.'" (1986, May 03). Wilson Center History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive.

In this document, an unnamed KGB agent reports on the situation two weeks after the incident, including transportation and journalist suppression methods.

"Notice: Information from places of evacuation." (1986, May 08). Wilson Center History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive.

Secondary Sources

This chapter is from the book titled Producing Power. This chapter analyzes the contributing factors and causes of the Chernobyl accident from a historical perspective and in the context of a larger conversation about nuclear power.

Schmid, S. D. (2015). Chernobyl: From accident to sarcophagus. In Producing power: The pre-Chernobyl history of the Soviet nuclear Industry (pp. 127–160). The MIT Press.

Geist explores the role of management's failure in the Chernobyl incident in this academic article.

Geist, E. (2015). Political fallout: The failure of emergency management at Chernobyl’. Slavic Review , 74 (1), 104–126. https://doi.org/10.5612/slavicreview.74.1.104

• << Previous: Creation of Earth Day
• Next: Research Topic List: Globalization >>

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics

Volume 52, 2021, review article, the biology of chernobyl.

• Timothy A. Mousseau 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 52:87-109 (Volume publication date November 2021) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110218-024827
• First published as a Review in Advance on August 10, 2021
• Copyright © 2021 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

Environmental disasters offer the unique opportunity for landscape-scale ecological and evolutionary studies that are not possible in the laboratory or small experimental plots. The nuclear accident at Chernobyl (1986) allows for rigorous analyses of radiation effects on individuals and populations at an ecosystem scale. Here, the current state of knowledge related to populations within the Chernobyl region of Ukraine and Belarus following the largest civil nuclear accident in history is reviewed. There is now a significant literature that provides contrasting and occasionally conflicting views of the state of animals and how they are affected by this mutagenic stressor. Studies of genetic and physiological effects have largely suggested significant injuries to individuals inhabiting the more radioactive areas of the Chernobyl region. Most population censuses for most species suggest that abundances are reduced in the more radioactive areas.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Amiard JC. 2018 . Military Nuclear Accidents: Environmental, Ecological, Health and Socio-economic Consequences Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons [Google Scholar]
• Baker RJ , Dickins B , Wickliffe JK , Khan FA , Gaschak S et al. 2017 . Elevated mitochondrial genome variation after 50 generations of radiation exposure in a wild rodent. Evol . Appl . 10 : 784– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Baker RJ , Hamilton MJ , Van Den Bussche RA , Wiggins LE , Sugg DW et al 1996a . Small mammals from the most radioactive sites near the Chornobyl nuclear power plant. J. Mammal 77 : 155 – 70 [Google Scholar]
• Baker RJ , Van Den Bussche RA , Wright AJ , Wiggins LE , Hamilton MJ et al. 1996b . High levels of genetic change in rodents of Chernobyl. Nature 380 : 707– 8 [Google Scholar]
• Baker RJ , Van Den Bussche RA , Wright AJ , Wiggins LE , Hamilton MJ et al. 1997 . Retraction note to: High levels of genetic change in rodents of Chernobyl. Nature 390 : 100 [Google Scholar]
• Beaugelin-Seiller K , Garnier-Laplace J , Della-Vedova C , Métivier JM , Lepage H et al. 2020 . Dose reconstruction supports the interpretation of decreased abundance of mammals in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Sci . Rep . 10 : 14083 [Google Scholar]
• Bonisoli-Alquati A , Koyama K , Tedeschi DJ , Kitamura W , Sukuzi H et al. 2015 . Abundance and genetic damage of barn swallows from Fukushima. Sci . Rep . 5 : 9432 [Google Scholar]
• Bonisoli-Alquati A , Møller AP , Rudolfsen G , Saino N , Caprioli M et al. 2011 . The effects of radiation on sperm swimming behavior depend on plasma oxidative status in the barn swallow ( Hirundo rustica ). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 159 : 105– 12 [Google Scholar]
• Boratyński Z , Arias JM , Garcia C , Mappes T , Mousseau TA et al. 2016 . Ionizing radiation from Chernobyl affects development of wild carrot plants. Sci . Rep . 6 : 39282 [Google Scholar]
• Boratyński Z , Lehmann P , Mappes T , Mousseau TA , Møller AP. 2014 . Increased radiation from Chernobyl decreases the expression of red colouration in natural populations of bank voles ( Myodes glareolus ). Sci . Rep . 4 : 7141 [Google Scholar]
• Braithwaite R. 2019 . Chernobyl: A ‘normal’ accident?. Survival 61 : 149– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Brown K. 2019 . Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future London: Penguin UK: [Google Scholar]
• Camplani A , Saino N , Møller AP. 1999 . Carotenoids, sexual signals and immune function in barn swallows from Chernobyl. Proc. R. Soc. B 266 : 1111– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Charlesworth B. 1990 . Mutation-selection balance and the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination. Genet. Res. 55 : 199– 221 [Google Scholar]
• Clark C. 1997 . Radium Girls: Women and Industrial Health Reform , 1910 – 1935 Chapel Hill, NC: Univ. N. C. Press [Google Scholar]
• Cowan R. 1990 . Nuclear power reactors: a study in technological lock-in. J . Econ . Hist . 50 : 541– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Cristaldi M , Ieradi LA , Mascanzoni D , Mattei T. 1991 . Environmental impact of the Chernobyl accident: mutagenesis in bank voles from Sweden. Int . J . Radiat . Biol . 59 : 31– 40 [Google Scholar]
• Crowley KD , Ahearne JF. 2002 . Managing the environmental legacy of US nuclear-weapons production. Am. Sci. 90 : 514– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Czirják GÁ , Møller AP , Mousseau TA , Heeb P. 2010 . Microorganisms associated with feathers of barn swallows in radioactively contaminated areas around Chernobyl. Microb . Ecol . 60 : 373– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Dadachova E , Casadevall A. 2008 . Ionizing radiation: how fungi cope, adapt, and exploit with the help of melanin. Curr . Opin . Microbiol . 11 : 525– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Davis J. 2018 . Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants , Annual Report 2013 NUREG/CR-2907 , Vol. 19 Washington, DC: US Nucl. Regul. Comm. [Google Scholar]
• De Cort M , Dubois G , Fridman SD , Germenchuk MG , Izrael YA et al. 1998 . Atlas of caesium deposition on Europe after the Chernobyl accident EUR Rep. 16733 Off. Off. Publ. Eur. Communities Luxembourg: [Google Scholar]
• Deryabina TG , Kuchmel SV , Nagorskaya LL , Hinton TG , Beasley JC et al. 2015 . Long-term census data reveal abundant wildlife populations at Chernobyl. Curr. Biol. 25 : R824– 26 [Google Scholar]
• DiCarlo AL , Maher C , Hick JL , Hanfling D , Dainiak N et al. 2011 . Radiation injury after a nuclear detonation: medical consequences and the need for scarce resources allocation. Disaster Med . Public Health Prep . 5 : S1 S32– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Dubrova YE. 1998 . Radiation-induced germline instability at minisatellite loci. Int . J . Radiat . Biol . 74 : 689– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Dubrova YE , Nesterov VN , Krouchinsky NG , Ostapenko VA , Neumann R et al. 1996 . Human minisatellite mutation rate after the Chernobyl accident. Nature 380 : 683– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Einor D , Bonisoli-Alquati A , Costantini D , Mousseau TA , Møller AP. 2016 . Ionizing radiation, antioxidant response and oxidative damage: a meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 548 : 463– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Ellegren H , Lindgren G , Primmer CR , Møller AP. 1997 . Fitness loss and germline mutations in barn swallows breeding in Chernobyl. Nature 389 : 593– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Evangeliou N , Hamburger T , Talerko N , Zibtsev S , Bondar Y et al. 2016 . Reconstructing the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (CNPP) accident 30 years after. A unique database of air concentration and deposition measurements over Europe. Environ . Pollut . 216 : 408– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Fairlie I. 2014 . A hypothesis to explain childhood cancers near nuclear power plants. J . Environ . Radioact . 133 : 10– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Fischbein A , Zabludovsky N , Eltes F , Grischenko V , Bartoov B. 1997 . Ultramorphological sperm characteristics in the risk assessment of health effects after radiation exposure among salvage workers in Chernobyl. Environ . Health Perspect . 105 : 1445– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Galván I , Bonisoli-Alquati A , Jenkinson S , Ghanem G , Wakamatsu K et al. 2014 . Chronic exposure to low-dose radiation at Chernobyl favours adaptation to oxidative stress in birds. Funct. Ecol. 28 : 1387– 403 [Google Scholar]
• Garnier-Laplace J , Beaugelin-Seiller K , Della-Vedova C , Métivier JM , Ritz C et al. 2015 . Radiological dose reconstruction for birds reconciles outcomes of Fukushima with knowledge of dose-effect relationships. Sci . Rep . 5 : 16594 [Google Scholar]
• Garnier-Laplace J , Geras'kin S , Della-Vedova C , Beaugelin-Seiller K , Hinton TG et al. 2013 . Are radiosensitivity data derived from natural field conditions consistent with data from controlled exposures? A case study of Chernobyl wildlife chronically exposed to low dose rates. J . Environ . Radioact . 121 : 12– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Geras'kin SA , Fesenko SV , Alexakhin RM 2008 . Effects of non-human species irradiation after the Chernobyl NPP accident. Environ. Int. 34 : 880– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Gilbert JA , Blaser MJ , Caporaso JG , Jansson JK , Lynch SV , Knight R. 2018 . Current understanding of the human microbiome. Nat . Med . 24 : 392– 400 [Google Scholar]
• Goncharova RI , Ryabokon NI. 1995 . Dynamics of cytogenetic injuries in natural populations of bank vole in the Republic of Belarus. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 62 : 37– 40 [Google Scholar]
• Grant EJ , Brenner A , Sugiyama H , Sakata R , Sadakane A et al. 2017 . Solid cancer incidence among the life span study of atomic bomb survivors: 1958–2009. Radiat . Res . 187 : 513– 37 [Google Scholar]
• Gsponer A , Hurni JP. 2009 . The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, and the Quest for Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons INESAP Tech. Rep. 1 Darmstadt, Ger.: INESAP, 7th ed.. [Google Scholar]
• Hermosell IG , Laskemoen T , Rowe M , Møller AP , Mousseau TA et al. 2013 . Patterns of sperm damage in Chernobyl passerine birds suggest a trade-off between sperm length and integrity. Biol. Lett. 9 : 20130530 [Google Scholar]
• Higginbotham A. 2019 . Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster New York: Random House [Google Scholar]
• Higgins K , Lynch M. 2001 . Metapopulation extinction caused by mutation accumulation. PNAS 98 : 2928– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Howell SJ , Shalet SM. 2005 . Spermatogenesis after cancer treatment: damage and recovery. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 2005 : 12– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Int. At. Energy Agency 2006 . Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident and their remediation: twenty years of experience . Radiol. Assess. Rep. Ser. 8, Int. At. Energy Agency, Vienna [Google Scholar]
• Jernfors T , Kesäniemi J , Lavrinienko A , Mappes T , Milinevsky G et al. 2018 . Transcriptional upregulation of DNA damage response genes in bank voles ( Myodes glareolus ) inhabiting the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Front . Environ. Sci. 5 : 95 [Google Scholar]
• Johnson RL. 2014 . Chernobyl's Wild Kingdom: Life in the Dead Zone Minneapolis, MN: Twenty-First Century Books [Google Scholar]
• Kesäniemi J , Lavrinienko A , Tukalenko E , Boratyński Z , Kivisaari K et al. 2019 . Exposure to environmental radionuclides associates with tissue-specific impacts on telomerase expression and telomere length. Sci . Rep . 9 : 850 [Google Scholar]
• Kesäniemi J , Lavrinienko A , Tukalenko E , Moutinho AF , Mappes T et al. 2020 . Exposure to environmental radionuclides alters mitochondrial DNA maintenance in a wild rodent. Evol. Ecol. 34 : 163– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Kivisaari K. 2019 . The effects of ionizing radiation on bank vole in Chernobyl Exclusion Zone . PhD Diss. Univ. Jyväskylä Jyväskylä, Finland: [Google Scholar]
• Kivisaari K , Boratyński Z , Lavrinienko A , Kesäniemi J , Lehmann P , Mappes T. 2020 . The effect of chronic low-dose environmental radiation on organ mass of bank voles in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 96 : 1254– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Kolbert E. 2014 . The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History New York: Henry Holt & Co. [Google Scholar]
• Körblein A , Hesse-Honegger C. 2018 . Morphological abnormalities in true bugs ( Heteroptera ) near Swiss nuclear power stations. Chem. Biodivers. 15 : e1800099 [Google Scholar]
• Kovalchuk I , Abramov V , Pogribny I , Kovalchuk O. 2004 . Molecular aspects of plant adaptation to life in the Chernobyl zone. Plant Physiol 135 : 357– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Kovalchuk O , Dubrova YE , Arkhipov A , Hohn B , Kovalchuk I. 2000 . Wheat mutation rate after Chernobyl. Nature 407 : 583– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Kuzio T. 2015 . Ukraine: Democratization, Corruption, and the New Russian Imperialism Westport, CT: Praeger [Google Scholar]
• Lavrinienko A , Hämäläinen A , Hindström R , Tukalenko E , Boratyński Z et al. 2021 . Comparable response of wild rodent gut microbiome to anthropogenic habitat contamination. Mol. Ecol. 30 : 3485 – 99 [Google Scholar]
• Lavrinienko A , Mappes T , Tukalenko E , Mousseau TA , Møller AP et al. 2018a . Environmental radiation alters the gut microbiome of the bank vole Myodes glareolus . ISME J 12 : 2801– 6 [Google Scholar]
• Lavrinienko A , Tukalenko E , Kesäniemi J , Kivisaari K , Masiuk S et al. 2020a . Applying the Anna Karenina principle for wild animal gut microbiota: temporal stability of the bank vole gut microbiota in a disturbed environment. J . Anim . Ecol . 89 : 2617– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Lavrinienko A , Tukalenko E , Mappes T , Watts PC. 2018b . Skin and gut microbiomes of a wild mammal respond to different environmental cues. Microbiome 6 : 209 [Google Scholar]
• Lavrinienko A , Tukalenko E , Mousseau TA , Thompson LR , Knight R et al. 2020b . Two hundred and fifty-four metagenome-assembled bacterial genomes from the bank vole gut microbiota. Sci . Data 7 : 312 [Google Scholar]
• Lazard 2020 . Lazard's levelized cost of energy analysis—version 14.0 . Rep., Lazard, Hamilton, Bermud. https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf
• Lehmann P , Boratyński Z , Mappes T , Mousseau TA , Møller AP. 2016 . Fitness costs of increased cataract frequency and cumulative radiation dose in natural mammalian populations from Chernobyl. Sci . Rep . 6 : 19974 [Google Scholar]
• Lochbaum D , Lyman E , Stranahan SQ 2014 . Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster New York: The New Press [Google Scholar]
• Lynch M , Conery J , Burger R. 1995 . Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. Am. Nat. 146 : 489– 518 [Google Scholar]
• Mappes T , Boratyński Z , Kivisaari K , Lavrinienko A , Milinevsky G et al. 2019 . Ecological mechanisms can modify radiation effects in a key forest mammal of Chernobyl. Ecosphere 10 : e02667 [Google Scholar]
• Medvedev ZA. 1986 . Ecological aspects of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. Trends Ecol . Evol . 1 : 23– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP. 1993 . Morphology and sexual selection in the barn swallow Hirundo rustica in Chernobyl, Ukraine. Proc. R. Soc. B 252 : 51– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Bonisoli-Alquati A , Mousseau TA. 2013a . High frequency of albinism and tumours in free-living birds around Chernobyl. Mutat. Res./Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 757 : 52– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Bonisoli-Alquati A , Mousseau TA , Rudolfsen G. 2014 . Aspermy, sperm quality and radiation in Chernobyl birds. PLOS ONE 9 : e100296 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Bonisoli-Alquati A , Rudolfsen G , Mousseau TA. 2011 . Chernobyl birds have smaller brains. PLOS ONE 6 : e16862 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Bonisoli-Alquati A , Rudolfsen G , Mousseau TA. 2012a . Elevated mortality among birds in Chernobyl as judged from skewed age and sex ratios. PLOS ONE 7 : e35223 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Hagiwara A , Matsui S , Kasahara S , Kawatsu K et al. 2012b . Abundance of birds in Fukushima as judged from Chernobyl. Environ. Pollut. 164 : 36– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Hobson KA , Mousseau TA , Peklo AM. 2006 . Chernobyl as a population sink for barn swallows: tracking dispersal using stable-isotope profiles. Ecol. Appl. 16 : 1696– 705 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Morelli F , Mousseau TA , Tryjanowski P. 2016a . The number of syllables in Chernobyl cuckoo calls reliably indicate habitat, soil and radiation levels. Ecol. Indicators 66 : 592– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2001 . Albinism and phenotype of barn swallows ( Hirundo rustica ) from Chernobyl. Evolution 55 : 2097– 104 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2006 . Biological consequences of Chernobyl: 20 years on. Trends Ecol . Evol . 21 : 200– 7 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2007a . Species richness and abundance of forest birds in relation to radiation at Chernobyl. Biol. Lett. 3 : 483– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2007b . Determinants of interspecific variation in population declines of birds after exposure to radiation at Chernobyl. J. Appl. Ecol. 44 : 909– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2009 . Reduced abundance of insects and spiders linked to radiation at Chernobyl 20 years after the accident. Biol. Lett. 5 : 356– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2011a . Efficiency of bio-indicators for low-level radiation under field conditions. Ecol. Indicators 11 : 424– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2011b . Conservation consequences of Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents. Biol. Conserv. 144 : 2787– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2013a . The effects of natural variation in background radioactivity on humans, animals and other organisms. Biol. Rev. 88 : 226– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2013b . Assessing effects of radiation on abundance of mammals and predator–prey interactions in Chernobyl using tracks in the snow. Ecol. Indicators 26 : 112– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2015 . Strong effects of ionizing radiation from Chernobyl on mutation rates. Sci . Rep . 5 : 8363 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2016 . Are organisms adapting to ionizing radiation at Chernobyl?. Trends Ecol . Evol . 31 : 281– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2017 . Radiation levels affect pollen viability and germination among sites and species at Chernobyl. Int. J. Plant Sci. 178 : 537– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA. 2019 . Radioecology. Oxf. Bibliogr. Ecol . 2019 : https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199830060/obo-9780199830060-0229.xml [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA , Lynn C , Ostermiller S , Rudolfsen G. 2008 . Impaired swimming behaviour and morphology of sperm from barn swallows Hirundo rustica in Chernobyl. Mutat. Res./Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 650 : 210– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA , Milinevsky G , Peklo A , Pysanets E , Szép T 2005a . Condition, reproduction and survival of barn swallows from Chernobyl. J. Anim. Ecol 74 : 1102 – 11 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Mousseau TA , Nishiumi I , Ueda K. 2015 . Ecological differences in response of bird species to radioactivity from Chernobyl and Fukushima. J. Ornithol. 156 : 287– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Nishiumi I , Suzuki H , Ueda K , Mousseau TA. 2013b . Differences in effects of radiation on abundance of animals in Fukushima and Chernobyl. Ecol. Indicators 24 : 75– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Shyu JC , Mousseau TA. 2016b . Ionizing radiation from Chernobyl and the fraction of viable pollen. Int. J. Plant Sci. 177 : 727– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Møller AP , Surai P , Mousseau TA. 2005b . Antioxidants, radiation and mutation as revealed by sperm abnormality in barn swallows from Chernobyl. Proc. R. Soc. B 272 : 247– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Morelli F , Benedetti Y , Mousseau TA , Møller AP. 2018 . Ionizing radiation and taxonomic, functional and evolutionary diversity of bird communities. J . Environ . Manag . 220 : 183– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Morgan MG , Abdulla A , Ford MJ , Rath M. 2018 . US nuclear power: the vanishing low-carbon wedge. PNAS 115 : 7184– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Mousseau T , Møller AP. 2013a . Perspectives on Chernobyl and Fukushima health effects: What can be learned from Eastern European research?. J. Health Pollut. 3 : 2– 6 [Google Scholar]
• Mousseau TA , Møller AP. 2013b . Elevated frequency of cataracts in birds from Chernobyl. PLOS ONE 8 : e66939 [Google Scholar]
• Mousseau TA , Møller AP. 2014 . Genetic and ecological studies of animals in Chernobyl and Fukushima. J. Hered. 105 : 704– 9 [Google Scholar]
• Mousseau TA , Welch SM , Chizhevsky I , Bondarenko O , Milinevsky G et al. 2013 . Tree rings reveal extent of exposure to ionizing radiation in Scots pine Pinus sylvestris . Trees 27 : 1443– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Muller HJ. 1927 . Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science 66 : 84– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Mustonen V , Kesäniemi J , Lavrinienko A , Tukalenko E , Mappes T et al. 2018 . Fibroblasts from bank voles inhabiting Chernobyl have increased resistance against oxidative and DNA stresses. BMC Cell Biol 19 : 17 [Google Scholar]
• Natl. Res. Counc. 2012 . Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities: Phase I Rep Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
• Neel JV. 1998 . Genetic studies at the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission—Radiation Effects Research Foundation: 1946–1997. PNAS 95 : 5432– 36 [Google Scholar]
• New York Times 1954 . Abundant power from atom seen. New York Times Sept. 17 5 https://www.nytimes.com/1954/09/17/archives/abundant-power-from-atom-seen-it-will-be-too-cheap-for-our-children.html [Google Scholar]
• Nucl. Energy Inst 2020 . Used fuel storage and nuclear waste fund payments by state. Nucl. Energy Inst. https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/used-fuel-storage-and-nuclear-waste-fund-payments [Google Scholar]
• Omar-Nazir L , Shi X , Moller A , Mousseau T , Byun S et al. 2018 . Long-term effects of ionizing radiation after the Chernobyl accident: possible contribution of historic dose. Environ . Res . 165 : 55– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Petersen RC Jr. , Landner L , Blanck H. 1986 . Assessment of the impact of the Chernobyl reactor accident on the biota of Swedish streams and lakes. Ambio 15 : 327– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Preston DL , Ron E , Tokuoka S , Funamoto S , Nishi N et al. 2007 . Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat . Res . 168 : 1– 64 [Google Scholar]
• Ramana MV. 2018 . Technical and social problems of nuclear waste. WIREs Energy Environ . 7 : e289 [Google Scholar]
• Ruiz-González MX , Czirják GÁ , Genevaux P , Møller AP , Mousseau TA , Heeb P. 2016 . Resistance of feather-associated bacteria to intermediate levels of ionizing radiation near Chernobyl. Sci . Rep . 6 : 22969 [Google Scholar]
• Ryabokon NI , Goncharova RI. 2006 . Transgenerational accumulation of radiation damage in small mammals chronically exposed to Chernobyl fallout. Radiat . Environ . Biophys . 45 : 167– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Scherb H , Voigt K. 2011 . The human sex odds at birth after the atmospheric atomic bomb tests, after Chernobyl, and in the vicinity of nuclear facilities. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 18 : 697– 707 [Google Scholar]
• Shestopalov VM. 1996 . Atlas of Chernobyl Exclusion Zone Kiev, Ukr: Ukr. Acad. Sci. [Google Scholar]
• Simon SL , Bouville A , Land CE. 2006 . Fallout from nuclear weapons tests and cancer risks: exposures 50 years ago still have health implications today that will continue into the future. Am. Sci. 94 : 48– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Stadler LJ. 1928 . Mutations in barley induced by X-rays and radium. Science 68 : 186– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Steinhauser G , Brandl A , Johnson TE. 2014 . Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: a review of the environmental impacts. Sci . Total Environ . 470 : 800– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Subramanian M. 2019 . Anthropocene now: influential panel votes to recognize Earth's new epoch. Nature May 21. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01641-5 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Turelli M. 1984 . Heritable genetic variation via mutation-selection balance: Lerch's zeta meets the abdominal bristle. Theor . Popul . Biol . 25 : 138– 93 [Google Scholar]
• UN Sci. Comm. Eff. At. Radiat 2000 . Sources and effects of ionizing radiation . UNSCEAR 2000 Rep., Gen. Assem. Vol. I, U. N., New York
• US Dep. Energy (DOE) 2019 . Hanford lifecycle scope , schedule, and cost report . DOE/RL-2018-45 Rev. 0, DOE Richland, WA: [Google Scholar]
• von Hippel FN , Schoeppner M. 2017 . Economic losses from a fire in a dense-packed US spent fuel pool. Sci. Glob. Secur. 25 : 80– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Webster SC , Byrne ME , Lance SL , Love CN , Hinton TG et al. 2016 . Where the wild things are: influence of radiation on the distribution of four mammalian species within the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14 : 185– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Wheatley S , Sovacool B , Sornette D. 2017 . Of disasters and dragon kings: a statistical analysis of nuclear power incidents and accidents. Risk Anal 37 : 99– 115 [Google Scholar]
• Wickliffe JK , Rodgers BE , Chesser RK , Phillips CJ , Gaschak SP , Baker RJ. 2003 . Mitochondrial DNA heteroplasmy in laboratory mice experimentally enclosed in the radioactive Chernobyl environment. Radiat . Res . 159 : 458– 64 [Google Scholar]
• World Nucl. Assoc 2020 . World nuclear performance report 2020 . Rep., World Nuclear Association, London. https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/3418bf4a-5891-4ba1-b6c2-d83d8907264d/performance-report-2020-v1.pdf.aspx
• Yablokov A. 2013 . A review and critical analysis of the “effective dose of radiation” concept. J. Health Pollut. 3 : 13– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Yablokov AV , Nesterenko VB , Nesterenko AV. 2009 . Chernobyl: consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1181 : 1– 327 [Google Scholar]
• Zhang A , Steen TY. 2018 . Gut microbiomics—a solution to unloose the gordian knot of biological effects of ionizing radiation. J. Hered. 109 : 212– 21 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, resilience and stability of ecological systems, ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change, effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity, species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time, mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity, stable isotopes in ecosystem studies, phylogenies and community ecology, species richness of parasite assemblages: evolution and patterns, the population biology of invasive species, landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Mushrooms foraged in Sweden could help research Chernobyl fallout

A golden chanterelle mushroom, shown here in Stockholm, Sweden, on July 31, 2021. (AP Photo/Natalie Li)

FILE - A shelter construction covers the exploded reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear plant, in Chernobyl, Ukraine, April 27, 2021. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky, File)

• Copy Link copied

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Sweden’s strong foraging culture could help determine how much radioactive fallout remains in the Scandinavian country 38 years after the Chernobyl nuclear explosion .

The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority has asked mushroom-pickers to send samples of this season’s harvest for testing. The goal of the measurement project is to map the levels of Cesium-137 in mushrooms, which can absorb the isotope from soil, and see how much remains after the April 26, 1986 disaster at the Soviet nuclear power plant in what is now Ukraine.

Cesium, the key radioactive material released in the fallout, has a half-life of some 30 years. It can build up in the body, and high levels are thought to be a risk.

The radiation watchdog is counting on the foraging lifestyle in Sweden, which is covered by more than 60% of forest, to aid its research. In late summer, many Swedes spend days in the woods collecting berries, mushrooms and plants.

It’s asking foragers where they found their bounty — though they don’t have to disclose the exact whereabouts of the prized golden chanterelle mushroom.

Spots that regularly produce such chanterelles — often called “the gold of the forest mushroom” — are closely guarded family secrets that could cause headaches for researchers who need data points.

“It doesn’t have to be the exact location of the most secret chanterelle spot,” said Pål Andersson, an investigator at the Radiation Safety Authority.

Mushroom-pickers are instructed to send in double-bagged edible fungi — at least 100 grams (3.53 ounces) of fresh mushrooms, or 20 grams (0.71 ounces) of dried mushrooms — picked in 2024.

Sweden’s safety authority did not say when a result of its research was expected.

Dozens of people were killed in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, while the radioactive fallout spread across Europe. The long-term death toll from radiation poisoning is unknown.

Swedish authorities were the first to detect radioactive fallout in Europe, forcing Soviet officials, who had attempted to cover up the disaster, to open up about it days later.

In 2017, a state veterinary agency in the Czech Republic said about half of all wild boars in the country’s southwest were radioactive and considered unsafe for consumption. The boars feed on an underground mushroom that absorbs radioactivity from the soil. Similar problems with radioactive wild animals were reported in Austria and Germany.

Dazio reported from Berlin.

Mushrooms foraged in Sweden could help research Chernobyl fallout

Sweden’s strong foraging culture could help determine how much radioactive fallout remains in the Scandinavian country, 38 years after the Chernobyl nuclear explosion

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Sweden's strong foraging culture could help determine how much radioactive fallout remains in the Scandinavian country 38 years after the Chernobyl nuclear explosion .

The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority has asked mushroom-pickers to send samples of this season's harvest for testing. The goal of the measurement project is to map the levels of Cesium-137 in mushrooms, which can absorb the isotope from soil, and see how much remains after the April 26, 1986 disaster at the Soviet nuclear power plant in what is now Ukraine.

Cesium, the key radioactive material released in the fallout, has a half-life of some 30 years. It can build up in the body, and high levels are thought to be a risk.

The radiation watchdog is counting on the foraging lifestyle in Sweden, which is covered by more than 60% of forest, to aid its research. In late summer, many Swedes spend days in the woods collecting berries, mushrooms and plants.

It's asking foragers where they found their bounty — though they don't have to disclose the exact whereabouts of the prized golden chanterelle mushroom.

Spots that regularly produce such chanterelles — often called “the gold of the forest mushroom” — are closely guarded family secrets that could cause headaches for researchers who need data points.

“It doesn’t have to be the exact location of the most secret chanterelle spot,” said Pål Andersson, an investigator at the Radiation Safety Authority.

Mushroom-pickers are instructed to send in double-bagged edible fungi — at least 100 grams (3.53 ounces) of fresh mushrooms, or 20 grams (0.71 ounces) of dried mushrooms — picked in 2024.

Sweden’s safety authority did not say when a result of its research was expected.

Dozens of people were killed in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, while the radioactive fallout spread across Europe. The long-term death toll from radiation poisoning is unknown.

Swedish authorities were the first to detect radioactive fallout in Europe, forcing Soviet officials, who had attempted to cover up the disaster, to open up about it days later.

In 2017, a state veterinary agency in the Czech Republic said about half of all wild boars in the country’s southwest were radioactive and considered unsafe for consumption. The boars feed on an underground mushroom that absorbs radioactivity from the soil. Similar problems with radioactive wild animals were reported in Austria and Germany.

Dazio reported from Berlin.

Popular Reads

UN contract worker killed in Israeli strike over southern Lebanon

• Sep 2, 9:45 AM

Israel-Hamas war latest: Israeli strikes kill 6 in occupied West Bank, Palestinian officials say

• Sep 5, 1:49 AM

Rallies in Bangladesh mark one month since ex-premier Sheikh Hasina was ousted

• Sep 5, 8:35 AM

Shooting suspect's father charged with murder

• Sep 5, 11:26 PM

The Dutch government is 'future-proofing' its military in an increasingly volatile world

• Sep 5, 11:51 AM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Dose Response
• v.13(1); Jan-Mar 2015

Reconsidering Health Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident

Yehoshua socol.

Falcon Analytics, Hanevel 13/1, Karney Shomron, Israel 4485500

The Chernobyl accident led to major human suffering caused by the evacuation and other counter-measures. However, the direct health consequences of the accident-related radiation exposures, besides the acute effects and small number of thyroid cancers, have not been observed. This absence is challenged by some influential groups affecting public policies who claim that the true extent of radiogenic health consequences is covered up. We consider such claims. The most conservative (in this case – overestimating) linear no-threshold hypothesis was used to calculate excess cancer expectations for cleanup workers, the population of the contaminated areas and the global population. Statistical estimations were performed to verify whether such expected excess was detectable. The calculated cancer excess for each group is much less than uncertainties in number of cancer cases in epidemiological studies. Therefore the absence of detected radiation carcinogenesis is in full correspondence with the most conservative a priori expectations. Regarding the cover-up claims, rational choice analysis was performed. Such analysis shows that these claims are ill-founded. The present overcautious attitude to radiological hazards should be corrected in order to mitigate the present suffering and to avoid such suffering in the future.

INTRODUCTION

The Chernobyl nuclear accident occurred on April 26, 1986. It killed two employees outright, and 28 more died within several weeks after receiving lethal doses of radiation (some of the fire fighters that died also had severe thermal burns). Many dire predictions were (and are still being) made. It was claimed, e.g., that over 50,000 people will die of Chernobyl-induced cancer.

In spite of the best efforts of statisticians and epidemiologists, the claimed Chernobyl-induced cancers and mutations have yet to manifest themselves.

In 2006, the US National Research Council published the extensive 424-page BEIR-VII report dedicated to the effects of low levels of low linear energy transfer (low-LET) ionizing radiation ( NRC 2006 ). This report is one of several that review findings regarding Chernobyl – see also the reports of Chernobyl Forum (2006) , World Health Organization WHO (2006) and UNSCEAR (2008) .

In most of the studies of the liquidators from Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, increases (e.g., doubling or tripling) in the incidence of leukemia and thyroid cancer have been reported. However, “these results are difficult to interpret” ( NRC 2006 , p. 203) since the follow-up of the liquidators is much more active than that of the general population in the three countries, and since no increase in cancer or general mortality among the liquidators was reported. In a case-control study based on the limited dosimetric data, no significant association was seen between the risk of leukemia and radiation dose among the Russian liquidators ( NRC 2006 , p. 203) – namely, the liquidators had higher leukemia incidence as a group, but no dose-response within this group was observed. BEIR-VII ( NRC 2006 ) summarizes:

“At this time [2006], no conclusion can be drawn concerning the presence or absence of a radiation-related excess of cancer—particularly leukemia—among Chernobyl accident recovery workers.”

Regarding the populations of the contaminated areas, the only traceable direct health effect of the radiation is the increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer in children. Those children consumed food contaminated by radioactive iodine just after the accident, and that consumption could easily have been avoided by issuing proper instructions. According to the Chernobyl Forum (2006) , a total of about 4,000 thyroid cancers were observed; 15 died. The increase was first reported in 1990 ( NRC 2006 , p. 215), only 4 years after the exposure. There was immediate skepticism that such an increase was related directly to radiation exposure from Chernobyl since the latent period for radiation-related thyroid cancer was known to be much longer, about 10 years. The opinion was given that the apparent increase was largely the result of the widespread population screening ( NRC 2006 , p. 215). BEIR-VII considers nevertheless probable that the thyroid cancer were really caused by the radioiodine. However, the above number of 15 should be considered as the upper limit of the Chernobyl cancer death toll so far.

Regarding other types of cancer, BEIR-VII summarizes that

“there is no convincing evidence that the incidence of leukemia has increased in adult residents of the exposed populations that have been studied in Russia and Ukraine” (p. 227), and also that “there is no evidence of an increase in any solid cancer type to date” (p. 228).

There has in reality been a modest but steady increase in reported congenital malformations in Belarus since 1986. However, this increase occurred in both contaminated and uncontaminated areas! This is most probably the result of increased registration, rather than being radiation-related ( Chernobyl Forum 2006 , p. 20).

The direct health consequences of Chernobyl radiation, besides the acute effects, are therefore at most questionable. Unfortunately, the overall hysteria led to enormous human suffering, including that associated with the permanent relocation of more than 300,000 people. Evacuation for the majority was unjustified, and there was no justification for permanent relocation of even the closest locations ( Jaworowski 2010 ). About 4,000,000 people living in the “contaminated” areas were officially declared victims (and many more felt so). And after being declared thus they became very real victims. Radiophobia—irrational fear of even small radiation doses—led to extremely traumatic decisions and results.

WHO (2006) mentioned:

“Evacuation and relocation proved a deeply traumatic experience to many people because of the disruption to social networks and having no possibility to return to their homes. For many there was a social stigma associated with being an ‘exposed’ person …”

According to the Chernobyl Forum (2006) ,

“The most pressing health concerns for the affected areas thus lie in poor diet and lifestyle factors such as alcohol and tobacco use, as well as poverty and limited access to health care”. The Forum concludes that “the mental health impact of Chernobyl is the largest public health problem unleashed by the accident to date.”

It is often claimed that the direct health consequences of the exposure are much more severe than described above. Two kinds of arguments are made to support such claims.

• The medical data were and still are filtered by the governments of the USSR, Ukraine, Russia and Belarus to draw attention away from their misconduct and to reduce their responsibilities.
• The data are analyzed by agencies that are connected to nuclear energy and are therefore pro-nuclear biased and interested in diminishing the Chernobyl accident consequences.

Such claims deserve consideration since they are endorsed, among others, by persons and parties affecting public policies, e.g. in European Parliament ( Fairlie and Sumner 2006 ).

The most conservative (in this case – overestimating) linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNTH) of radiation carcinogenesis was used to predict excess cancer expectations for cleanup workers, population of the contaminated areas and global population. LNTH, widely accepted but seriously questioned and debated, assumes that radiogenic cancer risk is proportional to the radiation exposure; the proportionality coefficient is based on epidemiological studies of the atomic bomb survivors in Japan. The numbers of the expected excess cancers were quantitatively compared with the estimated uncertainties in epidemiological studies, both statistical and systematic, to verify whether such expected excess was detectable.

Regarding the cover-up claims, rational choice analysis was performed. Such analysis deals with incentives and agents’ reactions on incentives. The basic assumption is that the agents (either persons or organizations) act in their best interests, given their information ( Aumann 2005 ).

LNTH estimation of excess cancer deaths

First, let us consider the estimate of 50,000 deaths worldwide as a result of Chernobyl. This estimation was based on calculations of the collective total-body absorbed dose to the inhabitants of the Northern Hemisphere via the pathways of external exposure and ingestion of radionuclides with food ( Anspaugh et al . 1987 ). The calculation yielded collective dose of 630,000 person-Gy for the 1-st year and 1,200,000 person-Gy for the 50-year period. The death toll calculation was derived by multiplying the above doses by the solid-cancer-mortality risk factor for mixed-aged population – about 5% per Gy (see e.g. NRC 2006 , p. 281). The above risk factor is based on epidemiological studies of the atomic bomb survivors in Japan according to the widely accepted (but seriously questioned and debated) linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNTH) of radiation carcinogenesis. It should be noted here that probably all advisory bodies recommend against multiplying trivial doses by large populations to predict excess cancers – that is the official position of UNSCEAR (2012) , International Commission on Radiological Protection ( Gonzalez et al . 2013 ), Health Physics Society ( HPS 1996 ) and Australasian Radiation Protection Society ( Higson 2007 ). Not accounted for is the uncertainty in determining the doses over the Northern Hemisphere. Let us consider whether the above number of 50,000 excess cancer deaths is observable. Mean rate of cancer mortality is about 110 per 100,000 persons per year in the developed countries ( Jemal et al . 2011 ). Therefore, roughly speaking, of the 1 billion population of the developed countries, 1.1 million people die annually from cancer. Over 50 years, this yields about 50,000,000 cancer deaths (the approximation is extremely crude but gives the correct order of magnitude). The uncertainty of the above figure should be taken as about 5% or 2,500,000 since the cancer mortality rate differs within ±5% between different developed countries (e.g. 1.05 per 1000 in North America but 1.145 per 1000 in northern Europe). We must conclude that there is absolutely no way to detect the predicted 50 out of 50,000 ± 2500 (thousands cancer deaths).

Second, let us consider the “liquidators,” also referred to as “cleanup workers.” Approximately 200,000 of them labored in the 30 km zone in 1986–1987 according to BEIR-VII ( NRC 2006 , Table 8-9 at p. 202). Their exposures were monitored in real time and their average whole-body effective dose is estimated to be 100 mSv. The excess risk estimation below (assuming LNTH) is based on the model recommended by BEIR-VII. Taking into account that the liquidators were mainly males around 30 years of age (solid cancer incidence risk factor 0.06 Sv –1 – see NRC 2006 , Table 12-6 at p. 281), 100 mSv should cause about a 0.6% life-time cancer incidence on top of the natural 42% (Fig. PS-4, p. 7). Namely, 1200 cancers should be diagnosed on top of 80,000 ±300 (1σ) natural cancers. Such an excess, if not masked by systematic errors, could be statistically significant. However, the systematic errors are high. As mentioned just above, within the developed countries, the cancer mortality varies by ±5%. The same uncertainty may be with reasonable justification applied to the cancer rate of the affected regions with their highly volatile socio-economic situation, making observation of cancer excess among liquidators a formidable task. Similar conclusions are probably valid for the population of the “strict control zone” – 270,000 people who received an average whole-body effective dose below 60 mSv (according to NRC 2006 , Table 8-9, p. 202).

Finally, let us consider the general population. About 3,700,000 people lived in the territories that were officially declared as “contaminated.” The average whole body effective dose for this population was reported below 15 mSv ( NRC 2006 , Table 8-9, p. 202). The corresponding LNT estimation for cancer incidence excess (0.015 Sv × 0.1 Sv –1 ) is about 0.15% for mixed-aged population. As discussed above, such excess cannot be observed given the uncertainties of the natural cancer incidence rate.

We find therefore that the absence of detected radiation carcinogenesis is in correspondence with the LNTH which is the most conservative (overestimating) interpretation of the scientific knowledge.

Rational choice analysis of the cover-up claims

Cover-up of disaster consequences is not unusual in general. Let us consider reasonable incentives and their plausible outcome in the particular case of Chernobyl.

Regarding the filtering of data by the host countries—while such cover-up was certainly performed during the early years, the situation is just opposite since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Ukrainian government, a bitter rival of Russia, has zero—or rather, negative—interest in covering up the misconduct of the Soviet authorities 25 years ago. The same is likely true, though probably to lesser extent, for Russia and Belarus. On the other hand, all the affected countries are keenly interested in exaggerating the health consequences, taking into account the extensive Western investment in the relief of Chernobyl victims and in dealing with the still-problematic damaged reactor.

Regarding the pro-nuclear bias of the international scientific bodies to under-estimate cancer mortality increase etc., two statements should be made.

• a) The data cited above is freely available to the scientific community. Profoundly anti-nuclear circles (including but not limited to Green parties, fossil fuel and renewable energy industries) have significant influence in many developed countries (including Germany with its considerable weight in the European Union)—and, therefore, a significant budget to fund independent analysis that would challenge any pro-nuclear bias, if it really existed.
• b) The pro-nuclear bias hypothesis is in contradiction with the simple fact that the above-mentioned respected organizations (including the BEIR-VII committee) promote the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNTH) of radiation carcinogenesis, to the discomfort of the nuclear industry. In addition, some of the cited evidence (e.g. that cancer mortality of nuclear workers is generally lower than in reference populations) explicitly contradicts the LNTH, and the best that could be said by BEIR-VII ( NRC 2006 , p. 10), was: “… there is no compelling evidence to indicate a dose threshold below which the risk of tumor induction is zero ”. BEIR-VII and other advisory bodies deny thresholds for radiation carcinogenesis despite the cited evidence. Therefore the evidence itself should be trusted.

It can be concluded that the claims regarding cover-up of the Chernobyl data are ill-founded also from the point of view of rational choice analysis.

The scale of the Chernobyl accident was unprecedented—and probably about the largest theoretically possible. As formulated by Jaworowski (2010) ,

Chernobyl was the worst possible catastrophe. It happened in a dangerously constructed nuclear power reactor with a total meltdown of the core and 10 days of free emission of radionuclides into the atmosphere. Probably nothing worse could happen.

Nevertheless, as shown in the previous section, even according to the officially-”conservative” (i.e. actually overestimating) LNTH model Chernobyl radiation consequences would be a priori undetectable. The a posteriori findings summarized in the Introduction are therefore fully consistent with highest expectations. Moreover, the principle of refutability demands that any scientific statement should contain information about how to disprove it. As formulated by Popper (1963) ,

“A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.”

Therefore, the often-cited claim that the excess cancers are present but undetectable – is simply not scientific. More generally, the same can be probably said about the very use of LNTH: even largest-scale nuclear disasters cannot provide evidence that refutes this hypothesis; the same conclusion was reached by Socol and Dobrzyński (submitted) regarding the Japan atomic bomb survivors, as will be reported separately. Lauriston Taylor, the late president of the U.S. National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements, deemed such LNTH-based estimates to be “ deeply immoral uses of our scientific heritage ” ( Taylor 1980 ). Let us mention, by the way, that Taylor himself received a whole-body effective dose estimated to be more than 10,000 mSv – corresponding to 100% cancer risk according to the LNTH – when he was 27 years old ( Taylor et al . 2004 ). Nevertheless, he died peacefully at the age of 102.

As for highly dreaded congenital malformations and popular myths of two-headed animals and children, it should be mentioned that mutants were born before the Chernobyl accident. For example, a 300-year-old child’s skeleton with two heads and three arms is exhibited in the Kunstkamera Museum (St. Petersburg, Russia, inventory number: No. 4070-914) and two-headed calf born in 1976 – in Beit Haim Sturman museum (Ein Harod, Israel).

It can be summarized thus: misconceptions and myths about the threat of radiation led to heightened anxiety and the tendency to associate every observed health effect with Chernobyl. These factors promoted increased suicides and paralyzing fatalism among residents. All the above, coupled with smoking and alcohol abuse, proved to be much greater problems than radiation.

Unfortunately, these lessons have not been learned. A recent memorandum of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ( Gonzalez et al . 2013 ) admits that the LNT model yields “ speculative, unproven, undetectable and ‘phantom’ numbers ,” but nevertheless finds the model “ prudent for radiological protection .” As a result of over-protection, the same kind of suffering is occurring in Fukushima (the accident, caused by an unprecedented natural disaster, with the total meltdown of three reactors, was of a lower order-of-magnitude than in Chernobyl). Here more than 50 patients of evacuated hospitals died within several days as a direct consequence of the unfounded evacuation ( Tanigawa et al . 2012 ), and more than 1000 people died within two years owing to various evacuation-related non-radiogenic (mainly psychosomatic) problems ( Saji 2013 ). Additional ethical issues of radiation health over-protection are considered in a recent paper ( Socol et al . 2014 ). Historical and economical analysis of such policies is provided in ( Socol et al . 2013 ).

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that, unlike the widespread myths and misperceptions, there is little scientific evidence for carcinogenic, mutagenic or other detrimental health effects caused by the radiation in the Chernobyl-affected area, besides the acute effects and small number of thyroid cancers. On the other hand, it should be stressed that the above-mentioned myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation caused, by themselves, enormous human suffering. The authorities did not learn this lesson from Chernobyl, and the same kind of suffering is occurring in Fukushima. The lessons should finally be learned and the present overcautious attitude to radiological hazards should be corrected in order to mitigate the present suffering and to avoid such suffering in the future..

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is based on the contribution to James H. (Jimmy) Belfer Memorial Symposium at Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, October 29, 2012. The author wishes to thank Dr. Jerry Cuttler (Cuttler & Associates Inc.) for a thorough reading of the manuscript and for extremely valuable comments. The author appreciates stimulating discussions with Prof. Ludwik Dobrzyński (National Centre for Nuclear Research, Poland), Dr. Alexander Vaiserman (Inst. of Gerontology, Kiev) and other colleagues from Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI), http://RadiationEffects.org . Special thanks to Prof. Gregory Falkovich (Weizmann Institute of Science) and Dr. Moshe Yanovskiy (Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy). The author wishes to thank the Referees for their important comments that led to the considerable improvement of the manuscript.

• Anspaugh LR, Goldman M, Catlin RJ. 1987. Atmospheric releases from severe nuclear accidents: Environmental transport and pathways to man: Modelling of radiation doses to man from Chernobyl releases . Preprint IAEA-CN-48/274 http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/5517624 (accessed July 27, 2014)
• Aumann RJ. 2005. Nobel Prize Lecture 2005 [online] . The Nobel Prize, 2005 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2005/aumann-lecture.html (accessed July 27, 2014)
• Chernobyl Forum (IAEA, WHO, UNSCEAR et al.). 2006. Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine . 2nd revised edition, Vienna: IAEA, 2005. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf (accessed July 27, 2014) [ Google Scholar ]
• Fairlie I, Sumner D. 2006. The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH) . Berlin, Brussels, Kiev: Commissioned by Rebecca Harms, MEP, Greens/EFA in the European Parliament; http://www.ChernobylReport.org/torch.pdf (accessed July 27, 2014) [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzalez AJ, Akashi M, Boice JD, Chino M, Homma T, Ishigure N, Kai M, Kusumi S, Lee JK, Menzel HG, Niwa O, Sakai K, Weiss W, Yamashita S, Yonekura Y. 2013. Radiological protection issues arising during and after the Fukushima nuclear reactor accident . J Radiol Prot . 33 : 497–571 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Health Physics Society (HPS). 1996. Radiation Risk in Perspective. Position Statement of the Health Physics Society . McLean, VA [ PubMed ]
• Higson D. 2007. The Australasian Radiation Protection Society’s Position Statement on Risks from Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation . Dose-Response . 2007; 5 ( 4 ): 299–307. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaworowski Z. 2010. Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT , Dose-Response 8 : 148–171. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. 2011. Global Cancer Statistics . CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 61 : 69–90. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council (NRC). 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII – Phase 2 . Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2006, 424 pages. ISBN: 0-309-53040-7 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html (accessed July 27, 2014) [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations , London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, pp. 33–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saji G. 2013. A post-accident safety analysis report of the Fukushima accident. Future direction of the evacuation: lessons learned . Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Nuclear Engineering ICONE21 July 29 – August 2, 2013, Chengdu, China ICONE21-16526. [ Google Scholar ]
• Socol Y, Dobrzyński L. A-bomb Survivors Life-Span Study: Insufficient Statistical Power to Select Radiation Carcinogenesis Model , submitted. to Dose-Response . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Socol Y, Dobrzyński L, Doss M, Feinendegen LE, Janiak MK, Miller ML, Sanders CL, Scott BR, Ulsh B, Vaiserman A. 2014. Commentary: ethical issues of current health-protection policies on low-dose ionizing radiation , Dose Response , 12 :342–348. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Socol Y, Yanovskiy M, Zatcovetsky I. 2013. Low-dose ionizing radiation: scientific controversy, moral-ethical aspects and public choice . Int J Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology 4 : 59–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tanigawa K, Hosoi Y, Hirohashi N, Iwasaki Y, Kamiya K. 2012. Loss of life after evacuation: lessons learned from the Fukushima accident , The Lancet 379 : 889–891. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60384-5 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor LS. 1980. Some non-scientific influences on radiation protection standards and practice – the 1980 Sievert lecture . Health Phys . 39 : 851–874. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor NW, Sinclair WK, Gorson RO. 2004. In Memoriam: Lauriston S. Taylor 1902-2004 http://hps.org/aboutthesociety/people/inmemoriam/LauristonTaylor.html (accessed July 27, 2014)
• United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 2008. Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident . In: UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. Volume II: Scientific Annexes C, D and E , NY: United Nations, 45–220. http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2008_2.html (accessed July 27, 2014) [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 2012. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Fifty-ninth session (21-25 May 2012) , NY: United Nations, p. 10 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/67/4 6 (accessed July 27, 2014) [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. Health effects of the Chernobyl accident: an overview, April 2006 . http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder (accessed July 27, 2014)

• IT innovation, research and development

putilov_denis - stock.adobe.com

China dominates AI and advanced analytics research

Research looking at each country’s ai contribution, based on the quantity and quality of researchers papers published, shows china is leading the way.

• Cliff Saran, Managing Editor

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI) latest technology tracker paints a bleak picture of the artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced analytics strengths of Western countries compared with China.

Among the metrics the tracker published is a graph showing research papers published between 2019 and 2023, which it used to rank national research performance in advanced data analytics. When ASPI ranked countries based on their share of highly cited publications, it reported that China was first, with a 33.2% share. According to ASPI’s research, China had over twice as many “highly cited publications” compared with the US (14.4%), which was second. The UK came in fourth place, with just 4%, behind India, with 5.4%.

Between 2019 and 2023, China published the most research publications (8,672) on advanced analytics, while the number of papers for the US was 3,454, according to ASPI’s research. The UK’s volume of research publications placed it in seventh, with 719 research papers, behind Italy, with 771.

All of the top 10 academic institutes for advanced analytics, according to ASPI’s measurement of highly cited publications, are in China. The top three are: Chinese Academy of Sciences (first); Huazhong University of Science and Technology (second) and Xidian University (third). The UK’s Imperial College ranked 62nd.

When ASPI looked at the career trajectories of what it deemed as the “most talented cohort of researchers” who published advanced analytics papers, China again topped the league , with 180 undergraduate researchers, compared with the US with 125. For postgraduate researchers, the US was top, with 226 postgraduates, ahead of the European Union (145) in second place. ASPI reported that China came in third, with 88 postgraduates.

The ASPI research categorises advanced analytics as a subset of AI.

The ASPI figures for AI shows that in 2009, the top country for AI algorithm and acceleration hardware, based on its research publications metric, was the US, with 12.5% of research contributed. In 2009, the UK was second, with 2.1%. By 2023, China was the top contributor (29%); the US was second (12%); and the UK had fallen to fourth, with 6%, behind India (9%).

Read more AI policy stories

• A guide to help enterprises building and deploying AI systems understand EU AI regulations.
• Secretary of state for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle, promises to drive innovation through the NHS, champion AI safety and ensure government harnesses the power of digital.

In a tweet posted on X , entrepreneur Arnaud Bertrand, who founded HouseTrip (now owned by TripAdvisor), said: “We’re obviously witnessing an immense seismic shift, at a pace that truly boggles the mind given the overwhelming consensus in the West a mere 10 years ago that China ‘couldn’t innovate’. And maybe that’s the key lesson here: our biases and arrogance seem to have not only hindered our understanding of others, but also impeded our own progress.”

Given the UK’s policy both to attract talent from overseas and its stance on lowering net migration , among the more interesting pieces of data from ASPI is the inflow of top research talent based on where they studied. The UK took in three of China’s top advanced analytics researchers compared with the US, which took in 15, and the EU, which hired eight. Overall, the UK took in six advanced analytics researchers from the US, eight from the European Union and just one from India .

Read more on IT innovation, research and development

HMRC boosts data scientist numbers

Lancaster University launches trailblazing cyber MBA

Comparing Global Pharmaceutical Markets: US, UK, and China

NCSC looks back on year of ‘profound change’ for cyber

While California advances AI legislation targeting safety testing, the U.S. Senate will also have on its plate several AI bills ...

The next U.S. president will set the tone on tech issues such as AI regulation, data privacy and climate tech. This guide breaks ...

CIOs and IT leaders can play an important role in boosting tech talent retention. Learn how these strategies can motivate ...

If you are ready to take a more proactive approach to cybersecurity, threat hunting might be a tactic to consider. Here's what ...

The Office of the National Cyber Director has published a roadmap for internet routing security that outlines recommendations for...

AI threat modeling can help enterprise security teams identify weaknesses in their AI systems and apps -- and keep bad actors ...

Test scripts are the heart of any job in pyATS. Best practices for test scripts include proper structure, API integration and the...

Cloud and on-premises subnets use IP ranges, subnet masks or prefixes, and security policies. But cloud subnets are simpler to ...

Satellite connectivity lets Broadcom offer the VeloCloud SD-WAN as an option for linking IoT devices to the global network from ...

Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux are new distributions created after Red Hat announced the discontinuation of CentOS. These ...

The Broadcom CEO says public cloud migration trauma can be cured by private cloud services like those from VMware, but VMware ...

New capabilities for VMware VCF can import and manage existing VMware services through a single console interface for a private ...

Microsoft Copilot raises security concerns around unauthorized or unintentional data access. Prevent leaks with vigilant ...

Don't wait until you have a metadata management problem to address the issue. Put a metadata management framework in place to ...

The time series database specialist's update addresses performance to better handle complex real-time workloads and includes a ...