h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The Irish charity organisation "Children of Chernobyl" claims that the incidence of genetic abnormalities in Belarus is far higher than average: http://www.ccp-intl.org/news.html and that the accident devastated the lives of over 7 million people.

At their "facts" page http://www.ccp-intl.org/facts.html they claim:

"Belorussian doctors identify the following effects from the Chernobyl disaster on the health of their people:

* 2,400% increase in incidence of thyroid cancer throughout Belarus.
* 10,000% increase in thyroid cancer in the Gomel region.
* 250% increase in congenital birth deformities.
* 100% increase in the incidence of cancer and leukemia.
* 1,000% increase in suicide in the contaminated zones."

Just returned from moving house (thank God that's over). Entry updated again, added a new section on environment and agriculture and taken on most of the suggestions etc. On the units, I think the full expansion in the first instance followed by the abbreviation is the norm, but will let the editors decide. Ditto the sentence structure of footnotes.

Was already linked to "How a Nuclear Plant Works" and have added "Hollywood's Laws of Life, Physics and Everything". Not sure how "Endless Loops" is relevant; I assume you mean the positive feedback loop causing the uncontrollable power surge, but I couldn;t really find anything appropriate to link it to.

Gnomon - your figures illustrate well the difficulty I've had putting this together. There is screeds of stuff out there, a lot of which is contradictory. When it comes to changes in reported levels of medical problems, I'm not sure there really is a right answer - it clearly depends on your criteria. So to avoid controversy, I've used figures from "official" websites such as the UN, IAEA, Nuclear Energy Agency, World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Energy Institute, Chernobyl.info, New Scientist and academia, and in most cases made sure the figures tally. I realise that some of these are not exactly impartial, but they do seem to reflect the biggest and most rigorous studies. So, the article may not be right but it's got a basis. That said, I've added a line about the CCP's claims as they may well also have a valid basis, albeit using different criteria. Hope that made sense .

Anyway, thanks for the comments, keep them coming...

Have linked to JD's entry on the measurement of radioactivity (NB not yet edited), added a few more links and changed the title.

*nudge*

Researcher PSG

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Yay!
Way to go!
This is a great addition to the Guide

Coo, all.

Have a on me tonight!

Yep well done !!

<Many congrats. DBE.

Congrats!

Definate congrats

Researcher PSG

Gotta throw my worth of congrats in here as well! I wouldn't have written an entry I should've done years ago if not for this one!

- JD

Niiiiiice!

Well done!