If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(heraldsun)   Twenty years later, Chernobyl deaths top 250,000, according to Greenpeace. Real death toll is more around 50, as in FIVE ZERO   (heraldsun.news.com.au) divider line 313
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

26060 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2006 at 11:14 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



313 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-04-27 08:02:33 AM  
the bigger the number the better the donations.

/its a shame the environmental movement has been taken over by the nuts, its to important an issue to be associated with extremists, weirdos and chicks that don't shave...
 
2006-04-27 08:09:49 AM  
I always wonder how Andrew Bolt and Christopher Hitchens would get on.
 
2006-04-27 08:14:41 AM  
Ah, Greenpeace. The only fleet to lose a vessel to the French military in almost 200 years.
 
2006-04-27 08:23:00 AM  
The International Atomic Energy Agency (pops) says the total is about 9,000.
 
2006-04-27 08:27:50 AM  
Underexaggerations are just as bad as overexaggerations. Get your numbers from a real source, instead of someone full of vitriol pretending to be an opinion columnist.
 
2006-04-27 08:27:55 AM  
I remember when that happened. I was desperately running around trying to find a woman to make love to as we were vapourized by the radioactive cloud...

/... the girls at the time didn't buy it either.
 
2006-04-27 08:31:18 AM  
reed: My reading of that is that number is a projection of cancer deaths among currently living people who were affected.

From the site you linked:
How many people died and how many more are likely to die in the future?

A reasonable central estimate is about 4,000 fatal radiation induced cancers during the lifetime of the 600,000 most highly exposed individuals and perhaps another 5,000 in more peripheral populations.
 
2006-04-27 08:32:52 AM  
"The Greenpeace report [giving a death toll of around 200,000] is looking at all of Europe, whereas our report looks at only the most affected areas of the three most affected countries"

"The WHO felt it had recourse to the best national and international scientific evidence and studies when it came up with its estimates of [up to] 9,000 excess deaths for the most affected areas. We feel they're very sound."



"[Comparing the reports is] comparing apples and oranges"


Article(pops)
 
2006-04-27 08:37:19 AM  
The trouble with quantifying the human impact of something like this is that a lot of the impact is able to be perceived as somewhat intangible in relation to the event.

In other words, it can be hard to really prove that Event A = Symptom B; or that Symptoms A + B = [Event A + Time]

Or to look at it from the point of view of a rabid environmentalist : Event A = Everything That Has Ever Gone Wrong In Eastern Europe Environmentally Since 1986.

And from a hard-core pro-nuclear lobbyist = Event A Wasn't Really An Event As Such, More Of A Glitch. Also, Nuclear Power Is Safe and Look At This Cute Bunny Rabbit.

Or as I put it, worse things have happened than Chernobyl. For instance, over in Bopal...

Look at Cher and the "Believe" single. I believe that is responsible for countless suicides and de-earring over the last few years. You don't hear Greenpeace getting up in arms about that, although had they heard it, they may have all exploded with the suck-power of the "music".

/Last time I read about Greenpeace, they had accientally damaged a lot of protected coral in one of their stupid boats that the French never got around to blowing up... yet.
 
2006-04-27 08:40:09 AM  
Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations. There was, however, an increase in psychological problems among the affected population, compounded by insufficient communication about radiation effects and by the social disruption and economic depression that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union.
Where do you see 9,000 in the PDF, reed?
The main causes of death in the Chernobyl-affected region are the same as those nationwide - cardiovascular diseases, injuries and poisonings - rather than any radiation-related illnesses. 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.
 
2006-04-27 08:41:40 AM  
paulseta: For instance, over in Bopal...

Same thing struck me over the past few days. Even if Greenpeace is right, it's still fewer deaths than in the 1975 dam collapse in China.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2006-04-27 08:44:44 AM  
Their 600-page report last September concluded that the only long-term health effect of Chernobyl was thyroid cancer in children, easily cured in almost every case.

I heard a story on the radio this morning about a Belorussian girl who was six at the time of the accident and suffered thyroid cancer like many others. The common surgical scar is called a "Chernobyl necklace".
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2006-04-27 08:46:31 AM  
If Greenpeace is right, nuclear power is safer than the alternatives. If Greenpeace is wrong, it is much safer.
 
2006-04-27 08:50:49 AM  
stevarooni

Page 108 gives the anticipated overfall in deaths from cancers which is, as reported in the article and mentioned by reed, 9000.
 
2006-04-27 08:54:07 AM  
OlafTheBent: I remember when that happened. I was desperately running around trying to find a woman to make love to as we were vapourized by the radioactive cloud...

I remember when that happened, I was rock climbing near what was then the East/West German border. I had to take iodine supplements for a couple weeks (which turned out to be unnecessary), and we couldn't eat lettuce or anything that grew above ground for several months. There was a huge panic in western Europe, most of which was unnecessary but seemed prudent at the time.
 
2006-04-27 08:56:57 AM  
Their 600-page report last September concluded that the only long-term health effect of Chernobyl was thyroid cancer in children, easily cured in almost every case.

That line really annoyed me. It's got a mortality rate of less than 1%, this is true, but it's still an extremely serious condition. People on thyroxine suffer reduced expectation of lifespan, in addition to daily medication and health monitoring. Thyroid surgery can also cause damage to the nerves of the neck, resulting in muscle control problems and chronic pain.
 
2006-04-27 11:16:47 AM  
Greenpeace is wrong about something?
 
2006-04-27 11:18:46 AM  
Environmentalists are going to have to get their ducks in a row on the nuclear issue.

If you don't dig war in the middle east and smog and all the rest, nuclear power is the only real option. In fact it's the only option if you want nice touchy feely green hydrogen cars, for that matter.

It would be nicer if we could bottle the pure energy of love or a child's smiling at a rainbow, but until that happens nuclear power is the best we got... sorry.
 
2006-04-27 11:19:16 AM  
I recommend you all look at this Chernobyl presentation by photographer Paul Fusco---it will blow your mind...

http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay%5Fchernobyl/?GT1=8019
 
2006-04-27 11:19:48 AM  
Chernobyl deaths top 250,000, twenty years later according to greenpeace. Real death toll is more around FIFTY as in FIVE, ZERO

Well, yeah - but think of the death toll from the Chernobyl disaster will be like ... in ANOTHER twenty years from now!

Didn't think of that, now did you.
 
2006-04-27 11:20:13 AM  
It's a little frightening to see so many educated FARKers agree with numbers offered out by the remnants of a regime that failed to tell the world that it had just caused the worst nuclear disaster in history for a few days. Whole cities will be uninhatible for hundreds of years. thousands of fire fighters, or as the soviets called them, "biobots," died as a result of trying to contain the explosion. thousands more have died of various cancers. thousands more will suffer in foreign lands for the rest of their lives. greenpeace may be exagerating, but they're probably closer to the truth than submitter.
 
2006-04-27 11:20:41 AM  
That's cute. Spinning numbers while accusing greenpeace of spinning numbers. ROCK ON, FARK!!!
 
2006-04-27 11:21:18 AM  
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
 
2006-04-27 11:22:16 AM  
A good friend of mine has Thyroid problems because of Chernobyl. She was living in Poland at the time as a young kid. All the docs say that it's radiation related. 8-( She only has half of a thyroid left, and says that if she's not careful she'll lose the other half and will need to take meds for the rest of her life to live. 8-( It really sucks.
 
2006-04-27 11:22:25 AM  
'It seems some people still blame Chernobyl for anything and everything, so spooked have they become.'

Did the writer interview yoda for that line?
 
2006-04-27 11:22:36 AM  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Actually, it seems this little report that's been circulating is wrong - probably a nuclear construction company lobby behind it somewhere:


"Only one problem: it wasn't true.

Chernobyl reactor number four in Ukraine was ripped apart by an explosion on 26 April 1986. It burned for ten days and spewed a massive amount of radioactivity over Europe and the rest of the world - 100 times more than that from the atom bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

In September 2005, a clutch of United Nations organisations led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO), issued their "definitive" news release about it. As it was meant to, it led to headlines around the world suggesting that the accident would only kill 4,000 - a message which the WHO said at the time was "reassuring".

But in the run-up to Chernobyl's twentieth anniversary over the last few weeks, the UN report has been thoroughly discredited. A report by two independent radiation scientists, Ian Fairlie and David Sumner, said the global death toll from cancers was actually going to be between 30,000 and 60,000."

See full report below, and remember, don't believe everything you read on the internet (in fact, I;m beginning to think you should disbelieve everything as default). There are still large parts of the UK that are contaminated from this.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/chernobyl_3 477.jsp
 
2006-04-27 11:22:44 AM  
50 my ass.

"The Other Report on Chernobyl, otherwise known as Torch, comes ahead of this Wednesday's anniversary. It was co-written by Dr Ian Fairlie and Dr David Sumner.

Torch claims that more than half of the fallout from the explosion landed outside Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, contaminating about 34% of the UK's surface.

It reveals that there are still restrictions on 374 farms covering 750 square kilometres and 200,000 sheep in the UK.

It says that up to 66,000 people globally could die from cancer due to Chernobyl, above the number who would die from cancer normally.

This conflicts sharply with a figure from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation, which set the number of excess cancer deaths at 4,000 in a press release last September. "
 
2006-04-27 11:22:49 AM  
My good friend is from Ukraine, and he lived in Kiev during the Chernobyl disaster. Luckily he was evacuated from his school at the time. But according to his first hand stories, a hell of a lot more than 50 people died from the effects. He told me of relatives that basically 'shriveled up and died' from the radiation effects, and others who got sick and died long after the inital event.
 
2006-04-27 11:23:07 AM  
remember, a chain smoker from russia who dies of lung cancer is a victim of chernobyl and the increased cancer from radiation if you are greenpeace
 
2006-04-27 11:24:12 AM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: Well, yeah - but think of the death toll from the Chernobyl disaster will be like ... in ANOTHER twenty years from now!

Didn't think of that, now did you.


And in about 100 years, the true death toll will rise into the billions.
 
2006-04-27 11:24:51 AM  
Remember when advocacy was actually promoting your issue truthfully and letting it stand on its own merits? I don't either.
 
2006-04-27 11:24:54 AM  
I've seen lots of pictures of birth defects and ruined lives from Chernobyl.

But I think that they were a result of the earth's natural cycle. Kind of like global warming. Any connection to industrial accidents or the industrial age is just a coincidence.
 
2006-04-27 11:25:04 AM  
FTA: " But last week a bus carrying wedding guests from Raha, in northwest India, skidded off a rainy road and plunged into a pond.

At least 51 people died, more than have been killed so far by the Chernobyl blast.

As I said, deadlier than Chernobyl. But no professional alarmist can hope to pretend we all face doom from some Indian bus."


You know what though? Road accidents are just that - accidents, they usually cannot be prevented. Nuclear disasters on the other hand can and should be prevented at all costs.
 
2006-04-27 11:25:45 AM  
Yea, the place and the people look fine.

also: Timmay!!!
 
2006-04-27 11:27:02 AM  
 
2006-04-27 11:27:04 AM  
Headline could have been "Why you shouldn't take Greenpeace seriously".

I know I can't.
 
2006-04-27 11:27:27 AM  
www.kiddofspeed.com

/ the famous KiddofSpeed website ... chick rode her crotchrocket through Chernobyl, took pics and copious notes
 
2006-04-27 11:27:36 AM  
"on a long enough timeline the life expectency for everyone drops to zero.)
 
2006-04-27 11:27:52 AM  
Just as a note, National Geographic had a very informative and reasonable article about Chernobyl in the last few months. It had a pretty hopeful air to it.

/the new sheild over the reactor will be the largest and heaviest mobile sturcture ever built
 
brx
2006-04-27 11:27:54 AM  
I'm gonna make my own estimate be around 20,000. It's more than the 9000 estimate because I think 9000 is a little low. 50 is WAY too low. 250k is stupid environmentalist high.

Supposedly, thousands of workers knew they would be dead in a matter of days if they kept working at the site to put cement over the reactors and fallout areas.. but they did it anyway as a devotion to mankind.
 
2006-04-27 11:28:04 AM  
Well done submitter for a bigger lie(50 people lol) than Greenpeace ever made, totally discrediting your story. Why is their always a vicious political agenda behind Fark stories nowadays(e.g. anti war protester od's hahaha etc). Get out and post leaflets for your cause and leave Fark for interesting/weird headlines.
That article is a piece of shiat. I'm sure both sides are lying about the toll(which noone can ever pinpoint exactly).
It's not all about deaths either. Babies are being born with heart and brain defects/shortened lifespans and the land is still contaminated.
 
2006-04-27 11:28:49 AM  
Are they honestly trying to downplay the effects of what happened? Are they trying to convince us that the effects of Chernobyl were little more than a minor inconvenience? Puh-lease.

Look for the documentary "Chernobyl Hearts" on HBO. That's a freaking wake-up call beyond belief.
 
2006-04-27 11:28:55 AM  
if you actually believe chernobyl has killed 50 people you are a waste of good food
 
2006-04-27 11:29:53 AM  
At first I thought the headline was supposed to be a Soviet Russia joke. 50? People seriously believe that?

/Fifty uh, Bentley uh
 
2006-04-27 11:29:59 AM  
"A smarter jury you won't get."

"The report did predict another 9000 people would one day die
[...], but that's just another prediction. All earlier ones were too high."

Yeah, no cherry picking here.
 
2006-04-27 11:30:05 AM  
A bus running off a road is a little different than thousands of people being evacuated from their homes, to never come back again.
 
2006-04-27 11:30:18 AM  
So the message is that it's not really that bad when nuclear reactors explode?

Funny how people tend to want to err on the side of caution in these cases.
 
2006-04-27 11:30:27 AM  
So is the point the submitter is trying to make is "massive radiation exposure ain't no big thing?"
Wow, silly me. I guess we don't really have to worry about Iran having nukes then.

/it's just a flesh wound
 
2006-04-27 11:31:01 AM  
Kazuya

O'Rly? What are your sources? Where are your facts, statistics? Oh, sorry, you just know....right? Riiiiiiiiight.
 
2006-04-27 11:31:34 AM  
not to get nitpicky, but in TFA it says Greenpeace put the deathtoll at 200,000, not 250,000 as the submitter states...the 250k figure was given by the ACF. On the other hand, what's 50,000 pretend-deaths among friends?
 
Displayed 50 of 313 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report