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 04:26:21 PM
Delsueno

And they've got a pretty blue glow too:

www.jshine.net:8000
 
2006-04-27 04:34:53 PM
jshine:
Hmph. Well, you are definitely more informed than I am on the nuclear plant issue.

Sounds like we're cool until some knucklehead at the top starts talking about relaxing standards "in the interest of the economy". Maybe then it'll be time to trot out the Chernobyl scare machine...

Until then, if they can keep them from contaminating the water I drink and the air I breathe, I say build the suckers.
 
2006-04-27 04:35:29 PM
mishmashmusic

Thank you for posting that.
 
2006-04-27 04:36:15 PM
Like what others have said, there were serious negative effects from Cherynobyl. While only 50 deaths are 'directly attributable' to the radiation, another 4k or so cancer deaths can be explained by it. The problem comes from having to ask: 'Did this cancer occur because of the extra radiation, or was it natural, caused by a different radioactive source such as radon or even exposure to carcenogenic chemicals such as asbestos?'

As has been stated from the accident, a huge amound of radioactive iodine was released, which is collected by the thyroid. This resulted in a number of thyroid cancers in humans(mostly successfully treated), and a number in animals, who mostly died, but survived long enough to continue to have further generations, and have already returned to healthy population levels. Then again, deer and such only have to survive a few years to reproduce, while humans take decades.

However, I'll point out again, that reactors in the USA are far, far safer than Cherynobyl's. For one, no plant with a positive void coefficient would be licensed in the states. What's the void coefficient? Well, if the reactor is beginning to go out of control, your coolant can start to boil. The bubbles are called voids. In modern reactors with a negative void coefficient, fission in fuel rod sections affected by these bubbles decrease, tending to stop the overheating that could lead to meltdown. With a positive value, it increases. This means that more heat is released, causing more voids to form, increasing the reaction even more.

Then we have the reactor containment. While the sarcophagus was added on after the accident in emergency circumstances, reactors in the USA and most of the rest of the world are enclosed in containment domes which are far stronger and well constructed. They're rated for multiple atmospheres of pressure without leaking. They'll stop an airliner striking it cold.

With greater availability of nuclear power, we'd be able to stop producing so much electricity from coal, the only other electricity source that is as cheap as nuclear and expandable enough to meet demand. Coal power is provably far dirtier and dangerous that nuclear power. Then we can use the cheap electricity to power electric cars and such, reducing our reliance on oil.
 
2006-04-27 04:40:15 PM
Delsueno:Until then, if they can keep them from contaminating the water I drink and the air I breathe, I say build the suckers.

Yea, long-term storage of the waste is an issue that needs to be looked at (to prevent pollution in the future). Right now they just store it in big tanks, or in dry "casks" lined up outside the reactor inside a cyclone fence.:

www.nucleartourist.com

That's not a permenant solution.

And you're right -- it is dangerous if we let our guard down. You can never relax around this type of stuff.
 
2006-04-27 04:48:43 PM
MisterBill: And in about 100 years, the true death toll will rise into the billions.

And Bush knew and did NOTHING!
 
2006-04-27 04:50:04 PM
Whatever the real number, I guarantee it is higher than 50.
 
2006-04-27 05:05:41 PM
I work with a guy who fled the Chernobyl area after the accident. The story is INSANE in regards to what he and his family had to go through to get out. The information they were given at the time from the government was shamless. He was lucky because he had a friend who improvised some sort of geiger counter. (I can't remember all the details) Nevertheless, he KNEW it was time to get the hell out of Dodge.

To this day, I watch him eat his organic lunch... because he can't eat anything higher up in the food chain. (due to the refined toxins or some such thing)

He wasn't even that close to ground zero... The death toll was a whole lot higher than 50. 200,000? -perhaps, depending on the semantics
 
2006-04-27 05:16:54 PM
Jeesh. HELLO! If you were one of what they are saying was "FIVE ZERO" people, wouldn't that be on too many? Now that I got that off my chest, I'm off to read the thread. This should be interesting...
/I shave, by the way
 
2006-04-27 05:20:40 PM
I don't know anything about nuclear physics, so I refuse to get into a discussion over who is right.

But, my suspicion is that nobody's right.

/it's all politics, people
 
2006-04-27 05:25:36 PM
Um, it kind of depends on how you define 'killed'. Technically it's impossible to be killed entirely by one thing. Even if you get vaporized in a bomb, you were still dying just from the regularly occuring cell deaths (otherwise how would people die from natural causes?). Of course, the thing that is written on the death certificate contribute to a lot of cell deaths in a very rapid time, and is therefore considered to be the cause of death, since without it death wouldn't have occured at that time.

To see why this question sucks, think about cigarattes. It's widely known that smoking will take a few years off your life. But if lung cancer doesn't occur, then is smoking ever considered the cause of death? Probably not, but it definitly contributed.

But radiation is obviosly something that can kill just a few cells or trillions at a time, and can therefore contribute in varying amounts to the cause of death. Greenpeace just has a massively lower cutoff for what is considered the cause of death. So technically they're right, 250,000 people have definitely had some cells killed or mutilated by radiation from Cherenobyl, but only 50 of them had enough cells killed for radiation to be considered the cause of death.

/damn semantics
//and people thinking in black and white
 
2006-04-27 05:28:56 PM
I'm not going to read this entire thread, but:

Lafcaido: 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.

Let's see some sources.

I wrote a paper on this when I was in high school (ok, that was 10 years after not 20 years after), and all studies available at that point in time had a death toll that was under 3 digits. The effects were not nearly as bad as Greenpeace says. NO ONE else claims that the incident was as bad as Greenpeace. Sure, it was the "worst nuclear disaster ever", but the "worst nuclear disaster ever" before that was 3 mile island, which if I remember correctly had a total casualty count of.. zero.

There are people who live in the zones that were evacuated. Not a lot of them, but they aren't as bad off as Greenpeace would have you think.

I'm starting to believe the people who say that Greenpeace is a terrorist organisation!
 
2006-04-27 05:29:05 PM
It's Nukular... just listen to Mr. Bush.

(it's frightening to hear him SAY the word... hopefully he would have to write it to give any related command. I'm fairly sure that this is the origin of 'WMD'. The U.S. military/political machine was grinding to a halt when Mr.Bush hung up on big words. If he starts saying 'nukes'... start putting the money into canned goods and shotguns.)
 
2006-04-27 05:29:48 PM
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".

Whatever this "believe" thing is, if it's not the natural environment Greenpeace isn't going to give a shiat. They're not here to prevent human suffering (although human suffering and environmental destruction go hand in hand almost always), they're not anthropocentric. That's why people hate them so much, because most people do think humans are more important than the environment.
 
2006-04-27 05:30:48 PM
I don't know if anyone mentioned this already or not, but that kidofspeed website is a sham. The chick doesn't ride her bike through there. You can do a google search for it. Some movie producers wanted to do a movie on her and when they were trying to get some info from her they realized she had made it up. She took the tour like everyone else. Notice how the only pictures with the motorbike are on the outside. She just carried her helmet in the zone of exclusion.
She's a joke.
 
2006-04-27 05:35:47 PM
Man, I wish I had the initiative to learn how to make one of those "Ha Ha" guy pictures. If so, I'd have him laughing above the words "Nuclear radiation is perfectly safe!"

Maybe I'd misspell a word or two or add in a number. I'm unsure of the proper etiquette.
 
2006-04-27 05:49:34 PM
Gah, while 50 dead is the "correct" number, the number of those effect by this is huge.

I think something we are also forgetting is that the government cut corners on building the reactor and this lead to the meltdown.

Kinda like Three Mile Island having such a complex operator board that a meltdown almost happened....
 
2006-04-27 05:51:48 PM
jshine: Chernobyl is not relevant to arguments for or against nuclear power in the US.

Primarily because our operators aren't so stupid that they will TURN OFF THE FARKING SAFTEY SYSTEM!!!
 
2006-04-27 06:01:18 PM
2006-04-27 05:51:48 PM Fatbert

It's one of the fringe benefits of Ol' Glory. People wrapped in it never do anything stupid.
 
2006-04-27 06:03:05 PM
Greenpeace is farking stupid. They have a problem with every type of power generation created.

Fossil Fuels - well you know
Hydroelectric - You destroy the habitat to build the dam
Geothermal - Same as above
Solar - Same as above (and the technology isnt quite tehre yet)
Nuclear - Waste and the possibility of chernobyl

Chernobyl was a poorly constructed soviet designed reactor. American and Candian reactors are much better and safer than the reactor in chernobyl.

Its baseless fearmongering. These are the same stupid people who believe that irradiated and GM foods are poisonous.
 
2006-04-27 06:05:50 PM
In order to feel like a tough guy, and impress my tough guy buddies, I look for excuses to lash out at sissy entities like "activists" and "intellectuals". It makes me feel tough and EVER so down home sensible! I also berate my son for not sucking it up and taking the pain when he gets an injury playing a sport I forced him to participate in. My boy aint no pussy. Quit cryin', boy, I'd yell at him when he was a baby... Well, I'm off now to write a column that sounds like something Homer Simpson or Fred Flintstone would write.
 
2006-04-27 06:12:35 PM
"I look for excuses to lash out at sissy entities like "activists" and "intellectuals"."

Greenpeace = Activists.....sure
Greenpeace = Intellectuals.....not a chance
 
2006-04-27 06:14:32 PM
Gorbachev was right. Finally, the Soviets can be vindicated.
 
2006-04-27 06:21:59 PM
fyi, in case noone's mentioned it already, Andrew Bolt is a vicious, racist conservative columnist in a tabloid newspaper who frequently distorts and spins information beyond recognition.
 
2006-04-27 06:25:31 PM
"I also berate my son for not sucking it up and taking the pain when he gets an injury playing a sport I forced him to participate in. My boy aint no pussy. Quit cryin', boy, I'd yell at him when he was a baby..."

When my 5 year old boy hurt himself in front of the wife she used to panic and run over and mother the hell out of him until i made her stop. When she did it he would feed off of his mom's emotions and start balling like a...well 5 year old.(kids can sense what you feel and often pick up and mimic your emotional state. This would drive me nuts since you could see he was fine but just stunned, but then he sees his moms panic and starts to panic himself)

Now when he hurts himself Dad just stands there (unless he chops his hand off) and asks him if hes ok and if he understands what happened. Now when gets in an accident he jumps up, just a little stunned by whatever happened, and continues doing whatever it was he was doing. Why? Because "my boy ain't no pussy".

/the best part about all of it is now we know when he's really hurt.
//There is nothing wrong with a little tough love
///THE second slashies sound like a title to an Elton John song
 
2006-04-27 06:25:47 PM
pandabear: 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.

They're still testing sheep in Wales for radioactivity 20 years later, so not that unnecessary. (see this BBC article (pops))
 
2006-04-27 06:29:10 PM
Submitter and Andrew Bolt are bigger liars than Greenpeace.
 
2006-04-27 06:32:59 PM
BernardMarx - The actual number is something like 63.

Since Michael Crichton has put this in much better words than I ever could, here's a link for you:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
 
2006-04-27 06:35:15 PM
You shouldn't post shiat that's so exaggerated it's unbelieveable.

Submitter = img.villagephotos.com....by half of the posters in this thread.
 
2006-04-27 06:41:01 PM
2006-04-27 06:05:50 PM Vosh

"In order to feel like a French existentialist douche bag, and impress my douche bag friends, I look for opportunities to make absurd statements that are a lame attempt at mocking people who could careless about what I have to say. It makes me feel so smug and unique, like everone else who does the same thing! Since I am completely asexual, I will never have any kids who will hurt themselves because it's a mean, cruel, hurtful world and I hate my mommy and daddy for bringing me into it. I can't imagine that a child would willingly participate in sports due to the chance they might lose or stub their toes, ruining their fragile egos, as mine has been ruined. My children will never be born, so they will never experience the humiliation of failure.

Like my post."

As far as Chernobyl, this "disaster" went beyond human error, or accident, and was a result of complete ignorance and perhaps arrogance on the part of the operator.

If you watch the timeline section of the link mishmashmusic posted, you can see multiple times when alarms were ignored, procedures were not followed, and standard principles of process control were not obeyed.

The same thing happened to BP in Texas City last March. Processes were circumvented by people who thought they knew better.

The technology is not failing. People are. Anyone desiring protection from these types of things, simply disappear into the woods, and let Mother Nature have her way with you.
 
2006-04-27 06:41:21 PM
sorry I thought this was the newcleear wessle thread in alameeta
 
2006-04-27 07:03:59 PM
Environmentalists are going to have to get their ducks in a row on the nuclear issue.
Blindman said:
[Start]
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.[End]

The problem is that when people say things like this I know they have formed a "solid" opinion on a topic that they actually don't know anything about. First of all you don't need nuclear power to get hydrogen, it can be extracted using clean processes from electrically powered machinery. Second of all there are a tons of ways to produce cleaner energy that almost everyone knows about by now (solar, wind, hydroelectric, ocean wave, and now even air compressors) on top of things like BioDiesel. I'm not saying that everything GreenPeace does is right (or even smart) but they don't support nuclear energy because there are a wealth of other options that don't involve having to store something that remains toxic and dangerous for at least 200,000-500,000 years
 
2006-04-27 07:17:27 PM
Greenpeace grossly overestimating the Chernobyl deathtoll is just another example of why they will never be taken seriously. However, grossly underestimating the deathtoll, and completely ignoring the other devastating consequences of this disaster is what makes people distrust the nuclear industry and is causing far more problems with widespread acceptance of nuclear power than Greenpeace everwill.

It is a distructive force. It can and should be harnessed if done properly, but first you must realize and deal with the possible consequences. This is a very simple rule that can be applied to many things in life.

Also, as a side bar, doesn't the President of Green Peace support Nuclear Energy? Or maybe it's the Sierra Club. It's one of those guys.
 
2006-04-27 07:33:38 PM
Where does it say that the Kid of Speed's website is a hoax? She has pictures of her, WITH her bike, in the exclusion zone.
 
2006-04-27 07:38:06 PM
veedeevadeevoodee
Ah, another forum poster said Elena's accout is full of crap. I stand corrected.
 
2006-04-27 08:29:36 PM
Offender:

The problem is that when people say things like this I know they have formed a "solid" opinion on a topic that they actually don't know anything about.

Second of all there are a tons of ways to produce cleaner energy that almost everyone knows about by now (solar, wind, hydroelectric, ocean wave, and now even air compressors)


Congratulations. You don't know what you're talking about.

Der Poopflinger: sorry I thought this was the newcleear wessle thread in alameeta

:-) You win something.
 
2006-04-27 08:33:53 PM
Atreyou40,

Yeah, but mine is accurate and you're just making stuff up as an excuse to call names. One way I can tell mine is accurate is the sound of your tea cups being rattled. The truth hurts. For some reason "angry Dad" types think their personality disorder is a secret and no one sees it. No, it's just that no one is bothering to tell you.
 
2006-04-27 09:00:14 PM
I'm not going to argue the numbers one way or the other - sort of pointless as we'll never really know.

For a different look at the disaster, check out "Voices From Chernobyl" by Svetlana Alexievich, Keith Gessen (Translator)

I read this book last year and had a hard time putting it down. Interviews with a whole lot of people who were affected by the disaster....
 
2006-04-27 09:02:44 PM
www.internationalhero.co.uk /unavailable for comment
 
2006-04-27 09:11:26 PM
Oh, and if Greenpeace is off, somebody should tell these guys:

http://www.chernobyl-international.com/abouttheproject/projectstructure.asp

They're a project dedicated to helping children who have birth defects due to the radiation.

Their numbers--under the "About Chernobyl" tab, second from the left, then poke around the sidebar--
is 20,000 deaths from the LIQUIDATORS alone.

There's also a nice map of the area that was contaminated with fallout.

Here's the real kicker: the Russkies kept using the rest of the complex clear up to 2000. Hell, they were working on constructing two more reactor halls--think they stopped? Hell no, they didn't stop trying to expand the facility for three years!
 
2006-04-27 09:25:43 PM
Okay, so the liquidator thing was already mentioned. But did you know about the continued use and the fallout map?

www.chernobyl-international.com
Chernobyl-baby likes the egghead wannabes on teh intarweb.
 
2006-04-27 09:30:24 PM
I don't know much about nuclear physics, but I DO know that the author missed the opportunity to coin the term "hyperboledrive."

\Got nothin'
\\Wished I were less tired and could offer some pithy comments
\\\Slashies facepalm.
 
2006-04-27 09:54:29 PM
Mr Rusty Shackleford

good call. I read it. Dead on.
 
2006-04-27 10:13:04 PM
KiddOfSpeed is a hoax
Read more about it here: http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/10300/


/chernobyl fascinates me
 
2006-04-27 10:13:04 PM
it's easy to explain.

50 comes from the people who died in the accident when it happened or from injuries clearly and directly attributable to the accident with no other possible cause

the 250,000 figure is the number of people who have died in the region of anything other than accidents that cannot be blamed on Chernobyl.

It's called an agenda and both sides have it. The real number is somewhere in between and is wholly unprovable. My dad smoked 4 packs of cigarettes a day for 45 years and doesn't have lung cancer despite having gotten prostate cancer that like spreading that direction. Meanwhile I know non smokers who have gotten lung cancer, it's all a crapshoot.
 
2006-04-27 10:16:34 PM
img137.imageshack.us
 
2006-04-28 12:31:34 AM
krazydiamond: Greenpeace grossly overestimating the Chernobyl deathtoll is just another example of why they will never be taken seriously.

if you dont take them seriously, you are a fool. only a fool does not listen to all sides. a fool covers his/her ears when facts they do not want to believe are told to them.

are the death estimates correct? about as correct as saying 9 million people died in the holocaust. when recording numbers of the past, especially with brutal regimes are extremely difficult.

but it looks like there are a few sources who start counting in the thousands, anyone who puts the deaths at under 50 either has a corporate sponsored agenda, or is too blind with hate and anger to actually accept that greenpeace could possibly be true.

Oh and one more thing before I go regarding nukular energy in the future...

WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH THE NUKULAR WASTE?
 
2006-04-28 12:42:30 AM
HomerJay64:

I for one welcome our new eastern-european giant breas... gian... um.... wow.

/'scuse me for about 3 mins...
 
2006-04-28 12:50:42 AM
Wow the nuclear industry is paying craploads of PR consultants. Can't pick up a paper these days without an opinion piece telling us about "clean safe nuclear energy (TM)", or "evil, naive environmentalists"
 
2006-04-28 12:51:33 AM
Thyroid cancer, easily curable in children...

The way he says it, it almost makes me WANT to have thyroid cancer.
 
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