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
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

26072 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2006 at 11:14 AM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

313 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

2006-04-27 11:56:25 AM  
Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year!
Ought to have them, too.
2006-04-27 11:57:12 AM  
The tragedy of Chernobyl is measured not only in deaths, but the lives affected.


I think the pain of the living makes it a horrible tragedy. Look at the pictures in the link above, and tell me if that article claiming "only 50 people died, so big deal" is not the biggest pile of crap article you have ever read.
2006-04-27 11:57:53 AM  
2006-04-27 11:58:24 AM  
Lafcadio: thousands of fire fighters, or as the soviets called them, "biobots,"

erm, source?
2006-04-27 11:58:32 AM  
In other news, submitter is an idiot. Did you actually read what they are claiming? The report predicts 270,000 cancers, of which 93,000 are predicted to be fatal, and which are all a direct result of the Chernobyl accident. It isn't something they pulled out of their asses -- unless you consider it pulled out of the asses of the 52 scientists involved in the report.

/fark you
2006-04-27 11:59:05 AM  
What the article failed to point out was that in the 250,000 casualties, green peace included 241,000 cats, dogs, cows, and other various animals...to them, they are people too! :-P
2006-04-27 11:59:14 AM  
Quantum Apostrophe I love how the anti-nuke crowd ignores the Bhopal disaster which killed more people and has just as many long term effects. 40 tons of MIC was released in 1984 by a Union Carbide chemical plant. Check out the wiki on methyl isocyanate.
Why do chemical disasters get a free ride but the nuke stuff gets the fear mongering?
/long term, nuke is the best energy source we have

Sure, Greenpeace just loves companies like Union Carbide and its successor. They would never demonstrate against chemical plants that ignore even the most basic health and safety rules. If you ask the avergae Greenpeace member about Bhopal they will surely try to downplay the whole matter.

Or perhaps the very same people who are up in arms about Chernobyl are also involved in protests about the Bhopal disaster.

And I don't see what Bhopal has to do with energy production. If you want to compare the enviromental impact of various energy sources you should use stuff like mine-accidents in coal-mines, explosions at oil-raffeneries and other enrgy production related accidents that have costs human life.
2006-04-27 12:00:32 PM  
wh0mprat: "So...nuclear accidents aren't bad because chemical accidents ALSO can kill thousands of people?"

Who said that? They're equally as bad. That's my point, no one is talking about Bhopal 20 years later though. In the meantime, nuclear technology gets a bad name. We need nuclear power, man. The human race will have to grow up and start dealing responsibly with its future. For example, not building reactors with substandard materials and designs for starters.
2006-04-27 12:01:04 PM  
So we can move back into that area then?

What? No? If only 50 people died then whats the problem?

The writer BELIEVES what the Soviet Union told him? Did not realize he was a communist.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2006-04-27 12:02:40 PM  
There were 30,000 people living within five miles of the plant and any reputable scientist will tell you the radioactivity within that 5-mile radius was hundreds of times high than than the minimum lethal dose.

Who are these reputable scientists? A web search doesn't find anybody saying that 30,000 people were exposed to doses of tens of kilorads immediately after the accident.
2006-04-27 12:02:58 PM  
Jack31081: Question.

I know that nuclear fusion doesn't have the radioactive waste that fission does, but is the process itself radioactive? If Chernobyl had been a fusion plant, would the result of the explosion had been the same?

Theoretically, no. Unfortunately there's no known method for building a pure fusion plant. Mainly because the only way we know of to provide the energy to start a fusion reaction is through the use of fission.
2006-04-27 12:02:58 PM  
Rev. Skarekroe
Thank you for not sticking "obcsure" at the end of that quote.

When my people come to colonize this planet, you will be on the protected rolls, and no harm will come to you.
2006-04-27 12:03:10 PM  
I'm fully in support of Nuclear power generation. However, only an idiot would think that we should simply start building nuke plants willy-nilly. When people trot out BS statements like "Only 50 people died from Chernobyol", then we are well on our way to ignoring the potential risks.

The reason why I am cautious about Nuclear power plants is because the people who run them have two responses to any serious questions on safety:
1) don't worry about it - nuclear power is safe.
2) that's classified information - but don't worry about it - nuclear power is safe.

I want nuclear power to work, but if legitimate concerns are n't going to be addressed, then why should we trust them?
2006-04-27 12:03:21 PM  

Doesn't matter - it's just pushing the meme harder that Greenpeache is teh looniezzz!!111!, as reinforced by Poer's post. Anti-environmentalist spew only has to be fairly truthy to smear environmentalists. The actual facts are just inconvenient.
2006-04-27 12:03:50 PM  
"Between the stricken regions of Belarus, Western Russian and Northern Ukraine, the United Nations estimates that up to 9 million people have been affected directly or indirectly by the fallout. The people of the affected areas have received the highest known exposure to radiation in the history of the atomic age, the full consequences of which will not be fully seen for at least another 50 years."

From here...pops
2006-04-27 12:04:14 PM  
"Ah, Greenpeace. The only fleet to lose a vessel to the French military in almost 200 years."

I believe the USS Enterprise or another carrier dropped an anchor on them in some foriegn port when they parked under it in an attempt to stop them from stopping in that port. Though it DOES smack of urban legend.

Looks through Snopes...

Nothing. But I DID find a story of a Greek tanker doing just that. They parked under the anchor to prevent it from, well, dropping anchor. They did anyway.

I do know about the Navy's "Operation Waterfall," however. Greenpeace pulls up and tries the anchor trick (they DO do that, even post USS Cole attack they try) and they turn the firehoses on them. A couple hundred PSI of nasty port water knocking them off their deck. Oh, the video's I've seen.

Though, after the Cole, they get that close they just shoot at them with the large caliburs. I am sure they warn them first. Right? Wouldn't be sporting otherwise...

/ramble mode off
2006-04-27 12:05:05 PM  
xCh: I want nuclear power to work, but if legitimate concerns are n't going to be addressed, then why should we trust them?

They've been addressed and fixed. There was even a Discovery Channel show on how the newer designs work and how meltdown is physically impossible. There's no big secret here.
2006-04-27 12:05:11 PM  

yeah dream on you farking dick sucking waste of carbon
2006-04-27 12:06:00 PM  
Naw, that '50 dead' is utter HORSECRAP.

1. There were probably that many operators there when it happened. A good number of them got it.

2. The wonderful Soviet govt pulled in an army batallion from nearby and had them go up on the roof and throw in '2 large pieces of debris' in the gaping hole that'd been blown in the containment building, in effect giving them a birds eye view straight down into the giant microwave that at that point was the core. Of course not a one of them knew their ass from a hole in the ground as they were simple peasants sons/daughters and were just Soviet grunts, so they all did it. They were instructed to 'not dally around, jog quickly'. They lined them up and sent them two at a time up there and as they left they were isntructed to run behind a semi they had hurredly parked on the other side full of heavy machinery (ie, shielding) where an officer shook their hand and awarded them with a medal and commendation.

Not a goddamn one of them made it longer than a month, I guarantee you that.

2. They had a small convoy of helicopters coming over and dropping bags of boron laced sand (boron absorbs neutrons, they were trying to make sure the core didn't 'restart' again) into the exposed core. the idea was that the boron would be a good insurance policy and the silica would melt into glass and help stop the radioactive gas from leaking out. Good idea. Except the poor bastards in the helicopters were dead on the spot, they just didn't drop for a bit. They literally hovered over the open core to drop the bags; thus, exposing themselves to enough gamma radiation to fry their insides. From what I remember, some of the first ones to lean out and play bombadier didn't even make it out of the chopper by the time they dropped half a dozen bags and landed. They were already blinded (ionized retinas) and their body was already shutting off (ionized brain).
2006-04-27 12:06:15 PM  

I understand it... it's just so damned depressing. And infuriating. However, it is not unexpected.


/heads to Greenpeace's site to re-up membership
//will stop off at the ACLU as well
2006-04-27 12:07:58 PM  
This is such good news. I am no longer concerned about the hysterical fears of a nuclear disaster. Let the bombing of Iran begin forthwith.
2006-04-27 12:08:07 PM  
Major Thomb

While meltdown is no longer possible, neither is ramming planes into highrises. The point isn't "that's no longer possible" but that sane worriwarts are worried about other, similar potential disasters coming from the same source.

While I'm not an anti-nuke person, I can understand the POV that says "even if meltdowns are no longer possible, how can one reassure me that a lesser radiation-spewing accident can be prevented"?
2006-04-27 12:09:26 PM  
My estimate:

Everyone who was within a 7900 mile radius of the blast will eventually die...
2006-04-27 12:10:57 PM  
I heard that thousands of subarctic reindeer died from radiation poisoning after the winds blew the radioactive fallout north from Chernobyl.

But I don't know if that report is true.

Satellite image.
Wikipedia article.
2006-04-27 12:12:22 PM  
I would strongly disagee that only 50 people died. I think that the author doesn't have a clue but does have an agenda. Many of the workers that had the privledge of cleaning up immediately after the explosion may not have died right away but they had side affects long after. What makes this so sad is the generation that followed has paid an even higher price.

Anyone who has the nerve to say "only thyroid problems" has never had to live with someone who has said problems. The thyroid affects every function within the human body and when left untreated, impacts daily living.

Make no mistake, this is a tragedy that will have very long lasting effects well after the initial accident. Morans like the "author" will continue to downplay the entire situation to try to prove a point at the expense of geniune human suffering.

I'm thinking there is plenty of available property near Chernobyl that can be picked up pretty cheaply these days.
2006-04-27 12:13:00 PM  
2006-04-27 12:13:22 PM  
Utter horsecrap, just like everything Andrew Bolt writes. Shame on submitter for taking him seriously.
2006-04-27 12:15:06 PM  
next up on fark...
the holocaust didnt actually happen.
2006-04-27 12:15:44 PM  
submitter is a moran
2006-04-27 12:17:32 PM  
"Utter horsecrap"

Absolutely. I was searching around on the subject yesterday, including the Chernobyl web site and saying only 50 people died is ludicrous. From the initial explosion only maybe, but they pegged that at around 31.
2006-04-27 12:18:21 PM  
2006-04-27 11:27:27 AM veedeevadeevoodee

Is that 0.763 rem aka 763 millirem?

Holy frackin shizznit. Safe dosage is supposed to no more than 20 rem/y. I'd take some iodine before going even close to there...
2006-04-27 12:19:11 PM  
Pxtl: While I'm not an anti-nuke person, I can understand the POV that says "even if meltdowns are no longer possible, how can one reassure me that a lesser radiation-spewing accident can be prevented"?

There's no such thing as 0% chance on anything but the odds can be made so small that they might as well be. Reassuring the public is marketing issue and not a scientific one.
2006-04-27 12:20:54 PM  
hi submitter, this is you:

[image from towerman.co.uk too old to be available]

btw, the actual number of deaths, DIRECTLY linked to chernobyl by the almost-as-honest-as-our-government russkies is 4,000 as in FOUR ZERO ZERO ZERO, even though there really are quite a few more. they deflated the numbers because they want to build more nuclear plants. and you suck and children cry when they see you.
2006-04-27 12:21:48 PM  
According to the wiki, the sarcophagus structure was so badly built the wind could take the roof off, it's filling with water and it rests on structurally unsound footings.

So when it collapses, we'll have the whole thing happen again.

/Oh, and Soviet doctors were prohibited from putting "radiation" as the cause of death on death certificates.
2006-04-27 12:23:08 PM  
[image from abclocal.go.com too old to be available]

Radiation is bad; watch my demonstration of taping a uranium piece to my schlong, tonight at 11.
2006-04-27 12:25:41 PM  
[image from kiddofspeed.com too old to be available]
2006-04-27 12:25:49 PM  

Is that 0.763 rem aka 763 millirem?

To put that into perspective, my total lifetime dose from 6 years in the nuclear power world in the Navy AND 5 years in civilian UO2 fuel production is only like 900 millirem if I am adding it in my head right...and most of that was from the sloppy ass civilian place. That's like 80 millirem per year.
2006-04-27 12:26:44 PM  
Within (sic) is in fact, get this, a word. I don't really care about Chernobyl, but bad grammar on the internet is a global catastrophe even worse.
2006-04-27 12:31:34 PM  
With the right equipment.. that place would rock for some urban paintball wars!
2006-04-27 12:35:29 PM  
[image from bbv-net.de too old to be available]

How many cinematic disasters must we endure before this douchbag is stopped?
2006-04-27 12:35:49 PM  
I will say this for the Soviets, when it comes to disasters, they don't mess around.

They once had a rocket explode on the launch pad, taking hundreds of workers with it. Damned if I can find the link though.
2006-04-27 12:37:55 PM  
Twitch OSX

Why stop at paintball? Turn it into a Mad Max zone, rename Chernobyl Bartertown and ship criminals there.

/and well armed tourists.
2006-04-27 12:39:29 PM  

I recommend you all look at this Chernobyl presentation by photographer Paul Fusco---it will blow your mind...


I'm a New Yorker, from the Bronx. It takes a hell of alot to leave me stunned. But that's a hell of a link. Thanks for posting it.
2006-04-27 12:41:24 PM  
Why stop at paintball? Turn it into a Mad Max zone, rename Chernobyl Bartertown and ship criminals there.

That's very roughly similar to the premise of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
2006-04-27 12:42:47 PM  
Perhaps Mr. Submitter would do well do move to Chernobyl.

The living is dirt cheap and safe as can be.
2006-04-27 12:43:19 PM  
This again?

It is not 50. 50 people died in the first few days as they were trying to put out the fire. Even the Soviet government admitted to 25,000 deaths called "liquidators".


"The 600 men of the plant's fire service and the operating crew, who were employed in firefighting, were the most severely irradiated group. 134 of them received doses of radiation between 0.7 and 13 sieverts (Sv). This means that within a few hours they received a quantity of radiation up to 13 000 times higher than 1 millisievert: in the European Union, 1 millisievert per year is the maximum effective dose of radiation to which individuals in the population near a nuclear power station should be exposed.

31 workers died shortly afterwards. A total of around 800,000 men were involved in the clean-up operations in Chernobyl up until 1989. Today, they are still suffering from the damage to their health. 300,000 of them are believed to have received doses of radiation of more than 0.5 Sv. How many of them have died to date from the effects is a controversial question.

According to government agencies in the three former Soviet States affected, about 25,000 "liquidators" have so far died"

2006-04-27 12:44:07 PM  
Has anyone mentioned that this article writer is just ripping off Steven Milloy
2006-04-27 12:48:19 PM  
Chernobyl was a disaster. Lots of people died that shouldn't have. I'm not going to sugar coat it.

But some people in this thread are taking the Chernobyl disaster and drawing the conclusion that nuclear power, no matter how its harnessed is dangerous, which is BS.
2006-04-27 12:48:35 PM  
It would be nicer if we could bottle the pure energy of love or a child's smiling at a rainbow,

Thank God we can't! Can you see the industry growing up around THAT?!

/I have the heart of a small boy...
2006-04-27 12:49:05 PM  
[image from img277.imageshack.us too old to be available]

The roof could collapse in wind spewing out another cloud and the replacement
[image from upload.wikimedia.org too old to be available]

Is nowhere near done
Displayed 50 of 313 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.