Three Mile Island shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Chernobyl.
Not saying that we don't need to keep our nuclear industry well regulated, but the amount of radioactive material released at TMI was tiny. Get 100 guys to go get a thyroid scan, and have them stand shoulder-to-shoulder and piss in the ocean together, and they would be releasing more radioactive material than was released at TMI.
More people died building the Hoover dam than in the entire history of the _US_ nuclear industry.
]I)
Chernobyl.
-
anadyne2112
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:38 pm
- Location: Paducah, KY
The horrors of such an event are indeed tragic. The Russians were ill equipped to handle nuclear technology. What's even worse is how places like Iran are pursuing the same technology. When governments, and- even worse- theocracies care more about perpetuating the needs of the government at the expence of their own people, that is scary.
Again, to deviate, I checked with some folks who are much smarter than I (there are many), and the statement about the particle accellorater with the huge diameter is, in fact, a true statement. I apologize for being misinformed. There was one being built (much smaller) in Texas, but, funding was cut.
Quantum physics, and some of the prevailing theories are mind blowing. In the hands of a communist government, or places like Iran or North Korea, nuclear technology is a nightmare, at best.
Let's not forget 3 mile island while we're at it.
Again, to deviate, I checked with some folks who are much smarter than I (there are many), and the statement about the particle accellorater with the huge diameter is, in fact, a true statement. I apologize for being misinformed. There was one being built (much smaller) in Texas, but, funding was cut.
Quantum physics, and some of the prevailing theories are mind blowing. In the hands of a communist government, or places like Iran or North Korea, nuclear technology is a nightmare, at best.
Let's not forget 3 mile island while we're at it.
-
twitcher73
- Posts: 3442
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:08 am
Yeah, I don't think anyone can deny that Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster in history, and luckily there have been few (though one is too many)... I would be the first to admit that if someone planned on building a nuclear facility near my home, I would be out there fighting it (I'm a NIMBY)... so...
Numbers are a hard business - I work in public health crunching numbers and I'll admit that it's slippery - you get scenarios where you are very conservative and others where you're not as conservative. Example: a man has a heart attack and falls down, breaking his neck and dying. How do you classify that in terms of mortality? Did the heart attack kill him or did the fall kill him? Depending on who is doing the analysis, you'll get a different answer. SO - yeah, its pretty easy to cover up (or expand as well) numbers in terms of mortality.
Numbers are a hard business - I work in public health crunching numbers and I'll admit that it's slippery - you get scenarios where you are very conservative and others where you're not as conservative. Example: a man has a heart attack and falls down, breaking his neck and dying. How do you classify that in terms of mortality? Did the heart attack kill him or did the fall kill him? Depending on who is doing the analysis, you'll get a different answer. SO - yeah, its pretty easy to cover up (or expand as well) numbers in terms of mortality.
-
LouisvilleKC
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:10 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
I'm sure it will take a long while to actually figure out just how many people will eventually die from Chernobyl. Look at the numbers forty years down the line and you'll have a good idea. It will be huge.
It's true some of the cases could be harder to prove, but deep down you have to figure averages. Anyone remember the old John Wayne film The Conqueror, which Howard Hughes produced and they shot in Utah near some nuclear test sites in Nevada? The tests had been done several years before and they were like 100 miles away from the actual site. They think some of the soil was probably blowing into the area of the set. 91 people from a cast and crew of 220 people got cancer. That's something like three times the normal amount that a random sampling of 220 people would show. And that was just from soil. Chernobyl towers over that in scale.
Plus, as has been stated, The Russians are notorius for covering things up. Hell, they covered up Andrei Chikatilo being an operating serial killer there for a long time. Think about something like Chernobyl, which involves possible government culpability. I suspect those numbers are being shaved down all to hell.
It's true some of the cases could be harder to prove, but deep down you have to figure averages. Anyone remember the old John Wayne film The Conqueror, which Howard Hughes produced and they shot in Utah near some nuclear test sites in Nevada? The tests had been done several years before and they were like 100 miles away from the actual site. They think some of the soil was probably blowing into the area of the set. 91 people from a cast and crew of 220 people got cancer. That's something like three times the normal amount that a random sampling of 220 people would show. And that was just from soil. Chernobyl towers over that in scale.
Plus, as has been stated, The Russians are notorius for covering things up. Hell, they covered up Andrei Chikatilo being an operating serial killer there for a long time. Think about something like Chernobyl, which involves possible government culpability. I suspect those numbers are being shaved down all to hell.
Numbers and Facts are boring - who needs them?
Yes – there is a lot of misinformation about the death-toll and the health-effects. Largely you’ll find that the misinformation seems to stem either from the Government, or the IAEA. My personal opinion, (after reading up, watching and being generally very interested in all-things-Chernobyl); To deny that the Chernobyl disaster isn’t the absolute worst plant disaster in world history is every bit as shameful as claiming the Holocaust didn’t happen. It’s a ridiculous, ill-informed conclusion to come to.
A good indication is the fact that the vast majority of cases of "chernobyl heart" (a common condition in children from this region), and most other horrific deformities, incarnations of cancer and overcrowded orphanages full of very sick children are in and around Belarus. Coincidence? No. High levels of radiation? Ding Ding! Chernobyl is located in the northern part of the Ukraine, on the border of Belarus. But I’m sure this is just a coincidence and all these dying people are suffering from some kind of paranoid mass-hysteria.
/end sarcasm
The fun thing about radiation poisoning is that the fatalities are not felt immediately. They are hard to pinpoint absolutely, especially if it’s in your best interest to whitewash the facts to save face (ala Gorbachev; as it took 18 days before Gorbachev even acknowledged the disaster publicly), but whatevs... Fun Fact! Five days after the reactor exploded the folks still didn’t know that they were walking around sucking in high levels of radiation. No time for sour grapes though, they’re dead now.
The bad reports about the immeasurable number of fatalities (which is impossible to calculate, especially across Europe), can often be traced back to the IAEA, who deliberately downplays the severity of this disaster for reasons that should be fairly freaking obvious. IAEA standing for of course, “International Atomic Energy Agency”. I’m thinking they may have an ulterior motive with their insulting reports. These a-holes probably need to spend some time in an orphanage in Belarus. Maybe a week. Or maybe just 30 minutes. To deny these people the facts about their health and environment and the consequences of continued radiation exposure is completely unconscionable.
Fun fact – in Belarus, only about 15-20% of the babies born are born healthy. Belerussian doctors have identified the following: 100% increase in the incidence of cancer and leukemia, 250% increase in congenital birth deformities, 1,000% increase in suicide in the contaminated zones, 2,400% increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer. From UNICEF: congenital heart and circulatory diseases – 25% increase, disorders of the digestive organs – 28% increase, malignant tumors – 38% increase, disorders of the genito-urinary system – 39% increase. disorders of the nervous system and sensory organs – 43% increase, blood circulatory illnesses – 43% increase, disorders of the bone, muscle and connective tissue system – 62% increase. These numbers are from UNICEF, Chernobyl International and Chernobyl Children’s Project Int’l. Incidentally – 800,000 men were dispatched as “liquidators” to attempt to clean up (?!) the radiation. Out of those 800,000, 20,000 have died and 75,000 are permanently disabled. 20% of the deaths of the liquidators were reportedly suicides. These people received over ten times the recommended maximum lifetime dosage of radiation in just minutes. Awesome!
I get my hackles up about this … Mostly because I think we all failed initially dto recognize the long-term effects, or even the IMMEDIATE effects of this disaster, because it’s been so downplayed. It’s STILL being downplayed, which is appalling. All I’m asking is that the good people reading this (like you’ve gotten this far, PUHLEASE!) really consider their sources on these numbers and facts. There are lots of reasons for this disaster to be downplayed and written off as hysterical paranoia. At some point, (especially when you see these orphanages absolutely stocked FULL of children who’s parents have had no choice but to drop them off in hopes of getting SOME kind of medical attention that the parents cannot afford), it becomes clearer that downplaying the repercussions of this disaster is an absolute insult to the hundreds of thousands of people effected in the worst possible ways.
Ugh.
Yes – there is a lot of misinformation about the death-toll and the health-effects. Largely you’ll find that the misinformation seems to stem either from the Government, or the IAEA. My personal opinion, (after reading up, watching and being generally very interested in all-things-Chernobyl); To deny that the Chernobyl disaster isn’t the absolute worst plant disaster in world history is every bit as shameful as claiming the Holocaust didn’t happen. It’s a ridiculous, ill-informed conclusion to come to.
A good indication is the fact that the vast majority of cases of "chernobyl heart" (a common condition in children from this region), and most other horrific deformities, incarnations of cancer and overcrowded orphanages full of very sick children are in and around Belarus. Coincidence? No. High levels of radiation? Ding Ding! Chernobyl is located in the northern part of the Ukraine, on the border of Belarus. But I’m sure this is just a coincidence and all these dying people are suffering from some kind of paranoid mass-hysteria.
/end sarcasm
The fun thing about radiation poisoning is that the fatalities are not felt immediately. They are hard to pinpoint absolutely, especially if it’s in your best interest to whitewash the facts to save face (ala Gorbachev; as it took 18 days before Gorbachev even acknowledged the disaster publicly), but whatevs... Fun Fact! Five days after the reactor exploded the folks still didn’t know that they were walking around sucking in high levels of radiation. No time for sour grapes though, they’re dead now.
The bad reports about the immeasurable number of fatalities (which is impossible to calculate, especially across Europe), can often be traced back to the IAEA, who deliberately downplays the severity of this disaster for reasons that should be fairly freaking obvious. IAEA standing for of course, “International Atomic Energy Agency”. I’m thinking they may have an ulterior motive with their insulting reports. These a-holes probably need to spend some time in an orphanage in Belarus. Maybe a week. Or maybe just 30 minutes. To deny these people the facts about their health and environment and the consequences of continued radiation exposure is completely unconscionable.
Fun fact – in Belarus, only about 15-20% of the babies born are born healthy. Belerussian doctors have identified the following: 100% increase in the incidence of cancer and leukemia, 250% increase in congenital birth deformities, 1,000% increase in suicide in the contaminated zones, 2,400% increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer. From UNICEF: congenital heart and circulatory diseases – 25% increase, disorders of the digestive organs – 28% increase, malignant tumors – 38% increase, disorders of the genito-urinary system – 39% increase. disorders of the nervous system and sensory organs – 43% increase, blood circulatory illnesses – 43% increase, disorders of the bone, muscle and connective tissue system – 62% increase. These numbers are from UNICEF, Chernobyl International and Chernobyl Children’s Project Int’l. Incidentally – 800,000 men were dispatched as “liquidators” to attempt to clean up (?!) the radiation. Out of those 800,000, 20,000 have died and 75,000 are permanently disabled. 20% of the deaths of the liquidators were reportedly suicides. These people received over ten times the recommended maximum lifetime dosage of radiation in just minutes. Awesome!
I get my hackles up about this … Mostly because I think we all failed initially dto recognize the long-term effects, or even the IMMEDIATE effects of this disaster, because it’s been so downplayed. It’s STILL being downplayed, which is appalling. All I’m asking is that the good people reading this (like you’ve gotten this far, PUHLEASE!) really consider their sources on these numbers and facts. There are lots of reasons for this disaster to be downplayed and written off as hysterical paranoia. At some point, (especially when you see these orphanages absolutely stocked FULL of children who’s parents have had no choice but to drop them off in hopes of getting SOME kind of medical attention that the parents cannot afford), it becomes clearer that downplaying the repercussions of this disaster is an absolute insult to the hundreds of thousands of people effected in the worst possible ways.
Ugh.
-
Lawrence Fan
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:36 pm
- Location: The corner of Awesome and What The Hell?!?!
As you can see from my last post responding to Dev's incredulility, I had read something similar. What I'm reading now is that deaths to date are llow, and projected deaths directly attributed to the disaster range from the 4k-9k range all the up to 200k+. In other words, nobody really knows yet.twitcher73 wrote:"Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths."
According to this site: http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm there were 56 fatalities as of 2004. That surprised me. This looks like either an australian or austrian site (.com.au), so I don't know if there would be any bias from such a report.
However, the site dev posted is still quite chilling...
edit: this is more what I was expecting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_ ... _estimates
-
Lawrence Fan
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:36 pm
- Location: The corner of Awesome and What The Hell?!?!
Dev,dEvRoNiKa wrote:I'm stunned.Lawrence Fan wrote:Well, at the grave risk of "starting something", while I completely sympathize with what happened, I have no problem with nuc power plants. There's always a cost and risk with energy, whether it's war, habitat destruction or radiation contamination.
Reading Dev's post earlier made look up some stories about Chernobyl, and surprisingly, 20 years later, less than 300 deaths out of 5 million affected. Yeah, I know that sounds cold but I'm not gonna give up on nuc power just yet.
Less than 300 deaths, are you f-ing kidding me?!
You need to watch a documentary called Chernobyl Heart.
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/chernobylheart/
People are STILL dying from this.
Seriously. Read up on it. 300 people would be a drop in the bucket, that's a complete and utter lie. Probably the only source that would claim that number would be the reluctant Russian government who would just as soon deny it ever happened at ALL.
I cannot reproduce the link at this time, although I tried. But in the course of looking for it I did, indeed, come accross radically different numbers. Therefore I retract my previous statement concerning the number of deaths. I will continue to search for the link I based my previous numbers on.
-
the Watcher
- Posts: 687
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:21 pm
- Location: Chicago
It's likely tricky to prove that a person dying of some bizarre cancer today got that cancer b/c of Chernobyl. How do you prove that? And the gov't certainly won't admit that this is a likely cause.twitcher73 wrote:"Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths."
According to this site: http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm there were 56 fatalities as of 2004. That surprised me. This looks like either an australian or austrian site (.com.au), so I don't know if there would be any bias from such a report.
However, the site dev posted is still quite chilling...
I had an uncle, a Vietnam vet, die 10 years ago of an acute form of leukemia. No family history whatsoverever, and doctors at Mayo thought this type of cancer was likely from exposure to some carcinogen, and they suspected Agent Orange, as his ailment was consistent with what they'd seen in some other Nam vets. But it's not provable. You can't prove that it wasn't X, Y, or Z. I've not looked up Agent Orange fatalities, but I'm guessing that the number is ultra-low, if there even is a number.
-
twitcher73
- Posts: 3442
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:08 am
"Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths."
According to this site: http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm there were 56 fatalities as of 2004. That surprised me. This looks like either an australian or austrian site (.com.au), so I don't know if there would be any bias from such a report.
However, the site dev posted is still quite chilling...
edit: this is more what I was expecting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_ ... _estimates
According to this site: http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm there were 56 fatalities as of 2004. That surprised me. This looks like either an australian or austrian site (.com.au), so I don't know if there would be any bias from such a report.
However, the site dev posted is still quite chilling...
edit: this is more what I was expecting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_ ... _estimates
-
unforseen machination
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:47 pm
Gamecock wrote:The problem is this... Most Americans can't walk to work. Plus, I assume electricity is used in your home, workplace, and shopping venues. So that argument doesn't hold h2o either. Unless you are an amish man from Pennsylvania; in which case you're being a very bad quaker-boy by using a computer. And shall be sentenced to 190 moons of milking cows hence forth.unforseen machination wrote: I'm all for walking to work....
Can't??? As for your fantasy of me being an Amish man, no...sorry..
Cow milking???
I'm stunned.Lawrence Fan wrote:Well, at the grave risk of "starting something", while I completely sympathize with what happened, I have no problem with nuc power plants. There's always a cost and risk with energy, whether it's war, habitat destruction or radiation contamination.
Reading Dev's post earlier made look up some stories about Chernobyl, and surprisingly, 20 years later, less than 300 deaths out of 5 million affected. Yeah, I know that sounds cold but I'm not gonna give up on nuc power just yet.
Less than 300 deaths, are you f-ing kidding me?!
You need to watch a documentary called Chernobyl Heart.
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/chernobylheart/
People are STILL dying from this.
Seriously. Read up on it. 300 people would be a drop in the bucket, that's a complete and utter lie. Probably the only source that would claim that number would be the reluctant Russian government who would just as soon deny it ever happened at ALL.
-
Lawrence Fan
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:36 pm
- Location: The corner of Awesome and What The Hell?!?!
I don't deny that the logistics make impossible for most people, the problem is that nobody ever asks the hard questions. People would rather talk about ways to make gas cheap rather than change their habits - and that's part of the problem. As far as cycling goes, the closer you are to a large city the easier it is to cycle. You'd be surprised how far some people commute on a bike.LouisvilleKC wrote:It's a complicated issue and it's not just the price of gas. It's home energy, plastics, and myriad other issues that are playing into it. That said, a majority of Americans cannot take a bike to work or bus it there either. The outlay of many American cities makes it unfeasible. Telling them to do so is not going to help. A sense of general satisfaction about saving the environment or keeping gas prices down isn't going to help you when you can't eat. It reminds me of the old "throw education at it" method of improving the general job situation in this country. People complain about wages and stagnation and people say get a college degree. Well 4 out of 5 people could start getting masters and doctorates and guess what...the problem will still be there. You'll just have over-saturation at those professions, people with useless degrees, and middleclass blue-collar wages will continue to go down.
-
anadyne2112
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:38 pm
- Location: Paducah, KY
Actually, particle accellerators are being built to move us closer to proving superstring theory. I'm not sure your friend's suggestion about the diameter of the particle accellerator is correct. My step-dad has a degree in this and writes programs that make the Chicago board of trades work. Plus, I have a pretty big personal library on the subject, and have never heard such a claim.
I can't change my oil.
I can play a mean guitar, and teach myself theoretical physics though.
Anyway, I was on the No Nukes bandwagon in the 70's, but ignorence is lethal. Knowledge is our only hope. Hell, most people wouldn't know a quark if it came up and offered to have sex with them. The law of supply and demand is another thing people don't get. How soon we forget the long gas lines in the late 70's. I was too young to drive then, But I remember those lines. Back then, people stated bying small cars, not Humvees.
Sorry to deviate so far from Dev's original, and heart-felt statement.
Electricity does indeed tell a story: don't wait for the movie.
I can't change my oil.
I can play a mean guitar, and teach myself theoretical physics though.
Anyway, I was on the No Nukes bandwagon in the 70's, but ignorence is lethal. Knowledge is our only hope. Hell, most people wouldn't know a quark if it came up and offered to have sex with them. The law of supply and demand is another thing people don't get. How soon we forget the long gas lines in the late 70's. I was too young to drive then, But I remember those lines. Back then, people stated bying small cars, not Humvees.
Sorry to deviate so far from Dev's original, and heart-felt statement.
Electricity does indeed tell a story: don't wait for the movie.
-
LouisvilleKC
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:10 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
It's a complicated issue and it's not just the price of gas. It's home energy, plastics, and myriad other issues that are playing into it. That said, a majority of Americans cannot take a bike to work or bus it there either. The outlay of many American cities makes it unfeasible. Telling them to do so is not going to help. A sense of general satisfaction about saving the environment or keeping gas prices down isn't going to help you when you can't eat. It reminds me of the old "throw education at it" method of improving the general job situation in this country. People complain about wages and stagnation and people say get a college degree. Well 4 out of 5 people could start getting masters and doctorates and guess what...the problem will still be there. You'll just have over-saturation at those professions, people with useless degrees, and middleclass blue-collar wages will continue to go down.
Now THAT'S a t-shirt with some half life. Staying power RUP!Fenrisinho wrote:No shit dude, for like 25 000 years I'd saybigdieseltrucker wrote: I do still have an old thrift store 'No Nukes' t-shirt in my collection for posterity, but I am a realist. I think it's here to stay.
Oh, you meant nuclear power?
