6 ms·

Chernobyl killed 4000 as long as you don't count any cancers. 985,000 isn't such a feel good number, after all. http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-conclude

Chernobyl killed 4000 as long as you don't count any cancers. 985,000 isn't such a feel good number, after all. http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908 http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-de... We need to start with the premise that nuclear is safe, and work back from there. We can redefine terms and ignore any research that doesn't fit with our agenda. Then when people question whether its a good idea we can setup a straw man and compare it to something obviously worse, like coal mining, and thus claim by relativity everything is great!

powera 11y ago
I wouldn't consider that a credible source at all (the front page has multiple 9/11 "truther" stories). Other sources such as the WHO cite the 4000 number as including all future cancers: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/
- retrogradeorbit 11y ago
  That's a strawman argument. An appeal to ridicule. Irrelevant where the report is made, what about the report itself: "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment"? Does this link make it more palatable to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Funny that that wikipedia link the OP posted actually contains the link to this page, but doesnt contain any information from within.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    That link is much more palatable. > The book was not peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences. Five reviews were published in the academic press, with four of them considering the book severely flawed and contradictory, and one praising it while noting some shortcomings. The review by M. I. Balonov published by the New York Academy of Sciences concludes that the value of the report is negative, because it has very little scientific merit while being highly misleading to the lay reader. It also characterized the estimate of nearly a million deaths as more in the realm of science fiction than science.
ceejayoz 11y ago
> Chernobyl killed 4000 as long as you don't count any cancers. Right from the reputable source link I provided: "He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents.""
- retrogradeorbit 11y ago
  At the bottom of that source you provided is a link. "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment". If you click on it you go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... How can the numbers be so different? http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power/chernobyl http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power/chernoby... Everyone has an agenda when it comes to this topic. I don't know if its almost a million, but how can numbers vary from 50 on one hand, to almost a million on the other?

powera 11y ago

I wouldn't consider that a credible source at all (the front page has multiple 9/11 "truther" stories). Other sources such as the WHO cite the 4000 number as including all future cancers: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

retrogradeorbit 11y ago
That's a strawman argument. An appeal to ridicule. Irrelevant where the report is made, what about the report itself: "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment"? Does this link make it more palatable to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... Funny that that wikipedia link the OP posted actually contains the link to this page, but doesnt contain any information from within.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  That link is much more palatable. > The book was not peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences. Five reviews were published in the academic press, with four of them considering the book severely flawed and contradictory, and one praising it while noting some shortcomings. The review by M. I. Balonov published by the New York Academy of Sciences concludes that the value of the report is negative, because it has very little scientific merit while being highly misleading to the lay reader. It also characterized the estimate of nearly a million deaths as more in the realm of science fiction than science.

ceejayoz 11y ago

> Chernobyl killed 4000 as long as you don't count any cancers. Right from the reputable source link I provided: "He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents.""

retrogradeorbit 11y ago
At the bottom of that source you provided is a link. "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment". If you click on it you go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... How can the numbers be so different? http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power/chernobyl http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power/chernoby... Everyone has an agenda when it comes to this topic. I don't know if its almost a million, but how can numbers vary from 50 on one hand, to almost a million on the other?