4 ms·

You may claim that, but please stop pretending that the section of the report you refer to does the same.

by morsch 10y ago

mpweiher 10y ago
"Expert Assessment Consensus The mental health impact of Chernobyl is the largest public health problem caused by the accident to date" -- Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident, page 95, World Health Organization [1] That's the direct quote. But you can continue to pretend/imagine that it says what you want it to say.
- Retric 10y ago
  That quote does not support your argument. A little above that on page iii it mentions how the mass evacuations, iodine pills, and cleanup effort saved many lives across millions impacted. You can't save someone's life unless they where first put at risk. So, there where clearly problems now you can talk about the largest outstanding problem after mitigation, but that's different.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    > unless they where first put at risk. Who said that there had been no risk? > there where clearly problems Who said there were no problems? I don't see how people turn "A is greater than B" into "B is zero". If I had written "there was obviously no risk at all from radiation" you might have a point, I but I did not write that and would never write that, because it is clearly ridiculous.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Nothing I said suggested zero anywhere. I have said you can't measure 'with intervention' vs 'without intervention' by only looking at the with intervention outcome. Thus, to support your argument you need to demonstrate what the harm would have been vs what it is.
- morsch 10y ago
  You keep quoting that sentence, but it doesn't even imply, much less outright say, that the evacuation was "almost certainly overreaction". Both well justified and poorly justified evacuations come with mental health impacts. If our house burns down while we're in it and we get out in time, the mental health impact would be the largest health concert; that doesn't mean we should stay in it. You can argue that the Chernobyl evacuation was an overreaction, but not using that paragraph or the enclosing section in that report. Yet you persist in doing so.
  - Retric 10y ago
    I think the best way to say it is. If your house burns down and you get out early then the largest health impact was physiological, that does not mean staying was an option.

You may claim that, but please stop pretending that the section of the report you refer to does the same.

by morsch 10y ago

You may claim that, but please stop pretending that the section of the report you refer to does the same.

"Expert Assessment Consensus The mental health impact of Chernobyl is the largest public health problem caused by the accident to date" -- Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident, page 95, World Health Organization [1] That's the direct quote. But you can continue to pretend/imagine that it says what you want it to say.

Retric 10y ago
That quote does not support your argument. A little above that on page iii it mentions how the mass evacuations, iodine pills, and cleanup effort saved many lives across millions impacted. You can't save someone's life unless they where first put at risk. So, there where clearly problems now you can talk about the largest outstanding problem after mitigation, but that's different.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  > unless they where first put at risk. Who said that there had been no risk? > there where clearly problems Who said there were no problems? I don't see how people turn "A is greater than B" into "B is zero". If I had written "there was obviously no risk at all from radiation" you might have a point, I but I did not write that and would never write that, because it is clearly ridiculous.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Nothing I said suggested zero anywhere. I have said you can't measure 'with intervention' vs 'without intervention' by only looking at the with intervention outcome. Thus, to support your argument you need to demonstrate what the harm would have been vs what it is.
morsch 10y ago
You keep quoting that sentence, but it doesn't even imply, much less outright say, that the evacuation was "almost certainly overreaction". Both well justified and poorly justified evacuations come with mental health impacts. If our house burns down while we're in it and we get out in time, the mental health impact would be the largest health concert; that doesn't mean we should stay in it. You can argue that the Chernobyl evacuation was an overreaction, but not using that paragraph or the enclosing section in that report. Yet you persist in doing so.
- Retric 10y ago
  I think the best way to say it is. If your house burns down and you get out early then the largest health impact was physiological, that does not mean staying was an option.